Lambeth Council (202215601)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215601

Lambeth Council

31 May 2024 (amended at review)

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. Request for repairs to the communal front entrance door.
2. Complaint about the repair and maintenance of the communal area of her building.
3. Request that her windows were upgraded.
4. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy of the property, a flat in a converted building with shared communal hallways.
On 19 November 2020, the resident emailed the landlord, asking it who was responsible for maintaining the communal area in her building. She said that it had only been decorated once since her tenancy began in 1998, and the landlord had never cleaned the carpet. She felt this was unsightly and unhygienic. The landlord said it would inspect the building the following week, and log works for the communal area.
On 9 August 2021, the landlord logged a repair to “ease and adjust” the resident’s kitchen window, including replacing the seal.
The resident sent the landlord an email on 11 October 2021, saying that it had not acted on her previous concerns about the carpet in the communal area. She said the walls and carpet were both in a poor state. She said one of her neighbours had painted the front door without the landlord’s permission, and this was unsightly. In addition, she said the door knocker was falling off, and the lock did not work with residents’ keys. As the landlord had not responded, she sent it a further email on 26 October 2021.
The landlord’s records indicate that on or around 12 November 2021, it went to the property to remove and refix the lock and repair the hinge on the communal front door. It recorded that the door was left in good working order.
On 25 January 2022, the landlord’s records show that the resident contacted it and told it that she did not want her windows to be repaired, she wanted them to be replaced with UPVC windows. She asked the landlord to tell her why her neighbour had been given UPVC windows, but she had wooden framed windows. She said her windows did not work.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 9 February 2022. She said the landlord had not responded about the front door, which her neighbour had painted without consent. She also told the landlord she had to make several calls to follow up repairs.
The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of her request for it to upgrade her windows to UPVC windows on 15 March 2022.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint about her front door and maintenance of the communal areas at stage 1 of its complaints process on 26 April 2022. It upheld her complaint, saying:
1. It apologised for its delayed response to her complaint. It said its complaints service was experiencing unprecedented demand, and it had allocated additional resources to improve its service going forward.
2. It was sorry she had to make several calls to follow up the repairs, and that the repairs were delayed.
3. All the repairs had been completed except for the carpet, which it would renew in approximately 4 weeks’ time.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She asked the landlord to provide evidence of the repairs it said it had completed. She said the door was not repaired, as it had no letter flap, and the paint was peeling.
As the landlord had not responded to her complaint, she contacted the Ombudsman on 09 May 2022 and asked us to investigate the complaint.
The landlord responded to the resident at stage 2 of its complaints process on 16 June 2022. It:
1. Apologised that the jobs it had mistakenly said the repairs were complete. It could not find a reason for this error.
2. It had now completed the letterbox repair.
On 29 August 2022, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint about her windows at stage one of its complaints process. It did not uphold her complaint, saying:
1. It acknowledged that other properties in the building had been given an upgrade to UPVC and the resident had not.
2. After the other properties had been given UPVC windows, the resident’s windows were upgraded, because they were beyond repair. As they were upgraded on a like for like basis, she was not given UPVC windows.
3. Its surveyor had assessed her windows and agreed to fit draught excluders.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked it to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. She said:
1. It had not explained why she it did not install UPVC windows in her home when at the same time as it upgraded her neighbour’s windows.
2. Residents should not have to live with gaps around the windows.
3. She paid the same rent and had the same size of property as her neighbour, so it was not fair that she was not offered the same windows.
She sent the landlord a further email on 18 October 2022. She reiterated her concerns and said she was worried about the impact the windows would have on her energy bills.
On 26 October 2022, the landlord told the resident it would replace the carpet in her building and would tell her when it had a date to do this.
The landlord sent the resident a response at stage 2 of its complaints process on 21 December 2022, saying:
1. It had appointed a contractor to carry out borough wide surveys of its housing stock. It could not say if this would identify a need for new windows in the resident’s property.
2. It was not obliged to provide the resident with UPVC windows.
3. It had replaced her windows as part of a disrepair process. Any faults with her windows may be under warranty. Its contractors would contact her soon to arrange an appointment to “overhaul” her windows.
The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response as she feels it has not explained why it did not replace her windows when it replaced her neighbour’s windows.
On Friday 17 November 2023, the landlord inspected the resident’s windows. It said that none needed replacement, as they worked well and had new handles.
The resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord has replaced the carpet in the communal area of the property with linoleum flooring.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident complained to the landlord about a blocked drain at the rear of her property, and dog faeces in the communal area. She has told the Ombudsman that she is satisfied that these issues are resolved, so they have not been considered by this investigation.
Paragraph 41c of the Housing Ombudsman scheme says that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters that are the subject of court proceedings or where the subject of court proceedings where judgement has been made. The resident began a disrepair claim relating to the windows in her home. However, these proceedings have been settled by the parties, and did not include the issue of the resident wanting to have double glazed UPVC installed as her neighbour had. As such, the resident’s complaint about her windows is within the scope of this investigation.

The communal front door

The landlord’s repairs handbook explains that the landlord is responsible for communal repairs. This would include the front entrance door to the resident’s building.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs needed to the communal front door was inadequate. For example, the resident emailed the landlord on the 11 October 2021, saying that a neighbour had painted the front door in a substandard condition, the door knocker was falling off, and the lock did not work with residents’ keys. The landlord attended the property to repair the door on, or around, 11 November 2021. Although it repaired the lock, and adjusted the door hinge, its records do not show if it repaired the knocker. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, available on our webpage, says that records should tell the full story of what happened, when, and why. The landlord should consider self-assessing against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, to ensure its record keeping practices are robust.
In its complaints response, the landlord told the resident that it had completed the repairs, other than replacing the carpet in the communal areas, but it did not say which repairs it had completed. It would have been clearer for the resident if the landlord had given the exact details of the repairs it had logged and carried out. After receiving the landlord’s stage 1 response, the resident said the landlord had not repaired the door as the letter box was falling off, and the paint was chipped. This investigation did not find any evidence that the resident had reported a repair for the letterbox before her request for the landlord to escalate her complaint on 26 April 2022, so the landlord could not have been expected to repair it previously, as it may have been reasonably unaware of the problem. After receiving the resident’s email, the landlord arranged an inspection and subsequent repairs, which was appropriate. The landlord repaired the letterbox in or around June 2022, which was within a reasonable timeframe.
However, the resident had reported the issues with the paintwork in her initial complaint. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this concern, and the resident told the Ombudsman that the paintwork has not been repaired. The resident said the painting was poor quality and the paint was “stripping off”, and painting the door without permission may have been a breach of the neighbour’s occupancy agreement. As such it would have been appropriate for the landlord to investigate her reports and repaint the door if necessary. Its failure to do so was inappropriate and may have led her to feel that the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously.
While the landlord appropriately acknowledged errors in its handling of the resident’s complaint and carried out repairs to the door, its failure to address the resident’s concern about the paintwork was a service failure. To put things right for the resident, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £100 for the inconvenience this caused.
2. Inspect the front door to see if it has been painted without permission and if any repairs are needed to rectify this.
3. Following the inspection, it should tell the resident in writing if it intends to carry out any further repair to the front door and give a timescale for the repair.
4. If the landlord finds that the resident’s neighbour has painted the communal door without its consent, it should tell the resident if it considers the unauthorised painting of the front door to be a breach of her neighbour’s occupancy agreement and if it intends to take any enforcement action. The landlord may be limited in the specific information it can share with the resident about her neighbour due to data protection, but it should be able to provide a general update to demonstrate it is taking appropriate action in response to her concerns.

The communal areas of the property

In the resident’s occupancy agreement, the landlord says it will decorate the outside of the property and communal areas “from time to time”. It says that residents who live in a flat in a street property with a shared entrance or hallway, are jointly responsible for ‘keeping the shared entrance or hallway clean and tidy”. As such, it was appropriate for the landlord to replace the communal carpet when the resident complained about its condition. However, its communication around the resident’s concerns was inadequate and the replacement took too long.
There were long gaps in the landlord’s correspondence with the resident about the carpet replacement, and the landlord’s records do not show that it responded to all the resident’s emails. In addition, the landlord repeatedly failed to do what it said. For example:
1. On 19 November 2020 the landlord agreed to inspect the communal area the following week and arrange any works needed. This was appropriate but its records do not show if it did this. This was a record keeping failure.
2. If it did inspect the area, it does not appear that it updated the resident, as she emailed about the issue again on 11 and 26 October 2021.
3. On 26 April 2022, the landlord said it would replace the carpet in approximately 4 weeks, but it did not.
4. On 26 October 2022, the landlord told the resident it had raised a repair to replace the carpet in her building and would let her know when an appointment was confirmed. The records suggest that it did not do this, as the resident contacted it again on 5 January 2023 to ask it for an update.
The landlord’s failure to do what it said it would and failure to respond to the resident’s concerns in a timely manner were inappropriate and will have undermined the landlord-tenant relationship.
The records provided to this investigation show the carpet was replaced 1 November 2023. The landlord has not explained why it took nearly 3 years to replace the carpet, so the Ombudsman considers that this was an unacceptable, avoidable delay.
The resident did not only complain about the communal carpets. She asked the landlord who was “responsible for” the communal areas, including redecoration of the walls. She said that the walls had only been painted once in 22 years and that they were unsightly. There is no evidence the landlord responded to this issue. This was not appropriate, as the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, which sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling, says that landlord should respond to all elements of a complaint. The resident’s occupancy agreement says that the landlord is responsible for redecoration of communal areas of the building, so it should have explained this to her, told her how often it redecorates communal areas, and how it assesses if redecoration is needed. Given her complaint, it would also have been reasonable for the landlord to inspect the communal area of her building to see if redecoration of the walls was required.
The resident also told the Ombudsman that although the landlord told her that it does not provide a caretaking service to the building she lives in, as it is a street property with communal areas, it did not tell her who is responsible for maintenance, including regular cleaning. This was frustrating for her. As a result, she says she is the only resident of the building cleaning the communal area although she does not know if this is her responsibility. The resident’s occupancy agreement shows that in street properties, residents are jointly responsible for keeping communal areas clean and tidy, so the landlord should have explained this.
Cumulatively the landlord’s failure to respond to all the resident’s concerns in a timely manner, and the avoidable delay in it replacing the carpet, amount to maladministration. To put things right for the resident, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £150 in compensation for the inconvenience and frustration that these will have caused her. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance says that awards in this range are appropriate where failures by the landlord have had a detrimental impact on the resident, but this has not been permanent.
3. The landlord should also consider writing to all the residents in the building reminding them of their joint responsibility to keep the communal areas clean and tidy.

The windows

The landlord’s repairs handbook says that it is responsible for repairs to windows, including sills, frames, and vents. Residents are responsible for repairs to window handles and locks, and draught excluders.
The landlord’s records show that it has carried several repairs and surveys of the windows in the resident’s home. These were appropriate, as they met the landlord’s repairs obligations as outlined in its repairs handbook. The landlord says that the windows in the resident’s property are adequate, and in working order. As such, it does not intend to change the resident’s windows to UPVC windows. This is frustrating for the resident, as she says she pays the same level of rent as her neighbour, and the property is the same size, but she does not feel she has the same facilities. Although the resident’s frustration is understandable, the landlord is not required to provide the resident with the same fixtures and fittings it provides to any other property, so its decision not to replace the windows was reasonable.
In correspondence with the landlord, the resident also raised concerns that due to the condition and type of window in her property, she may need to pay additional energy costs. The landlord should have addressed this concern, but the evidence does not show that it did. This was not reasonable, as it may have led the resident to feel that the landlord was not listening to her. As she had disclosed worries about energy costs, the landlord could also have signposted her to a local energy support service.
The landlord’s records show the resident repeatedly asked the landlord to explain why it had upgraded her neighbour’s windows but not hers. The landlord’s records do not show that it responded to these concerns until the resident complained. After the resident complained, the landlord acknowledged that it had not upgraded her window at the same time as her neighbour’s windows. It also explained why, when it later upgraded the resident’s windows, it replaced them like-for-like. However, it did not explain why her windows were not replaced when it upgraded her neighbour’s windows. It should have done this, and if it could not do so it should have explained this to the resident. Its failure to do this was a communication failure which may have led the resident to feel her concerns were not being taken seriously.
This was a service failure. To put things right, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for its repeated failure to provide a full explanation.
2. Explain to the resident in writing why she was not given UPVC windows at the same time as her neighbour. If the landlord is unable to do this, it should explain why it cannot do so.
3. Pay her £100 for the avoidable time and trouble taken to pursue her complaint about the issue.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s corporate complaints policy says that it has a 3 stage complaints process. At stage one, the landlord says it will respond within 15 working days and at stage 2, it will respond within 15 working days. These timescales align with or are shorter than the timescales set by the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code). The Code says that landlords must acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond at stage one of their complaints process in 10 working days, and at stage 2 of their complaints process in 20 working days.
However, the new Code, which was published on 1 April 2024, says that “a complaints process with more than two stages is not acceptable under any circumstances as this will make the complaint process unduly long and delay access to the Ombudsman.” As such, the landlord should review its complaints policy against the Code to ensure that it aligns. In this case, the resident was not disadvantaged by the landlord’s 3 stage complaints process as the landlord appropriately told her she could contact the Ombudsman if she was not happy with its stage 2 complaint responses.
The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaints within its policy timescales in all 4 of the complaint responses considered by this investigation. This was not appropriate. This caused the resident inconvenience, and additional time and trouble as she had to send further emails chasing the landlord’s responses.
The landlord explained that there was an unprecedented demand on its complaint service in its stage 1 response sent on 26 April 2022. It said it had allocated additional staffing to its complaints team to enable it to meet demand. This was an appropriate step to enable the landlord to respond within its policy timescales in future. However, the landlord’s subsequent delayed responses indicate that it was still unable to meet demand up until at least December 2022. The landlord should review the data it holds on how many of its complaints it responds to outside of its complaints policy timescales to consider whether its current resourcing is adequate.
The landlord’s stage 1 response, sent on 26 April 2022, did not fully address the resident’s concerns. For example, in relation to her concerns about the amount of time and trouble she had taken to report repairs to the landlord, she asked it to review its records and listen to the calls she had made. The landlord did not address this request in its response.
The resident indicated that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response about her windows on 29 September and 18 October 2022. As such the landlord should have escalated her complaint to stage 2 of its complaint’s process. The records seen by this investigation indicate that the landlord failed to do so until she sent a third email on 9 November 2022. This was inappropriate and caused the resident additional time and effort.
The landlord’s failure to meet its complaint policy timescales on 4 occasions, with a cumulative delay of 9 months, amounted to maladministration. The landlord is ordered to directly pay the resident £100 in compensation within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available on our website, says that awards in this range are appropriate where failures by the landlord have adversely affected the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints about:
1. Repair and maintenance of the communal areas in her building.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints about:
1. Her windows.
2. The communal front door to her building.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £450 in compensation, comprising:
  1. £100 for the avoidable time and trouble taken to pursue her complaint about the windows.
  2. £100 for its failure to address all the resident’s concerns about the communal front door.
  3. £150 for failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about the repair and maintenance of the communal areas.
  4. £100 for its complaint handling failures.
3. Inspect the front door to see if it has been painted without permission and if any repairs are needed to rectify this. After inspecting, it should:
  1. Tell the resident in writing if it intends to carry out any further repair to the front door.
  2. Complete any repair within its published timescales.
  3. Tell the resident if it considers any unauthorised painting of the front door to be a breach of her neighbour’s occupancy agreement and if it intends to take any enforcement action.
4. Explain to the resident in writing why she was not given UPVC windows at the same time as her neighbour. If the landlord is unable to do this, it should explain why.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should review the data it holds on how many of its complaints it responds to outside of its complaints policy timescales to consider whether its current resourcing is adequate.
The landlord should consider self-assessing against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, to ensure its record keeping practices are robust.
The landlord should consider writing to all the residents in the building reminding them of their joint responsibility to keep the communal areas clean and tidy.