Lambeth Council (202222138)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222138

Lambeth Council

1 March 2024

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

The landlord’s handling of the communal walls and ceiling following leaks, and of the presence of asbestos in the walls.
The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.
The landlord’s record keeping has also been investigated.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord, which is a local authority, for a 1 bedroom flat. The flat is situated within a block.
On 16 December 2022 the resident contacted the Ombudsman for assistance with her complaint. The resident said that she had been experiencing issues since March 2022 and that the ceiling and walls in the communal areas are in such a poor condition that they could fall down. The resident further said that the leaks had caused dangerous conditions, such as a risk of damaged and exposed asbestos. In order to resolve her complaint, the resident said she wanted the landlord to remove the asbestos and make safe the damaged ceiling and panelling to cover the brick work.
On 10 January 2023 the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord and asked it to provide the resident with a response to her complaint about its handling of reports of communal walls, following leaks and of the presence of asbestos in the wall. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and said that it would respond by 25 January 2023.
On 24 January 203 the landlord provided its stage 1 response, where it said that:
1. A leak had been reported on 3 March 2022 and a contractor had attended and identified it as coming from the building services pipes. On 4 November 2022, a further order was raised to make good the damages in the communal hallway by 15 March 2023.
2. A Surveyor had also attended on 30 November 2022 to determine whether asbestos was present, if the leak had been fixed, and whether the surfaces were dry so that remedial works could start.
3. The Surveyor raised an order for the contractor to repair damages caused to the communal area, but the job had been postponed until 31 January 2023.
4. Following its conversation with the resident, where she said that the leak was still ongoing, an operative had been sent to the block the same day. The operative confirmed that there were no leaks present, the operative had also taken pictures.
5. The landlord’s next steps were to contact the resident on 1 February 2023 and confirm that the works had been completed. It would also visit the resident’s property on 2 February to assess any work needed within the resident’s property.
6. It acknowledged that communal repairs are a ‘’lesser’’ priority but can be unsightly and offered £50 compensation in recognition of the delay and inconvenience.
On 26 and 27 January 2023, the resident contacted the Ombudsman and said that she had not received a response from the landlord and that after a year of trying to pursue the repair it had still not been fixed and she had no definitive date of when the ceiling and walls will be repaired.
The Ombudsman escalated the resident’s concerns to the landlord, who acknowledged it at stage 2 of its process and said it would respond by 23 March 2023.
On 24 March 2023 the landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 response, where it said that:
1. A surveyor had visited the block on 23 March 2023 and confirmed that there were no signs of any leaks from any individual dwellings.
2. A blockage had been identified in a shared community stack pipe, which had caused flooding to the stairs and hallway and a specialist drainage company would be attending within 5 working days.
3. The surveyor had also identified a blocked communal balcony which was holding a large amount of stagnant water and a team has been assigned to repair.
4. Furthermore, there were leaks from communal pipework, which another department were attending to.
5. It confirmed that once the blockage was resolved, repairs would be made to the defective communal ceilings and ductwork.
On 27 March 2023 the resident contacted the Ombudsman and confirmed that she remained dissatisfied as the landlord had not addressed her concerns for over a year and that the communal ceiling in the walkway had not been boxed in and that wires and pipes were left hanging.
In February 2024, the resident informed the Ombudsman that the works to her property and the communal area had been completed, but the leak had still not been repaired.
The landlord further informed the Ombudsman in February 2024 that the leaks identified in March 2023 were not linked to the reported leak in March 2022. The original leak, in March 2022, was identified to be from the mains water supply, whereas the leaks identified in March 2023 were from a communal stack pipe and blocked communal balcony.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s approach.

The Ombudsman’s role is to determine complaints by reference to what is fair in all the circumstances and decide if the landlord is responsible for maladministration or service failure.
When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right, and
3. learn from outcomes.

Scope of Investigation

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a certain aspect of a complaint may not be investigated.
In February 2024 the resident informed the Ombudsman that the leak she reported in 2022 is ongoing and is due to the poor workmanship of the previous repairs. The landlord has also explained that the current leak is unrelated and from a different source.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale’’.
After carefully considering all the evidence, the evidence shows that in the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman, and that what was put to the landlord on her behalf, was in relation to the outstanding works in the communal area outside of her property. It also did not form part of the escalation in January 2023.
Furthermore, the ongoing leak is unrelated to the complaint the resident had previously made.
Therefore, as these aspects have not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint process, it will not be considered in this report as the landlord needs to be given the full opportunity to formally respond. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved.

Policies and Procedures

Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for carrying out repairs and maintenance to the external fabric of the housing blocks, which includes balconies and walkways.
The landlord provided a repair policy dated 2011, which states that it is responsible for communal repairs. These are repairs which cannot booked against a particular property and must be booked against a building structure, for example lifts, communal front doors and outside walls.
The landlord has also published a repair manual on its website, dated 2023, which states that it’s in-house repairs service is responsible for a range of communal repairs, which include tracing and remedying leaks and carpentry repairs to stairwells and landings. The manual asks residents to report any communal repairs they may see but does not detail any timescales in which the repairs will be completed.
Asbestos as a building material was banned altogether in the UK in 1999. Any building that was constructed on or before this year may contain asbestos. According to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in the UK, asbestos is not dangerous for the occupants if the building material is in good condition. In summary, if existing asbestos–containing materials are in good condition and are not likely to be damaged, it may be left in place, the condition monitored and managed to ensure it is not disturbed. The landlord’s repair manual states that if resident’s have a concern about asbestos in the communal area to email a specific address.
The landlord provided a complaint policy dated March 2016, which is not up to date with its current published timescales. The landlord’s website details that it operates a 2 stage formal complaint process. The first stage is known as local resolution, and complaints will be responded to within 20 working days and the second stage, known as a final review, will be responded to within 25 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy, dated 2016, states that if service failure has occurred and it has had an adverse effect on the complainant, then a remedy should be considered. Service failures include:
1. Unjustified delays.
2. Failure to follow policies, rules or procedures.
3. Failure to provide a service to a published standard.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on record keeping says that keeping an accurate audit trail is an important part of a landlord’s service delivery. The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate and detailed records of any conversations relating to repairs so that it can satisfy itself and the resident (and ultimately the Ombudsman if necessary) that it acted in accordance with what was discussed and with its policies.

The landlord’s handling of the repairs of communal walls and ceiling following leaks, and of the presence of asbestos in the walls.

The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
When a leak occurs within a block, it is the landlord’s responsibility to repair the leak and the remedial communal works as necessary, as detailed in its repair manual.
The landlord’s records show that the resident initially reported a leak from a communal pipe on 3 March 2022. On 27 April, 8 July, 30 August, and 19 September further leaks were reported by other residents of the block. The landlord has informed the Ombudsman that the leak was reattended to several times. It states that its contractors advised that the mains supply pipes to this building were old and leaks were appearing in different locations throughout the year, however it was confirmed to have stopped in November 2022.
As detailed in this case, the landlord has provided the Ombudsman with a number of work orders, which confirm when leaks were reported but it is very difficult to determine the actions taken and work completed due to the lack of evidence from its contractor. While it may take its contractor multiple visits to fix the supply pipes, the Ombudsman would have expected to see detailed records of the action it was taking and how the landlord was subsequently communicating with its residents.
In the absence of full and conclusive records, the Ombudsman must make a decision based on what information is available and address any failings it has identified.
As part of the resident’s complaint, she raised concerns that the damaged communal areas contained asbestos. The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with a copy of an asbestos report, dated 9 January 2023. The report confirms that a refurbishment and demolition (R & D) survey was carried out to the stairwell, broken panel to wall adjacent to stairs on balcony level, ceiling panel above foot of the stairs and the electrical panel on wall near to the resident’s property. The report confirms that all areas contained no asbestos.
While it is positive to see that the landlord took steps to investigate the resident’s concerns that she was being exposed to asbestos, the landlord should have communicated the action it was taking. While the landlord did send a copy of the asbestos report to the resident, the landlord failed to explain the findings within its stage 1 response. Given that the presence of asbestos can cause concern, the Ombudsman would have expected to landlord to explain that no asbestos was present.
Regarding the landlord’s handling of the outstanding works needed in the communal hallway, the landlord said that a surveyor attended in November 2022 and confirmed the leak had been fixed and remedial works could be arranged.
While the Ombudsman has not seen a copy of an inspection report, there is a works order dated 30 November and 8 December 2022 to carry out the works to the communal area. It is not clear from the evidence provided when the works were completed, however it is noted that the works could not be done imminently as an asbestos survey needed to be undertaken before the work could start.
The Ombudsman would expect to see evidence that shows that the landlord was keeping the resident (and others who may be affected) up to date with the steps it was taking to make good the communal areas and address any concerns raised. This did not happen, which led to the resident seeking the Ombudsman’s assistance and this was a failing.
It now falls to the Ombudsman to determine what, if any, action the landlord must take. It is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that any repairs to the communal area are completed within a reasonable timeframe.
As detailed due to the lack of evidence the Ombudsman is unable to determine the exact date the communal works were completed, however the landlord did raise the relevant repairs once it was identified that the area was dry. It then raised for an asbestos survey to be completed and the works were completed.
In determining whether compensation is applicable, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider the extent of the errors and the impact on a resident. The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident regarding the remedial communal repairs and this was a failure. Furthermore, although the area is communal, it may have caused some distress and embarrassment to the resident and there was time and trouble in pursuing the decorative work over quite a long period. It would have also caused some inconvenience when the landlord was not forthcoming with its plans and when this work would be completed.
In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident payments from £100 are recommended. Therefore, an order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident £175.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

It is acknowledged that the landlord provided a stage 1 and 2 responses in line with its published policies. However, it is concerning to see that the stage 1 and 2 responses failed to provide the resident with a full and thorough investigation into the issues raised. The responses did not give the resident any indication that the landlord had listened to her complaint, nor did they detail what steps the landlord was going to take to put things right to the communal repairs, or if any works had been completed.
In line with point 3.14 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), the landlord should have addressed the resident’s complaint points fully. This did not happen and there was service failure by the landlord in that regard. Furthermore, it failed to detail what action it was going to take to ensure that it had learned from the outcomes and this meant that it missed an opportunity to rebuild its relationship with the resident.
The Ombudsman would expect to see a landlord applying its dispute resolution principles, conducting a thorough investigation at all stages of the complaint process and attempting to put things right for the resident. The landlord failed to do this and this amounts to maladministration and will attract compensation.
The Ombudsman draws the landlord’s attention to section six of the Code, which sets out what the Ombudsman considers are the best practice principles of “putting things right” where there have been failings. This includes the principle that any remedy offered by a landlord “must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident”. Therefore, the decision to not take into consideration those factors and not offer the resident compensation in relation to its complaint handling was not reasonable and as the landlord had been unable to determine what went wrong, it cannot fully ‘learn from outcomes’ and take action to avoid such failings in the future.
In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, where the landlord has not acknowledged its failings, a payment of over £100 is recommended. The resident waited months for her initial stage 1 response, which did not provide her with any reassurance that the landlord was going to put things right for her. When it failed to do so, she also received a poor response at stage 2, which would have added to the resident’s frustration. The landlord missed a vital opportunity to rebuild the landlord-resident relationship, and therefore an order of £250 has been made, which includes the £50 offered at stage 1.

The landlord’s record keeping.

It is a concern that the landlord does not hold full records that have been requested. Record keeping is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the age and condition of the structure and its fittings within the property, enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to all its residents.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management states that “good knowledge and information management is crucial to any organisation’s ability to perform and achieve its mission…If information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information… The failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress. Incorrect information can also cause real detriment.”
The spotlight report therefore recommends that landlords take steps to improve their knowledge and information management, including by implementing a strategy for this, benchmarking against other organisations’ good practice, reviewing internal guidance around recording vulnerabilities, and conducting appropriate staff training. However, it is of concern that there is no indication that the landlord has taken such steps to do so in light of its poor record keeping in the resident’s case, as outlined above.
The landlord has not been able to provide appropriate records of any contact with the resident, which indicates that internal record keeping and not just that associated with contractors, was an issue in this case. The landlord’s failings have been multiple and appear to have impacted both its ability to resolve the substantive issue as well as the complaint. Therefore, a finding of maladministration has been made and the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £100 in recognition of this.
It has also been recommended below for the landlord to take steps to learn from the outcome of the resident’s case by reviewing its record keeping practices in relation to inspections, repairs and residents’ vulnerabilities, including in light of the findings of this report and the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the communal walls and ceiling following leaks, and of the presence of asbestos in the walls.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failures identified within this report.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £525 within 4 weeks of the date of this report as follows:
1. £175 for failures identified with the communal repairs.
2. £250 for the failures identified with its complaint handling, which includes the £50 offered at stage 1 of its complaint process.
3. £100 for the failures identified with its record keeping.
The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of the date of this report to arrange for its contractor to attend the block and carry out a full inspection to confirm the presence of any leaks. It should also determine what works are required to the communal area, including any remedial works required. The landlord is ordered to share the results of the inspection with the resident and Ombudsman and provide a detailed timetable for any works within 2 weeks of the inspection.
The landlord is ordered to consider the findings highlighted in this investigation against the recommendations in our inspection report of December 2023 and write to the Ombudsman and confirm within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord review its record keeping practices in relation to inspections and repairs, in light of the findings of this report and the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.