Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Lewisham Council (202102949)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102949

Lewisham Council

24 June 2022


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling the resident’s reports of various repair issues to the property including the heating and fencing.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident reported several repair issues prior to moving into the property in May 2019 and has since had works completed to the kitchen and bathroom.
  3. In the resident’s complaint to the landlord, she said that she had been unable to enjoy the property due to the repair issues and numerous repair appointments. She had to share a bedroom with her son as her bedroom was not useable due to repair issues. She also said there were several outstanding repair issues and the property did not maintain a temperature above 15 degrees due to issues with the heating.
  4. In the landlord’s final response to the complaint, it confirmed that the property had been signed off to a lettable standard prior to the resident moving in but said it would review its voids process to ensure its properties exceeded this standard. It had completed an inspection on 23 March 2021 and identified further works which it would complete. It said it had taken numerous measures to improve the energy efficiency of the property and had agreed to install thermal lining. It offered the resident £500 due to the impact of the outstanding repairs but said it could not consider loss of wages to attend appointments within the compensation offer.
  5. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she remained dissatisfied as she did not think the landlord had given enough consideration to the stress that had been caused due to the length of time of the repair issues had been ongoing. She also requested a full itinerary for the outstanding works. She said the garden fence had become unstable and needed to be replaced and she wanted household items that had been damaged by damp and mould and the repair works to be replaced.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has advised that the ongoing issues with her heating have impacted her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about her health but we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one). Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident. This is an accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.
  2. In her complaint to this Service, the resident has raised issues with damage to household items, as a result of damp and mould and having to repeatedly move items to allow access for repair works. However, there is no evidence to suggest that this has been raised to the landlord as part of her formal complaint. She had also reported that a leak had been identified on 5 January 2022, but similarly there is no evidence that this has been raised to the landlord as a formal complaint. In line with paragraph 39 (a) of the Ombudsman Scheme we are unable to consider complaints that “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”. This is because the landlord has to be given the opportunity to investigate and respond to the issues. It is recommended that the resident contacts the landlord and raises a separate complaint through the landlord’s complaints process if the issue remains unresolved. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to the complaint, she may be able to refer the matter to the Ombudsman as a new complaint at that stage.

Repair works

  1. The resident stated in her complaint that she was concerned that the property was not reaching over 15 degrees in temperature. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for ensuring that the structure of the property is kept in good repair. This includes the installations provided for heating and hot water. It states it will complete repairs within 20 working days. Therefore, the landlord was responsible for ensuring that the structure of the property was not preventing it from retaining heat, and that the installations for heating were functioning correctly. As such it was appropriate that the landlord completed an inspection on 23 March 2021 and 22 June 2021 and subsequently raised work orders for the identified repair issues.
  2. The landlord had completed repairs to the windows and the resident confirmed that this improved the heating issues within the property. It also said it would replace her front door, which it said should assist with improving the heating. The landlord advised the resident in its stage one response, that her front door would be replaced within the planned schedule of works for that financial year and she would be contacted regarding an appointment. The landlord also exceeded the actions it was obliged to take, by agreeing to install a thermal lining to the property, despite the fact it had initially stated it was outside of its scope of repairs; It was reasonable for the landlord to initially decline to fit thermal lining as it would be considered an improvement to the property and whilst the landlord is expected to maintain the property, it is not required to make improvements.
  3. Although the landlord confirmed it would complete the repairs, it is unclear within the repairs records whether the works took place within the repair timeframes. Following completion of the work, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s outstanding concerns as it signposted the resident to heating engineers and discussed the properties energy rating, which it said was above average meaning the property had adequate insulation.
  4. Following the second inspection on 22 June 2021, the landlord said it would complete works to the hallway cupboard, install new vents and complete re–plastering. In its stage three complaint response on 6 October 2021, the landlord had acknowledged that the works were still outstanding and said it would complete the works at the earliest availability. However, it is unclear from the repair records whether the works have since been completed and the resident advised this Service on 16 December 2021 that the issues were still outstanding. In an internal email on 7 March 2022, the landlord said that it had experienced issues gaining access to the property on several occasions and the contractor did not have a working phone number for the resident to arrange an appointment.
  5. The landlord should ensure that it contacts the resident and arranges an appointment to rectify any current repair issues in the property, if it has not done so already. Any further works should be completed in line with the landlord’s repair timeframe of 20 working days for routine repairs. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she has stated that she wanted the property to be redecorated. The landlord’s repairs policy states that the resident is responsible for decorating walls and ceilings. However, the landlord would be expected to redecorate to make good any damage caused as a result of the repairs.
  6. The landlord’s repair policy outlines that the landlord is responsible for maintaining “fencing and walls which forms a boundary with a highway, footpath or public right of way”. However, in the resident’s complaint, she states that she wanted a fence to be fitted to prevent other residents from accessing the garden. In an internal email, the landlord stated that the resident did not have sole use of the garden in the tenancy agreement, so it was appropriate that the landlord apologised for any misinformation and confirmed that it was unable to install a gate because this could prevent other tenants who were entitled to use the garden from accessing it. The resident has raised in her complaint to this Service, that the garden fence has become unstable around the whole property. There is no evidence to indicate this has been raised to the landlord as a formal complaint and therefore the resident should inform the landlord of the issue, and the landlord should complete any necessary repairs, in line with its repair policy timeframes. If the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the repair request, she can escalate the matter through the landlord’s complaints procedure.
  7. The resident has stated to this Service that she wanted to be temporarily rehoused while the outstanding works were ongoing. The landlord’s decant policy (policy for temporary moves) states that it will only rehouse a resident if essential repairs are required, which cannot be completed while the resident is in the property, and if the property is not safe to occupy until the repairs are completed. As a surveyor has determined that the property was habitable, the property passed the voids inspection, carried out before the start of the resident’s tenancy and was determined to be a lettable standard, the landlord would not be obliged to rehouse the resident while the works are ongoing. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of its surveyor that the property was safe to occupy, although it was in need of repair and the Ombudsman has not seen evidence to contradict this opinion.
  8. The landlord issued a stage three response to the complaint on 6 November 2021, in which it offered £500 compensation, as it recognised that there were several repairs works which had been outstanding since the inspection in June 2021. In line with this Service’s remedy guidance (published on our website), awards of £250 – £700 are appropriate in cases where there has been a considerable service failure by the landlord, including when the landlord has failed to act in accordance with its policies over a considerable period of time and when the resident has repeatedly chased responses and correction of mistakes. As the landlord has failed to act in line with its repairs policies, over a prolonged period of time, the level of compensation it offered was appropriate in this case. The landlord had also demonstrated that it had learned from the outcome of the complaint as it had recognised that the works were not completed and stated it would arrange them at the earliest convenience. It also identified that it could improve on its void process ss to ensure that properties were above the minimum lettable standard when new tenants moved in.
  9. In line with this Service’s remedies guidance, we would not typically expect the landlord to award compensation to reimburse the resident for their time off work, loss of wages or loss of employment to attend repair appointments. Whilst such works will inevitably cause some level of inconvenience to residents, the tenancy agreement requires the resident to give access for repairs to be carried out as needed, and it would not be fair or reasonable for the Ombudsman to order a landlord to pay a resident reimbursement for loss of earnings to attend repair appointments. However it is recognised that in this case the resident has needed to attend a large number of appointments which would have been inconvenient for her and this is reflected in the compensation offer of £500.
  10. The landlord is expected to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. In this case the records keeping has not prevented the Ombudsman from being able to fully investigate the complaint as we were able to establish the key events from other sources such as the resident’s correspondence with the landlord. Nevertheless, the landlord should review its record keeping practices to ensure that it improves the quality of its records. The records should give clear account of when the repair was initially raised and when subsequent work was completed. The landlord has also failed to provide a copy of the resident’s initial complaint when prompted by the Ombudsman; however, we have been able to determine the content of the complaint from a subsequent phone call record which was provided by the landlord.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the repairs, including repairs to the heating and fencing satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. If any repairs remain outstanding, the landlord should contact the resident and provide a clear schedule of the works. All works should be completed within four weeks of the date of this report.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its record handling practices, to ensure that it keeps clear repair records detailing to date of each appointment and a description of the work carried out.