Lambeth Council (202227180)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227180

Lambeth Council

8 August 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 of the resident’s:
1. reports of a leak into her property from the flat above;
2. associated complaint.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident holds a lease that began on 8 August 2016. The property is a 2 bedroom first floor flat, and the landlord is a local authority.
The resident’s complaint concerned a leak into her property from the flat above, which was a tenanted property owned by the landlord.
The terms of the resident’s lease were further explained in the landlord’s ‘homeowner’s guide’. It stated that repairs inside the resident’s property were her own responsibility, whereas repairs to the building would be carried out by the landlord.

Repairs and damp policy

The landlord’s policy detailed its repair priorities, and associated timeframes. It listed examples of jobs that it would aim to repair within 1 to 7 days, which included leaking baths.

Complaints policy

The landlord’s policy stated that it operated a 2 stage process with written responses provided to residents within 10 and 20 working days, at stages 1 and 2 respectively.

Summary of events

On 26 September 2022 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. She said that dirty bath water had been leaking into her property daily from the flat above for over 6 weeks. She described the damage that this was causing, and her electrical safety fears. She said that the tenant of the flat above had told her that a surveyor had attended, but that he was awaiting a further response from the landlord. She asked that the landlord urgently complete the repairs to the flat above. The following day the landlord’s complaints team forwarded the resident’s complaint to its housing team, and asked if it could assist.
On 2 October 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint, and advised that it would respond within 10 working days.
On 14 October 2022 the resident highlighted to the landlord that it had not responded to her complaint. She said that her insurer had inspected the increasing damage to her kitchen ceiling, wall, window frame, and cabinet. She expressed her bafflement that the landlord would ignore her complaints, and the health risks to her family. The landlord did not provide the Service with any evidence of further responses or subsequent actions prior to the resident’s next complaint.
On 2 December 2022 the resident made a further complaint to the landlord. She said that the landlord had undertaken a temporary fix in the flat above, but that the leak was still dripping into her property. She provided photographs of the mould covering her ceiling, and other property damage. She expressed her fears regarding the electrics, and for her family’s health. She asked for an update of when works would be undertaken to the flat above.
On 30 January 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident, which apologised for its lateness. It confirmed that its contractor had attended the flat above, and that the leak was now resolved. It apologised if its service had fallen below its expected standards, and said that the resident’s complaint had been upheld. It stated that this was “in acknowledgment of the delays and that an improved level of communication on the progress of works would have been beneficial”. It explained how the resident could escalate her complaint if she felt that it had not been resolved.
On 30 January 2023 the resident replied to the landlord’s stage 1 response. She said that she was unsure where it had gotten its information from, but that the leak was ongoing, and that the tenant above had told her that he was still awaiting a repairs date from the landlord. She named the landlord’s estates manager who had witnessed the damage in her property at a visit 2 weeks earlier. She said that she did not consider her complaint to be resolved, but instead seemed to be “going round and round in circles”. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint escalation request 2 days later.
On 23 February 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident. It said that its difficulties arranging the works to the flat above had initially been due to the tenant’s availability, and more recently due to its contractor’s availability. It said that the works (a bathroom refit) were due to begin on 6 March 2023, and would take at least a week to complete. It apologised for the resident’s frustration and annoyance, and referred her to the Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Summary of events after the conclusion of the landlord’s complaint process

On 9 March 2023 the resident asked the landlord for an update of when the works would be undertaken in the flat above. She highlighted the increasing damage to her property, and the anxiety caused to her over the 7 months since the leak began. The following day the landlord told the resident that its contractor was on another job, and that the works to the flat above would begin at some point after mid-April 2022. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with this, and highlighted that water was dripping into her electrics.
On 21 June 2023 the landlord wrote to the tenant of the flat above the resident with regards to arranging access to repair the leak.
During September 2023, the landlord exchanged emails regarding works arrangements with the tenant of the flat above the resident.
The landlord said that it spoke with the resident on 13, 25, and 29 September 2023, regarding necessary roof works to the building. It described the resident as unhappy with the delays, and very distressed. It said that on the last of those dates it had asked its contractor to attend her property and the flat above to “stop the leak in any way possible”. The landlord said that it completed temporary works that stopped the leak into the resident’s property on 5 October 2023. The Ombudsman has not seen contemporaneous records of any of these actions or events, but the resident confirmed to the Service on 7 November 2023 that the temporary repairs had stopped the leak.
Also in November 2023, the resident asked the landlord to cover the cost of her insurance excess. The Ombudsman has not seen any record of the landlord’s response, but during this investigation the resident told the Service that the landlord had covered her insurance excess cost, but offered no further compensation. She also advised that she had reported a more recent leak to the landlord, which was causing damage to the ceiling that she had previously repaired.

Assessment and findings

Record keeping

The Service asked the landlord to provide various records relevant to the resident’s complaint, and its handling of the leak that it related to. The landlord’s response was delayed, and provided only limited information. Some of the documents evidencing the events described above, including the resident’s September 2022 complaint, have only been seen by the Ombudsman because the resident provided them herself.
Clear record keeping is a core function of repair, and wider landlord services. It allows evidence to be provided to the Service when requested. More importantly, clear record keeping is essential to enable landlords to monitor outstanding reports and issues, and provide effective services to its residents. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate and contemporaneous records including resident repair reports, and its subsequent response, actions, and rationale.
Aside from providing the landlord with a ready means to evidence its actions to the Service, it is also reasonable to conclude that its poor record keeping contributed to the significant failings in its handling of the resident’s complaint, and the matters it related to. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping.

Leak

The landlord’s lack of records has meant that it is unclear precisely when, and by whom, the report of the leak in the flat above the resident was first made to it. Nevertheless, the resident has evidenced that she chased the landlord for an update in her complaint made on 26 September 2022. The resident’s complaint stated that the leak had been ongoing at that point for around 6 weeks, which the landlord did not appear to dispute. The resident then spent a further year chasing the landlord for updates and progress, all the while suffering significant time, trouble, and distress. The landlord has failed in all regards to demonstrate that it responded appropriately. The Ombudsman has therefore found severe maladministration with its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak into her property from the flat above.
The resident chased the landlord again in mid-October 2022, but the landlord’s lack of records has meant that it failed to evidence any actions that it took in the flat above, nor any efforts to keep the resident informed. It is only from the resident’s own information that the Ombudsman is aware that the landlord’s surveyor had attended the flat above in either August or September 2022, and that an unsuccessful temporary repair was carried out at some point between September and November 2022.
The resident made a further complaint to the landlord on 2 December 2022, and provided photographs of the damage that the leak was causing to her property. The resident’s records later referred to a member of the landlord’s staff viewing the damage to her property in mid-January 2023. However, the landlord has again failed to demonstrate that it made any effort to contact the resident before 30 January 2023, nor that it took appropriate actions.
The landlord’s complaint handling has been separately assessed below. Nevertheless, it would have been very frustrating for the resident that, when the landlord did contact her at the end of January 2023, it incorrectly advised her that the leak had been resolved. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s poor record keeping was, at the very least, a contributory factor in it being unaware of the status of its own works, and other failures of service.
It was over 3 weeks later before the landlord advised the resident that works to the flat above would begin on 6 March 2023. When the works did not begin the resident again found it necessary to chase the landlord for a progress update, which she did on 9 March 2023. The landlord told the resident that its contractor was working elsewhere, and that the works would not begin for at least another 5 weeks. The landlord’s vague response, and apparent absence of urgency would have only added to the resident’s distress and frustration.
The resident understood that she was responsible for repairs within her own property, but it was reasonable for her to expect the landlord to attend to the leak in the property above in a timely manner. It is therefore wholly unreasonable that the landlord has failed to demonstrate any effort to progress the necessary works until some 3 months later, in June 2023. The landlord’s next evidence of contact with the resident was not until a further 3 months after that, during September 2023. The landlord’s record referred to how distressed the resident was, which was entirely understandable given that she had been living with the effects of the leak for more than a year, while “going round and round in circles” with the landlord.
Following the resident’s distressed call, the landlord sent its contractor to her property and the flat above, with the instruction to “stop the leak in any way possible”. The contractor successfully did this on 5 October 2023, ahead of the main identified works being undertaken. As such, it is reasonable to conclude that the same actions may have been possible at any point since it was first reported in August 2022, and could have prevented the property damage and distress that the resident experienced. The landlord’s failure to offer the resident any redress for the impact of its failings, beyond reimbursing her insurance excess, has been considered in the assessment below.
In November 2023 the Ombudsman’s determination of the landlord’s separate case (202207348) found maladministration with its repairs handling, and made a wider order to the landlord to complete a review. The order specifically referred to the landlord’s handling of window and door replacements. However, the landlord evidenced that it used its review to consider its broader repairs service and record keeping in line with Ombudsman’s determinations of its other similar cases. The landlord provided its review findings to the Service in January 2024. The findings referred to its new ‘repairs journey assurance team’ and other measures implemented with the aim of preventing the type of delays and issues experienced by the resident. As such, the Ombudsman has not made further orders regarding the landlord’s record keeping and repairs service.

Complaint handling

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint made in September 2022, but has failed to demonstrate that it investigated it, or otherwise provided her with a response. This meant that the resident found it necessary to make what was effectively the same complaint again on 2 December 2022. The landlord then took almost 2 months to issue the resident its stage 1 response, and the resident’s frustration would have been further compounded by its generic, and factually incorrect contents. The landlord’s subsequent stage 2 response apologised to the resident, but offered her only vague explanations that took little responsibility, and did not offer any form of redress. It then failed to follow through with its stated resolution, or keep the resident appropriately updated. The Ombudsman has therefore made a further finding of severe maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.
The resident’s second complaint to the landlord, made on 2 December 2022, provided details and photographs of the damage that her property was sustaining from the leak in the flat above. The resident also expressed her safety fears with regards to water entering her electrics, and the health implications to her family of the mould that was forming. The landlord has failed to evidence that it acted on the resident’s complaint until it sent its stage 1 response to her 39 working days later. The landlord’s actions were therefore neither reasonable, nor in line with its own policy.
The landlord’s stage 1 response to the resident incorrectly claimed that the leak had been fixed, and offered no explanation for its significant service failings. The remainder of the landlord’s response was entirely generic, and would have done nothing to assure the resident that her complaint had been taken seriously. As such, the landlord failed to handle the resident’s complaint in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), and this continued to be the case through the remainder of its process.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response within the timeframe of the Code, and its policy. However, it made no reference to the factual inaccuracy of its stage 1 response, and offered only a vague explanation for the delays in it attending to the leak. The landlord apologised to the resident for her frustration, but took no responsibility for the service failings that had caused it. The landlord’s stage 2 response advised the resident of a works start date, but otherwise lacked the urgency and empathy that her situation and complaint merited. As above, the landlord then further compounded its poor complaint handling, when it failed to follow through with the works that were the basis of its resolution.
The landlord was aware that the resident was addressing the damage to her property through her insurer. It would have been reasonable for the landlord’s complaint response to provide her with details of its own insurer, and offer advice regarding the claim making process. Separate to this, it would also have been appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident compensation for the impact on her of its service failures, and it was a further failing that it did not.
The resident experienced prolonged, and significant time, trouble, and distress as a result of the severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the leak, and of her associated complaint. The Ombudsman has considered this in line with our Remedies Guidance, and made a compensation order to that regard.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 for each of the 13 months that the leak was impacting her home, for a total of £1300. The Ombudsman has made a further orders of £250 for the impact of the landlord’s poor complaint handling, and £400 for the resident’s time and trouble pursuing the matter.
In February 2022, the Ombudsman issued a special report about the landlord, highlighting concerns with its complaint handling. The report recommended the landlord review its complaint handling procedures to reduce the risk of similar failures in the future. We continued to identify problems with the landlord’s performance, reaching findings of maladministration and severe maladministration following investigations into 20 separate complaints from residents.
In June 2023 we told the landlord of our intention to carry out an inspection to find out the reasons for its ongoing failures in complaint handling. In January 2024 we issued a report setting out our findings with further recommendations for service improvement.
In this investigation we have identified failures similar to those that led to our special report in 2022 and subsequent inspection in 2023. We therefore order the landlord to consider the findings highlighted in this investigation against the recommendations in our inspection report of January 2024.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. reports of a leak into her property from the flat above;
2. associated complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord was either unwilling or unable to provide the Service with much of the information that was requested for the investigation. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s poor record keeping was, at the very least, a contributory factor in its service failures.
The landlord failed in all regards to demonstrate that it responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of a leak from its property above. It further failed to keep the resident informed or updated through the 13 months that it took to stop the leak, which would have greatly added to her time, trouble and distress.
The landlord appeared to ignore the resident’s original complaint. The resident effectively repeated it 3 months later, but the landlord’s generic and factually inaccurate stage 1 response was sent well beyond the timeframe of the Code, or its own policy, and would have added to her frustration.
The landlord’s final complaint response took no responsibility for the extensive service failings and delays that the resident had experienced, offered only vague explanations, and failed to demonstrate that it had learned from the outcomes. It also failed to offer any insurance advice, compensation, or to follow through with its stated resolution. The landlord took a further 7 months to fix the leak into the resident’s property.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks:
1. The landlord’s CEO writes to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. The landlord pays the resident £1950 compensation, broken down as follows:
  1. £1300 for the impact of its repairs failures.
  2. £400 for her time and trouble pursuing the matter.
  3. £250 for its poor complaint handling.
3. This amount is separate from the insurance excess cost that the resident has said that the landlord paid to her.
The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to the Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
The Ombudsman further orders that the landlord consider the findings highlighted in this investigation against the recommendations in our inspection report of January 2024. This review is to result in a written report to be provided to this Service.
The landlord should evidence compliance with this order to the Service within 8 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that within 1 week the landlord writes to the resident to confirm its action plan, and dates to address the current leak into her property from the flat above.