Lewisham Council (202217650)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217650

Lewisham Council

29 February 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling:
1. of repairs to the property roof.
2. of the resident’s complaint.
We have also investigated the landlord’s knowledge and information handling.

Background and summary of events

Scope

During the course of this investigation the resident has informed this Service that there have been further issues with the landlord’s responses to issues at the property. Though it is appreciated that this would have been distressing for the resident, the Ombudsman’s role is to investigate complaints brought to it that have exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints process. This investigation report, therefore, concerns the matters which were the subject of the resident’s formal complaint in June 2022 and which were the subject of the landlord’s final response dated 10 September 2022. Where we have noted some events after that date, these have been reviewed as they relate to statements made by the landlord in its complaint correspondence about the actions it planned to take.
The resident is a leaseholder and the landlord owns the freehold to the building the resident’s 2 bedroom ground floor flat is in. The resident purchased the property in February 2018.
Under the terms of the lease, the landlord is obliged to maintain the main structure of the building, including all exterior walls and structures. Its website sets out that it considers it has responsibility for general building and estate repairs, which include the roof. Residents ordinarily pay service charges for services provided. In this case, roof repairs were carried out to the roof at the resident’s block of flats in 2017 which provided a 20 year Certificate of Guarantee (the guarantee). The guarantee said it would make good any defect in works that could lead to the ingress of water. If the landlord wanted to avail itself of the guarantee it had to ensure it followed certain conditions, such as alerting the company that completed the work of any issue within a specified timeframe and ensuring that it only used ‘authorised personnel’ to have access to the roof to carry out repairs.
The landlord’s complaints policy has 3 stages. It says it will never unreasonably refuse to accept or escalate a complaint through all stages of its complaint’s procedure. It says its policy has been written in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles. At stage 1 it says it will respond to a complaint in 10 working days. At stage 2, it says it will respond within 20 working days. If a resident remains unhappy with the response, it says they can ask to have their complaint looked at by a stage 3 adjudicator. It says this will take 20 working days.
The Housing Ombudsman Complaints Handling Code, (“the Code”), issued in July 2020, sets out requirements for landlords who are members of the Scheme. Compliance with the Code forms part of the membership’s obligations. Of particular relevance to this investigation, the Code says, among other things:
1. The Ombudsman does not believe a third stage is necessary as part of a complaints process but if a landlord believes strongly it requires one, it should set out its reasons as part of the self-assessment. (section 3.8)
2. A complaint should be resolved at the earliest possible opportunity, having assessed what evidence is needed to fully consider the issues, what outcome would resolve the matter for the resident and whether there are any urgent actions required. (section 4.4)
3. Landlords should keep residents regularly updated about the progress of the investigation even where there is no new substantive information to provide. (section 4.10)
4. A landlord must not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaints procedure and must have clear and valid reasons for taking that course of action. Reasons for declining to escalate a complaint must be clearly set out in a landlord’s complaints policy and must be the same as the reasons for not accepting a complaint. (section 4.14)
5. Effective dispute resolution requires a process designed to resolve complaints. Where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right. These can include acknowledging where things have gone wrong, taking action if there has been a delay and providing a financial remedy. (section 6.1)
As referenced above, in 2017 repair works were carried out to the roof of the block of flats where the resident has his flat. The works, which as a leaseholder, the resident paid £14,000 towards, provided a guarantee. The landlord placed an alert on the file on 24 February 2021 so that if repairs were raised, the landlord would be aware it could utilise the guarantee. It later transpired that this alert did not work. The landlord said this was remedied on 20 June 2023.
At some point before June 2022, repairs were carried out to the building’s roof. The landlord does not have records of these repairs. However, it accepts that it was the landlord’s operatives that carried out the repairs. It accepts that it should have used the contractor that had been engaged to do the original roof work. Further, it later transpired that the repairs were described by the landlord as “insufficient”.
On 14 June 2022 the landlord noted that a copy of the guarantee had not been uploaded to its database. It asked the original contractors to inspect the roof and put a note on its systems that no other contractor should carry out any works on the roof as that would invalidate the guarantee.
The contractors inspected and found that as 3rd party works had been carried out on the roof, the guarantee had been compromised. It recommended rectification works were carried out “…with a view to bringing the roof up to a guarantee-able standard” again. It said it would charge for these works.
The resident became aware of the above and on 28 June 2022, raised a complaint with the landlord. He asked the landlord to investigate how this situation had arisen and asked it to answer a series of questions. His complaint was logged at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaints process the next day.
On 15 July 2022 an internal landlord email reported that “insufficient” repairs had been carried out by landlord operatives, which had invalidated the guarantee. The original contractors, it said, “…have now carried out a patch repair.” It said it was “…awaiting a specification of substantive corrective works from them that will bring the guarantee back into operation.”
When the Ombudsman asked for records to show the landlord had taken steps to bring the guarantee back into operation, the landlord said that “…the statement of bringing the roof back into guarantee was inappropriate and also not the purpose of the repairs, the repairs were to resolve the residents repair issues and should have used the original contractor.” It also said that it did not have any reports on its systems of repairs undertaken to bring the roof up to that standard.
The resident chased a response to his complaint on 6 August 2022. On 11 August 2022 the landlord told the resident that if he did not receive a response to his complaint by the next day, it would escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its process. The resident responded that he would like any response to answer the questions he had raised at stage 1.
On 13 August 2022 the resident chased a response again and on 15 August 2022 the landlord informed him that it had escalated his complaint to stage 2 of its process. It apologised that he had not been given a stage 1 response and said that if he wanted, he could take his complaint to the Ombudsman.
On 3 September 2022 the resident contacted the landlord again, expressing his frustration that he had to repeatedly chase communications from it. He asked his local councillor to assist.
On 9 September 2022 the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response. The key points were:
1. It apologised if the resident did not feel his complaint had been resolved at stage 1 of its process.
2. It apologised for the delay in providing the resident with an update and confirmed that landlord operatives should not have conducted repairs at the property.
3. It said a ‘flagging system’ had now been put in place to prevent this happening in future.
4. Any costs that had been charged to leaseholders’ service charge accounts would be credited to their accounts by 30 September 2022.
5. In response to the specific questions the resident had asked at stage 1, the landlord said a full inspection was due to be carried out on 12 September 2022. It said when the report from the inspection was ready, it would keep the resident informed and advise him of any further works that needed to be carried out.
6. It thanked the resident for his patience and said that if he remained dissatisfied with the response, he could ask for his complaint to be reviewed by the Independent Adjudicator at stage 3 of the complaint’s procedure.
The landlord has since told the Ombudsman that its flagging system should have been corrected following the stage 2 response to the resident, but this did not happen. It says it will address this internally.
The resident responded the next day. He said:
1. The landlord couldn’t have reviewed its stage 1 response as a stage 1 response had not been provided.
2. He was disappointed that after 2 and a half months, a roof inspection had still not taken place, nor the service charges reviewed.
3. The landlord had not answered any of his questions.
4. He said he would expect any review to look at all the repairs made to the roof since it was replaced. He wanted to see a copy of the report and see what further works would be needed to bring it to guarantee – able standard. He emphasised his request to see a copy of the report, in bold.
5. He noted that in a previous complaint, 18 months ago, a similar issue had arisen with the landlord’s flagging system. He said the landlord had told residents at that point that “…we have requested that our Major Works team flag up our system any Major Works guarantee periods so that our repairs team can easily determine what should be attended or referred back to the contractor.” He expressed concern that this response was 18 months ago but the changes had still not been implemented.
6. He said he did not consider the landlord had compensated him for the “…considerable inconvenience and stress” he had experienced dealing with the complaints. He asked for a follow up response.
On 1 October 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to say he had not received any information on the charges that had been promised to be credited to his account by 30 September 2022. He also asked for a response to the questions he had raised in his stage 1 complaint and to his response to the landlord’s stage 2 response.
On 3 October 2022 the landlord apologised for the delay and said it had contacted the relevant departments to obtain a response for the resident.
On the same day, internally the landlord recorded that “…substantive roof repair has been confirmed complete over the weekend.” However, these repairs appear again, to have been conducted by contractors other than the contractors who provided the guarantee, which the landlord has informed the Ombudsman was an error. The works were not recorded on the landlord’s repairs log.
On 13 October 2022 the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage 3 of the landlord’s complaint’s process. He also chased the landlord for a response to his previous correspondence.
On 8 November 2022 the Independent Adjudicator, at the 3rd stage of the landlord’s complaint’s process, told the resident that he would be best advised to take his complaint to the Residential Property Tribunal Service First Tier Tribunal. It said a tribunal could decide on all aspects of liability to pay a service charge or a major works charge. It said the tribunal had expertise in those matters which it did not possess.
The resident responded that the question of whether the service charges should be reimbursed to residents’ accounts was not in issue. He pointed out that the landlord had already fully accepted that it should and would credit those charges back to residents’ accounts. He therefore did not consider he needed to take his case to a tribunal. He said he was concerned that he had been told a full inspection of the roof would be conducted and that he would be informed about it. This had not happened, and he considered that this and the overall handling of the complaint, which he felt had been “…incredibly poor”, were issues that would be within the Independent Adjudicator’s remit.
The resident took his complaint to the Ombudsman and his MP on the same day.
On 18 November 2022 the landlord contacted the resident to say that:
1. It had booked an inspection of the roof on 24 November 2022.
2. It was working through the service charges to be credited to accounts.
3. It apologised for failing to adhere to the timescales set out in its stage 2 response. It said this was due to delays in providing the required works schedule and communication errors in the repairs team.
4. It confirmed that “…all future repairs required to the roof [of the address], within the warranty period, will not be recharged to leaseholders.”
On 16 December 2022 the landlord paid the resident the sum of £542.99, which it said was for all the repairs he had been charged for in relation to the roof since 2017.
On 19 December 2022 the resident asked the landlord to see the report that he understood had been produced on the works needed on the roof.
On 17 January 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to enquire if certain staff members had left their roles as he had not received responses. He was informed, on 20 January 2023 that this was the case but the repairs team would let the resident know who had been assigned to his case as soon as possible.
On 9 February 2023 the resident chased a response and on 23 February 2023 the resident asked his MP to get involved again.
On 6 March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord again to ask to see the report he understood had been completed on the roof. He stressed that as a leaseholder who had paid £14,000 towards the replacement of the roof, he considered he had a vested interest in understanding the repairs required to the building.
On 14 March 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident’s MP, who had asked for an update for the resident. It said that it was “…unable to offer a direct timeline on these works due to the extent of the remedial roofing works being evaluated by our Quantity Surveyor for approval, but we endeavour to carry out the works as soon as possible.” It said the works would not be added to any service charge and all leaseholders would be updated as works progressed. It also said it had added the resident’s details to its “aftercare list”.
On 20 March 2023 the resident chased the landlord to see a copy of the repairs report again. After a further request for an update on 28 March 2023, the landlord told the resident that its data protection officer was reviewing the report to make sure there was nothing commercially sensitive in the contents. It said that when the report was completed, it would update him.
On 20 April 2023 the landlord contacted the resident and apologised. It said it was awaiting the information the resident sought and had contacted the quantity surveyor for an update on the report.
On 11 May 2023 the resident again asked the landlord for a copy of the report.
On 26 May 2023 the landlord told the resident that “…a formal report was never produced.” However, it said it did have an email from its contractors, which it attached. We understand this email, dated 4 May 2023, confirmed that while the roof felt on the flat sections was considered to be “…in generally good condition”, there were still some issues with the roof and that while contractors had been asked to give their opinion on the roof, they had not been asked to complete an inspection.
The resident replied saying that he felt he had been misled for months. He said he needed to understand what was going on. He noted that his MP had been told that remedial works were being evaluated by the landlord’s quantity surveyor and he had been told the landlord’s data protection officer was reviewing the report. He commented that this had given him the impression that a report had been produced and that it was the “extent” of the remedial roofing works that was causing delays in progressing.
When the landlord provided its response to the Ombudsman enquiries, a note on the file said that the works “…to bring [the roof] back into guarantee [were] completed before stage 2 was responded to in which we have committed to getting a survey done. That is really poor internal comms and use of systems for others to see what has happened.”
We queried the above comment with the landlord as other records indicated that the repair works had not been completed by September 2022, by the time of the stage 2 response. It said that the comment had been inaccurate. The landlord said it had conducted patch repairs prior to 2020. However, it said the problem persisted which suggested a potential defect and was why the resident had to complain about continuing issues with the roof.
We also asked the landlord if it had completed repair works or decoration at the resident’s property. It said it had no repair record for any work carried out at the resident’s property but was arranging for one of its works supervisors to attend and review any outstanding damage that required repair.
We asked the landlord to provide a copy of any post works survey completed following any repair works. It has provided a receipt for an inspection in June 2023. This appears to be a record pertaining to a visit conducted around that time after a resident reported that water was falling from the roof when it rained. It considered that there was an outlet which took most of the rain when it fell and that no further works were needed.

Assessment and findings

On the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property roof

It is not clear when the works that were carried out to the building’s roof that resulted in the invalidation of the guarantee, were undertaken. However, it is clear that the landlord was put on notice that repair works were necessary in or around June 2022. It was unreasonable for the landlord to have then waited until September 2022 to inform the resident that it had arranged an inspection of the roof for 12 September 2022. There is no evidence that this inspection then went ahead and a further inspection was arranged for 24 November 2022. The landlord, in relation to both promised inspections, promised to provide the resident with an update as to any works that were necessary. It did not do so, which was unreasonable. It remains unclear if the landlord has since performed an inspection. The only record the landlord has produced is of a visit in June 2023, to deal with a seemingly minor repair request.
The landlord’s stage 2 response had said that the planned inspection would address the questions the resident had raised at stage 1 in June 2022. However, the landlord’s stage 2 response did not provide a comprehensive analysis of any issues with the roof that would reflect that the issues the landlord had indicated were present, had been dealt with or that there was a plan to address them. The landlord did not provide an answer to the questions raised by the resident in his stage 1 complaint about the issues with the roof and this is unreasonable.
The records indicate repairs were necessary. In July 2022 the landlord was waiting for “a specification of substantive corrective works”. In November 2022 the landlord referred to a delay providing its “works schedule”. In March 2023 the landlord informed the resident’s MP about the “…extent of the remedial roofing works” which it said it was evaluating.
However, the landlord repeatedly and for a prolonged period of time, failed to provide any information to the resident about these works. This would have caused the resident anxiety about what the outstanding issues with the roof were and whether they were in hand. The resident asked for a report on the required works over 5 times before he was told that a formal report had never been written. He was not given this information until May 2023, 6 months after he had been told an inspection had been booked at the property roof. This is unreasonable and would have damaged any relationship of trust between the landlord and the resident.
From internal records, it appears that a ‘patch repair’ on the roof was carried out at some point between June and July 2022 but the resident was not advised of this and in any event, there is no evidence this patch repair resolved the issue or issues. When the Ombudsman asked for records of repair we were informed of a ‘patch repair’ prior to 2020 and told that the issue persisted. There are records of repairs having taken place at the roof but these are incomplete, for instance, not recording repairs that apparently took place in October 2022.
The landlord has already accepted that it should not have used operatives that invalidated the guarantee at the property. It should also not have charged residents for repairs that it could have had dealt with under that guarantee. It has since credited these charges to the resident, but the resident should not have had to make a complaint about the issue before that happened. Further, the resident was told that his account would be credited by 30 September 2022 but this did not happen until 16 December 2022. This represents another unreasonable delay.
We will address the landlords record keeping below but it is relevant to note here that because of failings in its record keeping, we are still unclear if appropriate repairs were undertaken (other than ‘patch’ repairs), when they were undertaken and whether there are still issues at the property. This is inappropriate and we consider the landlord’s approach to this situation is so poor it warrants a finding of severe maladministration.

On the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaint handling was inappropriate for the following reasons:
1. It failed to provide a stage 1 response to the resident, failing to answer any of the questions raised in his complaint.
2. It failed to complete the actions it said it would complete in its stage 2 response. It took over 3 months to credit the resident’s account with refunds for inappropriate service charges and it continues to fail to have provided an inspection report that would, as promised, answer the questions raised by the resident.
3. It unreasonably failed to progress the resident’s complaint through stage 3 of its process. Its reason that it did not have the expertise to deal with service charge disputes was illogical given that there was no dispute over the incorrectly charged service charges. This is contrary to section 4.14 of the Code and its own policy.
4. It failed to keep the resident up to date with any progress and incorrectly told the resident it was working with its data controller on a report that did not exist.
5. It failed to consider financially compensating the resident for the distress and inconvenience he had been put to in bringing the complaint and chasing responses in relation to the complaint. We have made a recommendation that a payment should be made to acknowledge the inconvenience caused.
For the reasons above, we consider the landlord’s complaint handling was so poor it warrants a finding of severe maladministration.

On the landlord’s knowledge and information handling.

As referenced throughout this report, the landlord’s record keeping was poor. Even as the landlord was preparing the file for the Ombudsman it was unable to tell from its records what repairs had been undertaken. It mistakenly considered that repairs had gone ahead before the stage 2 response was issued. This then transpired to be incorrect. It has been unable to say when the third party repairs were carried out which caused the initial invalidation of the guarantee and potentially, other issues with the roof. The correspondence between the landlord and the resident indicates that as far back as February 2021 the landlord told the resident it would improve its record keeping. This was to avoid incidents that might invalidate the guarantee. However, this was not effected then or in September 2022 when promised. Even after the issues that occurred which invalidated the guarantee it still failed to adjust its record system appropriately until June 2023. This is unreasonable and shows a repeated lack of attention to records that, by repeated mishap, had been shown to require effective management.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs, published in March 2019, states that “…it is vital landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. The landlord and its contractors should keep comprehensive records of residents’ reports of outstanding repairs and their responses, including details of appointments, any pre and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work carried out and completion dates”. The landlord’s records give little indication of which works were carried out, when they were completed or if they took place at all. The lack of clear and accurate record keeping would have contributed to the lack of updates to the resident, the failure to meet agreed timescales and the protracted delays in resolving any outstanding issues. The Ombudsman has taken this into account when reaching the overall finding that there was severe maladministration in this case.

Review of policies and practice

The Ombudsman has found maladministration (including severe maladministration) following investigations into complaints raised with the landlord involving repairs and record keeping. As a result of these; a wider order has been issued to the landlord under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme. This is for the landlord to review its policy or practice in relation to the service failures identified, which may give rise to further complaints about the matter. The landlord has been ordered to carry out a review, within 12 weeks of 30 November 2024 of its practice in relation to responding to requests for repairs and record keeping. We understand this review is still in progress. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the previous cases and so the learning from this complaint should be incorporated into the wider review, ordered as part of case 202124577. In addition to this, we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to landlord as part of the wider order.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the property roof.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of communication and complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its knowledge and information handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to respond to reports of repairs at the property within a reasonable timescale or in line with its promises in its complaint responses. It repeatedly used operatives to complete repairs that invalidated the guarantee on the property roof and initially wrongly charged residents for repairs that would have been covered under the guarantee. It said it would complete a report following an inspection on any outstanding issues but to date has failed to address the resident’s questions about required repairs.
The landlord failed to provide a stage 1 response to the resident and its stage 2 response, while acknowledging errors, made promises about actions proposed to remedy failings which it did not perform in line with its promised timeline. It also informed the resident it was compiling a report about the repair works the resident was concerned with, which was incorrect and led the resident to feel misled, significantly damaging any relationship of trust between the landlord and resident. It unreasonably refused to escalate the resident’s complaint through its stage 3 process.
The landlord’s repair records do not fully record what repairs occurred at the property. This led to substantial confusion with the landlord not being able to appreciate what steps it had taken to address repair issues up to the date of this investigation. This failing naturally weakens the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s abilities to perform its repair obligations sufficiently, which is distressing.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £2200 in compensation. The payment should be made within 4 weeks, comprising:
1. £1000 to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident because of the landlord’s protracted failure to address repair reports about issues on the roof of the resident’s property.
2. £600 to acknowledge the identified failings in complaint handling and communication and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in pursuing this complaint.
3. £600 to acknowledge how the landlord’s poor knowledge and information handling impacted upon its approach to this case.
Within 4 weeks the landlord should apologise to the resident for the severe maladministration identified in this report. The apology should be made by the landlord’s chief executive or a member of the landlord’s senior leadership and should be in person if the resident prefers.
Within 4 weeks the landlord should conduct a full inspection of the condition of the property roof. If it identifies that there are any ongoing issues, it should set these out in a detailed report and within 3 weeks of the date of the inspection send the report, together with an action plan and timeline for resolving these issues, to the resident and this Service. It should consider whether this report also needs to be shared with other residents at the property block.