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

Lambeth Council (202208360)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208360

Lambeth Council

16 December 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 response to the resident’s reports of lighting and electrical concerns.

Background

  1. The complainant is a secured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a Local Authority.
  2. In April 2021 the resident corresponded with the landlord’s electrical contractors in relation to a new fuse board, the installation of which had obstructed a light switch for external lights. The contractors said they would move the switch down the wall, and explained how they would do that. They also explained how they had installed the new fuse board. The resident sent the landlord an online enquiry in May 2021. She said she was unsure about the information she had been given by the contractors about the new fuse board installation. She asked it to check the quality of the electrical work. She got no response to her enquiry and suggestion, and raised a complaint about it in August 2021. She also complained that the contractors had not resolved the problem with the light switch.
  3. The landlord acknowledged that it had not responded to the resident’s enquiry, and upheld her complaint. It apologised, and said its repairs team would contact her to discuss her concerns.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 22 September 2021. She explained that she had been contacted by the landlord’s operatives on 16 September, but there had been confusion about the outstanding issue. She said the operatives had wanted to conduct a certification inspection despite one having been done previously. Only following a visit on 21 September did the operatives acknowledge the light switch issue, which remained unresolved.
  5. The landlord sent its final complaint response on 2 December 2021. It confirmed that in response to the resident’s enquiry about the appropriateness of the fuse board installation it had inspected and tested it, and that work was complete. It explained further that all necessary works had been completed (but it did not say whether this included the issue with the light switch). It offered the resident £75 compensation for its poor communication and her time and trouble pursuing the matter. It explained how the resident could bring her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
  6. The resident brought her complaint to this Service in July 2022, as the switch had not yet been resolved. She also had not received the landlord’s final complaint response. In its response to our request for information the landlord explained that it had inspected the switch, and agreed to relocate it, along with some other work relating to the external lighting. It said it was meeting with the resident on 31 October 2022 to finalise the work scope. It also said that the lights and switch had originally been installed by the resident.

Assessment and findings

  1. The evidence shows that the resident reported the obstructed light switch to the landlord’s contractors as early as April 2021, at which time the contractors acknowledged the issue and explained what they would do. Despite the resident’s chasing of the matter, and complaints, the issue was still unresolved by the time of the landlord’s most recent update to this Service, in October 2022. Nothing in the evidence explains this extensive delay. The matter appears to have been be a relatively routine one (nothing in the evidence suggests otherwise), and so the time taken has been unreasonable by any applicable standard, and obviously vastly exceeded the landlord’s published 28-day repair timeframe.
  2. The switch issue was one of two matters the resident set out in her complaints to the landlord. In its responses the landlord appears to have focused on the other issue, relating to certification for the fuse board work. It explained that all work relating to the certification was complete, but said nothing about the switch. This was a complaint handling failing because, apart from not addressing all the issues raised (a fundamental of basic good practice), the complaints gave the landlord an opportunity to address the switch issue at that point. It did not do so, which exacerbated its failings, and left the matter unremedied. 
  3. The landlord has explained that the switch and external lights were installed by the resident. In that situation, the landlord would not usually have a responsibility to repair or maintain them. Nonetheless, in this particular case it has inadvertently obstructed the switch, and it is therefore appropriate that it acts to resolve that. It has explained that it has also agreed to undertake some form of additional work on the external lights. That can be considered as part of a remedy for the long delays, and inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident, but is not enough to reasonably consider the failings fully remedied. Orders are made below to address that.
  4. The landlord acknowledged that it had failed to respond to the resident’s enquiry in May 2021. It responded by apologising for its error. It arranged a further inspection of the electrical system. There was discussion between the resident, landlord, and contractors about the actual need for the further inspection, given that it had been earlier acknowledged to the resident that the requisite certification was already in place. The resident raised her concern to the landlord that it had wasted time and money with the further inspection, but it is beyond the Ombudsman’s remit to make findings on the technical merits of a landlord’s repair and maintenance decisions. Nor is it the Ombudsman’s role to adjudicate whether the relevant certification should or should not have been issued. Overall, the landlord’s actions in response to the complaint on this issue were reasonable and relevant. The compensation it offered was also reasonable in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, for a matter where there are delays, and a resident has had to chase, but with no clear material or permanent impact.

 Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Orders

  1. In light of the resident’s time and trouble, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £300. This amount is inclusive of the £75 already offered. The payment must be made within four weeks, and evidence provided to this Service.
  2. Within four weeks, the landlord must confirm that the work to resolve the obstructed switch, and the additional work it says it has agreed to (i.e. “replace the Par 38 Flood lights with a LED sensor fitting, provide an additional flood light facing the garden”) has now been completed. If the work is not yet complete, the landlord must provide a clear deadline of when it will be. The deadline must be within six weeks of the date of this report.
  3. Within six weeks, the landlord must provide a report explaining why the issue with the obstructed switch was so delayed, and explaining how it has improved its services following the resident’s complaint.