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

Lambeth Council (202127873)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127873

Lambeth Council

22 June 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:
    1. handling of repairs to resident’s kitchen.
    2. the associated complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy that began on 24 February 2020. The property is a two-bedroom ground-floor flat.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 16 November 2021 to request new kitchen units. She told the landlord that following a gas leak, a contractor had damaged the kitchen units when attending to the leak. The landlord raised a work order for this on 18 November 2021. Work began on this repair on 7 December 2021. The contractor could not complete this work due to requiring additional parts.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 22 December 2021. She was unhappy about the work still being outstanding and that, at a previous visit, a contractor had said they would order parts. She had not heard anything since. The resident stated she had been unable to use her kitchen for a month due to the outstanding repairs.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 7 April 2022. In this, it upheld the resident’s complaint offering her £485 compensation for the delay in completing the work. It said it had highlighted this as a priority to its contractors and arranged an appointment for resolution on 8 April 2022.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 5 June 2022. She was unhappy that the repairs remained outstanding and that meant her cooker could not be installed in her kitchen. She said this had left her unable to cook and resulted in her spending money on takeaways to feed her children. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 8 July 2022. In this, it confirmed that the repairs to the kitchen were complete and that an appointment to connect the cooker was scheduled for 11 July 2022. It also offered to raise its compensation offer to £600 if the resident could provide receipts to demonstrate the additional costs caused by the delays to the repair.
  6. The resident confirmed on 25 July 2022 that she would like to refer her complaint to this Service. She was unhappy that she was still without a working cooker. She also felt she had been misled on multiple occasions by the landlord about the repairs. She felt this was continued negligence from the landlord. In a call to this Service, the resident confirmed that her cooker had now been connected. To resolve her complaint, she would like adequate compensation for the distress and inconvenience of the situation.

Assessment and findings

The scope of our investigation

  1. Throughout the complaints process, the resident has advised she experienced issues with her kitchen since moving into the property. She states she first raised these issues in February 2020. However, this Service has focussed this investigation on what has been through the landlord’s internal complaints process and was first reported in November 2021.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen

  1. The landlord’s repair manual states that it is responsible for replacing kitchen units. As damage appears to have been caused by its contractors, this Service would expect that the landlord takes responsibility for any associated repairs.
  2. The resident notified the landlord of the damaged kitchen units on 16 November 2021. The landlord had not completed the repairs at the end of the internal complaints process eight months later. The landlord’s repair policy says it will complete routine repairs within 28 working days and planned repairs within 90 days. The length of time the landlord has taken to complete these repairs represents a failure to adhere to its policy standards. This represents maladministration from the landlord.
  3. Throughout the repairs process there were multiple appointments where no work was completed, the correct parts had not been ordered, and contractors did not have the correct authorisation to complete works.
  4. This Service asked the landlord for additional information about these repairs. The landlord has not been able to provide detailed information about specific appointments. This Service, therefore, does not have the complete detail on why the work took as long as it did. Whilst completing the work, the landlord raised three work orders. These orders do not appear to clarify what work was required, and resulted in the resident requesting work that the landlord believed was complete. The landlord should have completed a thorough inspection and clarified with the resident what work was required.
  5. The resident called the landlord for updates on at least five occasions. Some delays appear to have been caused by the landlord’s contractors having to order parts which was reasonable. The landlord did not provide any updates or timescales to the resident whilst this was ongoing. The landlord failed throughout the repair process to provide proper updates to the resident. This was not fair treatment of the resident by the landlord.
  6. Through the complaint process the landlord offered the resident compensation for being unable to use the kitchen. At stage 1 it offered £485. At stage 2 it offered to raise this to £600 if the resident could provide receipts, which she has not yet done. Given the loss of the kitchen facilities for the period of eight months, this Service considers a higher compensation amount is appropriate to remedy the detriment caused by the landlord’s failures over that period that resulted in distress and inconvenience.
  7. The landlord should pay the resident £800 for its failings and for leaving the resident unable to use the kitchen in the property for almost eight months. This is inclusive of any compensation that the landlord has already paid to the resident. This in line with this Service’s remedies guidance.
  8. The landlord should review its record-keeping policy. It should ensure it can provide detailed information on work orders and repairs.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy has 2 stages. At stage 1 (Local Resolution) the landlord aims to provide a written response to a complaint within 20 working days. At stage 2 (Final Review), the complaint is then investigated by a specialist complaints team. The landlord says it will acknowledge any escalations within two working days and aim to send a response within 25 working days.
  2. This Service’s complaint handling code sets out the timescale’s landlords should provide their responses by. This is 10 working days at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2.
  3. At stage 1, the landlord took over 70 working days to respond to the resident’s complaint. The landlord has not provided any explanation for the delay. This was a failure from the landlord to adhere to its internal policies and represents service failure from the landlord. In its response, the landlord did not offer the resident any compensation because of this failing.
  4. At stage 2, the landlord did adhere to the timescales set out in its complaint handling policy. However, the landlord did not send the resident an acknowledgement as it outlined in its policies.
  5. The landlord’s responses at both stage 1 and stage 2 were fair and reasonable in tone and content.
  6. The landlord was responsible for service failure in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It failed to adhere to its own policies at stage 1 of the complaints process. The landlord should therefore pay the resident £50 compensation for this failing.
  7. The landlord should also consider reviewing its complaint handling policy to bring this in line with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. It is ordered that within four weeks of the date of this letter the landlord pay the resident £850 compensation. This is inclusive of any compensation it has already paid to the resident. This consists of:
    1. £800 for its failure to handle repairs to the resident’s kitchen in a fair and timely manner that resulted in distress and inconvenience.
    2. £50 for its failure to handle the associated complaints in line with its policies and procedures.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its record-keeping policies to ensure that it has the full and correct records regarding repairs.
  2. The landlord should review its complaint handling policy to bring this in line with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code.