Lambeth and Southwark Housing Association Limited (202114084)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114084

Lambeth and Southwark Housing Association Limited

4 July 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Attempts to carry out a gas safety inspection.
   2. Repairs to the property.

Background

2. The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under an assured tenancy. The property is a studio flat and she has lived there since April 2011. The landlord is aware that the resident has both physical and mental health problems. The resident has brought the complaint to this service via a representative.
3. During 2022 the landlord made many attempts to make contact with the resident and visit the property to carry out a gas safety inspection and inspect the property for possible repair issues. During this time the landlord was unable to make contact with the resident or gain access to the property. In response to the landlord’s letters and access attempts, the resident’s representative said that the landlord was ‘bullying and harassing’ her.
4. The representative contacted this Service on 25 November 2022 asking for help in addressing the resident’s problems with the landlord. We forwarded the complaint to the landlord on 19 January 2023, who issued a stage 1 response on 1 February. It said that it had tried to attend an appointment to inspect the property on 31 January but there was no answer, and was not able to provide a full response to the complaint without carrying out an inspection. It asked her to contact it by 10 February to organise a visit.
5. The representative emailed the landlord on 21 February 2023 saying that there had been no constructive response received. The landlord responded on 28 February, saying that it would not escalate the complaint as the resident was not engaging with it and had failed to provide relevant information relating to the complaint. It again asked her to contact it by 10 March to organise a visit.
6. The landlord tried to visit the resident on 20 March 2023 with a gas engineer and surveyor with no success, and wrote to her again on 21 March, again asking her to make contact with it to arrange a visit. The representative responded saying that a joint visit needed to be arrange with social services, so on 23 March the landlord reached out to adult social care and sent the resident a consent form to allow for it to liaise with relevant third parties.
7. Following another failed visit attempt on 28 March 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident on 4 April to offer mediation with an independent organisation to discuss her concerns and asked her to respond by 18 April.
8. The landlord had several further failed attempts to visit before sending a further complaint response on 6 July 2023 saying it had closed the complaint as she had not provided access to the property.
9. On 6 October 2023 the representative contacted this Service to ask us to investigate. Since then the landlord raised concerns with the local authority’s safeguarding team in November 2023 and has made a number of further attempts to visit the property, without success.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

10. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
11. According to paragraph 41(c) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters that are the subject of court proceedings or were the subject of court proceedings where judgement on the merits was given.
12. The landlord has provided a copy of the particulars of claim relating to a possession hearing that was due to take place on 28 June 2024. This Service has not yet received confirmation of whether this took place on that date. However, these documents show that the landlord was seeking possession on the grounds that the resident had failed to grant access to the property in order for a gas safety inspection to be carried out.
13. As the court has, or will be, deciding on whether the landlord has acted reasonably and has grounds for possession in relation to this issue, this particular complaint issue is outside of the jurisdiction of this Service. The court documents note the access issue in relation to the gas safety inspection only. As such, the repair issues remain within the our jurisdiction.

The landlord’s handling of repairs

14. According to paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
15. The representative has said that there has been problems with disrepair going back a decade, however this Service has not seen evidence of a formal complaint logged before 19 January 2023. This Service will therefore only investigate matters from the start of 2022 onwards.
16. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is obligated to respond to repair requests from the tenant in accordance with the target response times according to the priority allocated to the repair requested. The resident is responsible for reporting disrepair and allowing access to the landlord’s employees or contractors on its behalf to inspect the condition of the premises or to carry out repairs or other works.
17. On 19 January 2022 the landlord emailed the resident’s solicitor and said it had not provided a report that it had previously said it would send. The landlord said it had tried to arrange access to the property but had not been given dates when it could send its contractors. On 21 January the landlord tried to visit the property but no one answered the door.
18. On 28 January 2022 the landlord hand delivered a letter to the resident saying that it had been trying to access the property for a while to carry out works and asked her to call into its office with documentation. It noted at this time that it had reason to believe that the property was not the resident’s sole and principal home. It has not provided further information about why it thought this, however it is evident the landlord had visited a number of times and received no response.
19. The representative responded to this letter via email on 3 February 2022, saying that the landlord was asking the resident to provide documentation with the purpose of ‘blackmailing her into homelessness’. The tenancy agreement stipulates that the resident must use the property as her principal home and it was not unreasonable for the landlord to ask her to verify her circumstances when it had concerns that she was not doing so.
20. There is no evidence the landlord was looking to remove the resident from the property at this time, and the information it requested was reasonable and appropriate to demonstrate the resident’s occupancy. The representative did not explain why the resident was unhappy or unable to provide the information requested.
21. The landlord wrote to the resident again on 15 February 2022 asking her to visit its office on 22 February and followed this up with a text message on 21 February asking her to confirm the appointment. In the meantime, the representative emailed the landlord on 17 February saying that the landlord was continuing to bully the resident and had not fixed problems. The representative emailed again on 21 February saying that the letters were distressing the resident and were blackmailing her. No explanation was provided as to why the representative felt these letters were unreasonable.
22. The resident did not attend the appointment on 22 February 2022 and on 25 February the landlord contacted the resident’s solicitor to say its client had still not made contact.
23. On 14 April 2022 the landlord sent the resident a notice seeking possession as she had failed to provide access to the property and it believed she was no longer living there. The landlord attempted to visit on 26 April with a surveyor, so it could carry out an inspection, however there was no answer and a contact card was left.
24. On 13 May 2022 the landlord again visited the property. On this occasion the resident did open the door, but refused entry and told the landlord to speak to her solicitor.
25. The representative contacted this Service on 20 October 2022 and confirmed that there had been a disrepair claim started but that no legal proceedings were underway due to a problem with the resident’s solicitor, which was being looked at by the Legal Ombudsman. On 25 November the representative said that the electrics in the property were faulty and asked for our help.
26. This Service contacted the landlord on 19 January 2023 and asked it to log a complaint. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 1 February, in which it said that none of the repairs issues that she had raised via this Service had been reported to it. It said it had made an appointment with her by telephone to visit on 31 January, however she had not answered the door at the agreed time.
27. The landlord said that it had not had any contact with her since 13 May 2022 when its housing officer was last able to visit, and so did not consider that there could be bullying or intimidation. It asked her to contact it by 10 February to arrange a visit so that it could fully inspect the property for repairs issues and complete a full investigation.
28. On 21 February 2023 the representative emailed this Service and the landlord to say that no constructive response had been received about the disrepair. They did not explain why they were unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 response, or why the resident was unwilling to allow the landlord to inspect the property. It is unclear what the representative expected the landlord to be able to do about the alleged disrepair if it was not permitted to carry out an inspection.
29. The landlord acknowledged the representative’s email on 28 February 2023 via  a letter to the resident, but said it would not be escalating the complaint, in line with its complaints policy as the resident was not engaging with it. It asked the resident to contact it by 10 March to arrange an inspection so it could provide a full complaint response.
30. The landlord tried to visit the property on 20 March 2023 to carry out a gas safety inspection, however it could not gain access. It wrote to her the next day and asked her to urgently make contact to arrange a visit. It also emailed her representative and said that repair orders would be raised.
31. On 23 March 2023 the representative told the landlord that a joint visit needed to be arranged through health care officials to avoid ongoing conflict. The landlord contacted adult social care who said they would attempt to contact the resident. The landlord suggested a joint visit and sent the representative a consent form to allow it to liaise with relevant third parties. There has been no evidence provided that this form was completed and returned.
32. The landlord attempted to visit on 24 March 2023 again to carry out the gas safety inspection and got no response. On 29 March it hand delivered a letter saying that it would be visiting again on 31 March, however there is no evidence this visit was successful.
33. The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 April 2023 proposing mediation to discuss her concerns, via an independent third party. Adult social care responded to all parties involved in the complaint asking for clarification on what their role was, as they do not have influence over housing matters. They also said that when they had contacted the resident for an initial telephone conversation that she had declined to engage with them.
34. On 24 May 2023 the representative emailed the landlord to say that there was a problem with the electrics. The landlord sent a contractor, who the resident let into the property, and it was found that the resident’s toaster was faulty and tripping the electrics, and she was asked not to use it again. The landlord’s records state that the contractor left the electrics in safe working order.
35. The landlord continued to try to arrange visits to carry out both a gas safety inspection and a full survey of repairs issues. It sent the resident a text on 15 June 2023 to say that it would be visiting on 23 June at 11am and wrote to her on 20 June to confirm the appointment.
36. This visit was again unsuccessful and the landlord sent a further complaint response on 6 July 2023. It said it had closed the complaint as the resident had not provided access to the property and it could not investigate the complaint fully or carry out necessary repairs. It said that legal proceedings had commenced and an injunction hearing was scheduled for 11 July 2023 to request access to the property.
37. The landlord continued to make attempts to access the property in August and October 2023, with no success. On 10 October it made a safeguarding referral to social services as it was concerned about her wellbeing. On 3 November the safeguarding team confirmed that it would not be progressing the concerns and suggested that the landlord continued with its intended court action.
38. The Ombudsman does not consider that there has been maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of repairs to the property. The landlord has demonstrated that it has tried to gain access to her property in order to carry out an inspection to determine what repairs need to be carried out.
39. The resident’s representative said that the landlord had not provided a constructive solution in response to the complaint, however it is not clear what they expected the landlord to be able to do without visiting the property. The landlord cannot be expected to know what work needs to be completed without inspecting the property.
40. The landlord offered mediation, and at the representative’s request, contacted social services to try to arrange a joint visit, however the resident also declined to engage with them. Whilst this Service appreciates that the resident has mental and physical health issues which have made the situation difficult for her to deal with, this does not mean she is no longer bound by the obligations set out in the tenancy agreement.
41. This Service has seen no explanation for why the resident and her representative feel that the landlord’s actions amounted to bullying and harassment. The representative has said that there are repair issues that needed to be fixed, and the landlord has acted reasonably to try and gain access to the property to investigate these issues.
42. The landlord has acted in line with its obligations under the tenancy agreement, as much as it could, and engaged with third parties at the representative’s request. The Ombudsman does not consider that it could have reasonably done more in the circumstances.

Determination

43. In accordance with paragraph 41(c) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of attempts to carry out a gas safety inspection is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
44. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of repairs to the property.