Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Lewisham Council (202109734)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109734

Lewisham Council

24 February 2023


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 of:
    1. The resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when she moved in.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The landlord has been unable to locate either its stage one, or stage two complaint responses. Subsequently this report is based on events as described by the resident, and by the landlord’s stage three response to the complaint.
  2. The resident moved into her property on 17 January 2022, she was eight and a half months pregnant at this time. She has explained that she reported concerns about the condition of the property to the landlord on 20 January 2022. Among the items in disrepair was the bedroom heater, which was hanging off the wall, the property intercom, a toilet lid and the bathroom extractor. There were also pipes sticking out in the bathroom. She reported the repairs again on 25 January 2022.
  3. The resident has stated that on 1 February 2022 a heating company inspected the gas appliances in the property. They found that the gas supply tap had been left on and it was in a dangerous state. The resident made a complaint to the landlord about the condition of the property. According to the landlord’s stage three response, it responded to this on 15 February 2022, partially upholding the complaint. Some of the repairs requested by the resident were then completed.
  4. On 21 February 2022, two days after the resident had given birth, the landlord explained that the bedroom wall needed strengthening in order to support the heater. The resident escalated her complaint, as she was unhappy that the property had been let to her in such a condition. The resident did not receive a stage two response to her complaint.
  5. On 11 May 2022, the resident asked the landlord’s independent adjudicator to assess her complaint as stage three. This is part of the landlord’s complaint procedure. She explained that she had not had a stage two response. She also stated that some of the repairs continued to be outstanding, and that the landlord’s online repair log showed inaccurate information about when repairs had been completed. The landlord advised that it normally expected the resident to go through both stage one and two of the complaints procedure. However, upon inspection the landlord’s stage one response had been corrupted on its system, and it was clear that it had not issued a stage two response. Therefore the adjudicator agreed to issue a stage three response.
  6. The adjudicator assessed the resident’s complaint, responding on 13 June 2022.  The response stated that it was clear that the expected repair works had not been completed properly before the resident had moved in, and that the repairs records were inaccurate. There were also failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. The response recommended that the landlord should offer an apology for the faults identified and explain why they had occurred. It also stated the landlord should arrange an inspection of the resident’s home and identify all outstanding issues. It recommended that £500 compensation should be offered to the resident.
  7. In her complaint to this Service, the resident stated that the landlord has not fulfilled the stipulations contained in her its stage three response. It failed to explain why the issues had occurred, and had stated that it didn’t know why its repair log was inaccurate. The landlord had also failed to complete all of the resident’s repairs, specifically the renewal of her intercom system.

Assessment

The landlord’s handling of void repairs to the property.

  1. The landlord’s void lettable standard policy sets out the condition a property should be in to be re-let to a new tenant. Relevant terms include the stipulation that gas boilers, radiators and thermostats must be in working order. Residents’ homes will also have an adequate and safe form of heating. A new toilet seat will be fitted in all properties prior to being let. It also states that the bathroom will have a method of ventilation, either by opening windows or by a clean and working extractor fan.
  2. According to the void lettable standard policy, the landlord should have undertaken the above repairs during the voids period. However, it did not do so. When the resident moved into the property she reported repairs such as those above, including safety concerns about the boiler, a broken heater, a broken toilet seat and a broken extractor fan. As the landlord should have already completed these repairs before the resident moved in, it should have acted proactively to ensure that these issues were resolved in a timely manner. However, the landlord did not start to complete the repairs until after it responded to her complaint on 15 February 2022, nearly a month later. This is a failing in the landlord’s service.
  3. The resident also complained about additional aspects that concerned health and safety within the property, such as pipes sticking out in the bathroom and the intercom system not working. She has stated that due to the system not working, the main door to the building stayed open, and occasionally non residents would use that area to sleep in. These aspects are not expressly mentioned in the voids policy, although it would be reasonable to assume that the property would be let in a safe condition, meaning that pipes should not be left sticking out and external doors to the building should be secure. However, according to the landlord’s repairs policy for when the resident is in situ, the landlord should also attend to issues where there is a possible health and safety or security risk within 3 working days. Again, the landlord did not start to attend the property for nearly a month after the resident reported these issues.
  4. Based on the available evidence, it is not possible to state when exactly the landlord did complete all of the repairs, as the resident has explained that the dates stated in its repair logs are inaccurate. The resident’s assertion appears to be accurate, as the evidence supplied to this Service contains examples of the landlord giving updates on outstanding repairs, that according to the repair logs have already been completed.
  5. In line with general good customer service standards, the landlord is expected to keep accurate and up-to-date records of its repairs. The landlord has stated that it is not sure why the records are inaccurate. This is concerning, as an accurate picture cannot be gained of its repair responses. The landlord is responsible for maintaining these records, and would be expected to investigate why there is an issue with the dates, and to put this system right. That the records are inaccurate is a failing. It is also a failing that the landlord was aware that records were inaccurate, but does not appear to have investigated why this had occurred or taken action to prevent this situation from occurring in future.
  6. In the landlord’s third complaint response, the adjudicator acted appropriately by recommending that the landlord apologise for letting the property to the resident without completing the void repairs, as well as for the subsequent delay in completing the outstanding issues. They asked the landlord to inspect the resident’s home and to create an action plan to complete all the outstanding repairs within the shortest possible timeframe. It also stated that the landlord should establish why the void repairs were signed off whilst incomplete, why the repair log was incorrect and why the resident did not receive a stage two response to her complaint. The response asked the landlord to take steps to ensure that these faults did not happen again, by undertaking actions such as staff training, staff supervision or process change. It recommended that £500 compensation should be awarded to the resident.
  7. In response to the adjudicator’s recommendations, the landlord acted appropriately by writing to the resident on 1 July 2022, apologising for the delay to her repairs. It discussed the issues outstanding, stating that it had raised a work order for the extractor fan to be completed on 15 July 2022. It also explained that it needed to renew the intercom, which would be delayed, as it needed to request permission to do so from the resident’s neighbours as they would also be affected by this repair to a communal door. It also stated that it needed to erect scaffolding to fix a vent in the resident’s bedroom. It offered £500 compensation (as recommended by the adjudicator), in recognition of the distress and inconvenience experience by the resident.
  8. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord investigated the issues above. In contrast it stated to the resident that it did not know how the online repair log worked, agreeing that the information shown was incorrect. It did not acknowledge, explain, or apologise for letting out the property with void repairs outstanding, or for failing to respond to the resident at stage two of its complaints procedure. It also failed to follow the resident’s repairs through to completion within a timely manner, as the resident stated that the intercom renewal remained outstanding as of November 2022.
  9. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ handling of complaints. In line with The Code when dealing with complaints the landlord should identify its failings, acknowledge them and attempt to put things right. The Code explains that when offering a remedy, landlords should clearly set out what will happen and by when. Any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion. The landlord is expected to comply with the actions laid out in its stage three response. The fact that it did not is a failing in the circumstances.
  10. It is concerning that the landlord has had repeated issues with record keeping, yet has not taken steps to not learn from its mistakes and put things right within its processes. The landlord should be taking steps to ensure that similar failings do not occur in the future.
  11. The landlord has accepted that there were failings in its handling of the repair. It has apologised and offered £500 compensation in view of this. Where there  are admitted failings by a landlord, it is the Ombudsman’s role to assess whether any remedy offered by the landlord is sufficient to pay things right of the resident. The landlord acted reasonably by apologising to the resident and offering compensation. However, its offer of compensation is not considered sufficient to put things right for the resident considering the length of time the repairs were outstanding for, the potential health and safety risks posed by some of the repairs and the fact that some repairs remained outstanding for several months after the landlord’s final response to the complaint where it committed to resolving the outstanding repairs. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (published on our website) sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The guidance suggests that the Ombudsman may award £600 to £1,000 where there have been errors by the landlord which had a significant impact on the resident. In view of this, the landlord should pay a further £150 to the resident in addition to the £500 offered previously through its complaints process. This means the total compensation to be paid to the resident in respect of the repairs is £650.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints procedure states that it will respond to a resident’s stage one complaint within ten working days. If the resident remains unhappy with the response, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. The landlord will then respond within 20 working days. The landlord has an additional third stage, which involves an independent adjudicator carrying out a review of the complaint. The adjudicator aims to send a response within 30 working days.
  2. This Service’s complaint handling code states that a full record should be kept of the complaint, and the outcomes at each stage. This should include the original complaint and the date received, as well as all correspondence with the resident.
  3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was inappropriate. While the landlord responded to the resident at stage one within the correct timeframes stated above, it failed to respond to the resident at stage two. Additionally, it has not been able to provide copies of its stage one response, or the resident’s complaints to this Service. This is not in-line with the policies above, or with the code. There appears to be serious issues with the landlord’s record keeping, as it has also sent information regarding the incorrect complaint to this Service. 
  4. As above, in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance the landlord should pay the resident further compensation for the distress and inconvenience she experienced as a result of errors in its handling of her complaint. The guidance suggests that the Ombudsman may award £100 to £600 in cases where there has been failures by the landlord which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. The landlord has made some attempt to put things right by apologising for the lack of a stage two complaint response but it has not done enough to put this right as it has not shown that it has properly investigated the reasons for this error or taken steps to prevent it from happening again in future. Therefore, the landlord should pay the resident a further £150 for distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when she moved in.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident:
      1. A further £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by failings in its handling of repairs at the resident’s property.
      2. £150 in recognition of the failings in its complaint handling.

This is in addition to the £500 already offered in its complaint response.

  1. Complete any outstanding repairs, including the repair to the intercom system (if this has not been done so already).

24. It is recommended that the landlord:

a. Investigates and resolve the issue with the repair records having incorrect dates.

b. Investigates why the property was let before all the voids works were complete. Review its processes and re-train staff if necessary.

c. Investigates why it did not respond at stage two of its complaint procedure. Review how it logs and responds to formal complaints. Ensure that its procedures and processes are followed correctly, re-training staff if necessary.

25. The landlord should send evidence of its compliance with the above orders to both this Service and the resident, within four weeks of the date of this report.