Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Lambeth Council (202004208)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004208

Lambeth Council

7 December 2020


Our approach

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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 the resident’s reports of a leak in her property.

 

Background and summary of events

 

  1. During the second half of 2016 the resident started experiencing problems with a leak to her property which appeared to be coming from the roof. In June, July and September 2016 the landlord ‘raised’ repairs, with the renewal/repair of roof tiles being the main focus. The final repair was noted as completed on 1 February 2017. On 25 April 2017 a further repair was raised to “make good defective work that was still within the defective liability period”. The resident chased this work in August, October and November 2017. In June and July 2019, the resident chased a different repair order which the landlord had now raised. On 29 July 2019 the landlord raised a further repair to the roof.

 

  1. On 5 August 2019 the resident complained about the situation and an “Early Resolution” complaint was registered. On 20 August 2019 the resident contacted the landlord to report that an appointment for that day to conduct repairs had not been kept. On 12 September 2019 the resident raised a “Local Resolution” complaint.

 

  1. The landlord raised another order for roof tile repairs/replacement on 13 September 2019.

 

  1. On 23 September 2019 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint stating that it was being treated as “a Local Resolution” complaint. It confirmed that an appointment had been made for 30 September 2019 for its contractor to repair the roof, apologised for the delay, and advised that the resident was entitled to have her complaint reviewed if she remained dissatisfied.

 

  1. In the landlord’s letter of 28 November 2019, it expressed its disappointment that it had not been able to “achieve a local resolution” of the complaint and that it would now conduct a review, giving a full response by 30 December 2019. The landlord then emailed the resident on 30 December 2019, advising that it was still investigating the complaint and would need a further 7 – 14 working days to conclude matters. On 20 January 2020 the reviewing officer contacted the resident to discuss the details of her complaint.

 

  1. In the landlord’s review stage response of 24 January 2020, it detailed the chronology of the repairs carried out to the roof from June 2016 onwards. It said that seven separate orders for works had been raised and there had been two other cancelled orders. In terms of the history of the complaint itself, the landlord noted that, on 5 August 2019, it had registered an “Early Resolution” complaint, with a “Local Resolution” response being issued on 23 September 2019. The complaint was then escalated to the review stage on 28 November 2019.

 

  1. The landlord acknowledged that there was a long-term leak from the roof and that the cause had not yet been identified. An appointment was being arranged for 14 February 2020 for its surveyor to inspect the roof with a view to finding a permanent solution. In the meantime, it accepted that there had been delays in dealing with the issue including unattended appointments. The resident had been put to time and trouble in having to chase up various jobs raised, and it therefore offered £300 compensation in that regard. Finally, it provided information on how the resident could make an insurance claim for any damage to her belongings.

 

  1. In the resident’s response of 27 January 2020, she stated that she would hold off taking any further action until one month after the surveyor’s visit on 14 February 2020, to give the landlord time to finish the repairs. She said that she had been told the scaffolders would attend on 24 January 2020 but they had failed to turn up.

 

  1. The resident then reported that, on 8 February 2020, she had contacted the landlord to confirm that the scaffolding had been erected the day before and was told its contractor would contact her directly regarding carrying out the necessary work.

 

  1. The landlord’s records show that it attended the property on 14 February 2020 when it noted that there was a leak into the bedroom with staining to the ceiling. It confirmed that scaffolding had already been erected to the front of the building. On 17 February 2020 the landlord wrote to the downstairs tenant requesting access to their property for inspection purposes.

 

  1. The resident reports chasing the matter with the landlord’s contact centre on 21 and 28 April 2020. Following her second contact she emailed the landlord asking for her complaint be escalated to the third stage of its complaints procedure. She said that its surveyor had attended on 14 February 2020 to inspect the roof and had told her they would write up their findings, but she had heard nothing further. In the meantime, the scaffolding had been up since 7 February 2020. She was told some work had been done on 2 April 2020 but she had witnessed nothing. She stated that her bedroom ceiling was leaking again that day but was told the work was delayed due to the pandemic. Given the history and timescale of this matter she considered that this was being used as an excuse by the landlord and she was now at ‘her wits end’.

 

  1. The landlord replied the next day stating that it was looking into the situation with the repairs urgently and that the resident should follow its complaint review response procedure to take it further. The resident replied on 30 April 2020 stating that she would hold off pursuing her complaint for another two weeks to give the landlord a final opportunity to resolve the issue.

 

  1. On 6 May 2020 the landlord’s surveyor emailed the resident regarding the “intermittent roof leak”. They confirmed that scaffolding would be required to investigate where the leak was coming from and that access was needed through the downstairs property, but this was proving impossible. They advised that there needed to be an adaption of the scaffold to the front of the property, but this had not taken place prior to lockdown. They said that works would take place when normal services were resumed following the pandemic restrictions being lifted.

 

  1. In the resident’s response of 7 May 2020, she highlighted that scaffolding had been in place since 7 February 2020, but no progress had been made. She reiterated that she had been told that works had taken place on 2 April 2020 but she had not witnessed anything and felt she would have done had this been the case. She stated that she would be taking her complaint further as the landlord had had ample opportunity to deal with the matter before the restrictions came into place.

 

  1. On 13 May 2020 the landlord emailed the resident to apologise that the work had still not been done and confirmed that it was looking at what it could do given the pandemic restrictions. On the same day the resident emailed the landlord repeating that the scaffolding had been erected on 7 February 2020 and that she had advised it of this on 8 February 2020. She pointed out that, whilst the landlord had said it could only carry out emergency repairs as a result of the pandemic, it was carrying out an upgrade to the communal areas of the building which was not an emergency. She considered that the landlord had wasted at least 30 days before the lockdown to look at the roof.

 

  1. On 26 October 2020 the resident reported to this Service that the scaffolding was still up and was being checked regularly but no works had been carried out. On 10 November 2020 the landlord’s contractor wrote to the resident asking her to make contact with it to arrange a date for inspection.

 

Agreements, policies and procedures

 

  1. The tenancy agreement sets out the legal relationship between the resident and the landlord. It is subject to the landlord’s Tenancy Conditions. Under the heading “Our responsibility for repairs” it states “We (the landlord) will maintain the structure and outside of your Property”.

 

  1. The landlord’s Repairs Manual sets out its policies for dealing with repairs. It states that:

 

21.1         repairs are separated into 5 priorities ranging from Emergency, urgent, non-urgent, routine and planned, with working times of 1 day, 3 days, 7 days, 28 days and 90 days respectively;

 

21.2         once a repair has been reported, the landlord will assess its priority, provide an order number and make an appointment to carry it out – the relevant operative attending as arranged. The landlord states its aim is to complete repairs on that first visit but if that is not possible, a second visit will be arranged or an explanation will be given as to where the issue goes from there;

 

21.3         roof repairs are the landlord’s responsibility.

 

  1. The landlord’s Complaints Policy states that:

 

22.1         in the first instance it will try to solve complaints informally by way of “Early Resolution” and without giving a written response. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can request their complaint be treated formally in which case it will be referred to as a “Local Resolution”. Residents must request this within 20 working days and give reasons as to why they remain unhappy with the outcome and what their preferred solution is;

 

22.2         A more senior staff member will then review the situation and provide a response within 20 working days. If the landlord requires extra time, it will keep the resident advised as to when it expects to be able to provide its response. All responses will be confirmed in writing;

 

22.3         If the resident still remains dissatisfied, they can request a review, stating why the previous review was inadequate and what outcome they are hoping for. The landlord will then provide its final response.

 

  1. The landlord’s Compensation Policy sets out the landlord’s approach to providing a suitable remedy to a complaint. It states that:

 

23.1         The landlord can offer financial compensation to remedy a service failure which has had an adverse effect on the resident. The investigating officer should consider any anxiety, frustration, worry, or uncertainty caused to the resident together with the length of time involved;

 

23.2         The landlord can consider the resident’s ‘time and trouble’ in making the complaint, where the resident has had to go beyond what might reasonably be expected to bring a complaint to the landlord’s attention. For example this might include situations where the complaint has taken extra time to resolve or the landlord’s responses have been inadequate or delayed;

 

23.3         For time and trouble a bracket of £50 – £250 is given depending on the extent of the inconvenience the resident has been put to;

 

23.4         Missed appointments are to be compensated at the rate of £20 each;

 

23.5         “all parts of a compensation payment should be cumulative”.

 

Assessment and Findings

 

The Leak/Repair

 

  1. The roof of the property is part of its structure and the tenancy agreement and repairs manual both state that the roof’s repair and maintenance is the landlord’s responsibility. Indeed, there is no dispute that the leak in the resident’s property is coming from the roof and that this is for the landlord to resolve. 

 

  1. Despite a number of attempts, over a prolonged period of time, the landlord has not been able to identify a permanent remedy for what is an intermittent leak. The evidence demonstrates that it is not the kind of leak which would require an emergency call out or render the property uninhabitable. It is low grade but that does not diminish the impact on the resident who has coped with this ongoing problem during most of her occupation of the property.

 

  1. This Service cannot offer an expert opinion on the cause of the leak or even if the intermittent leaks are caused by the same fault or different ones. Further, it is not for the Ombudsman to determine how the issue can be resolved or what repairs are required. Instead, it is for this Service to assess how the landlord approached the problem and whether its response was reasonable and appropriate in all the circumstances of the case.

 

  1. The initial repairs/investigations go back to 2016 and are now historic. It becomes increasingly difficult for an independent body such as the Ombudsman to conduct an effective review of actions taken so long ago, although they do provide context to the current situation. Therefore, whilst consideration is given to events which occurred between 2016 and 2018, the focus of this investigation is on events from 2019 onwards and particularly the formal complaint made in August 2019.

 

  1. The evidence shows that, at the outset of these leaks, the landlord categorised them as a “routine” repair with a 28–day resolution time, according to its Repairs Manual. There is no evidence to suggest that this approach was not appropriate given the situation at the time. Also according to the evidence, there have been sustained periods where there have been no of water ingress, for example during 2018. However, matters started to gather momentum again in the summer of 2019 when a further work order was raised, and the resident initiated her formal complaint. Attempts to find a solution have stalled during 2020 and whilst the landlord has blamed restrictions as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, the resident considers that to be an opportune excuse to cover up its inaction. In the meantime, the property has had scaffolding fixed to it for most of the year but, following the surveyors visit on 14 February 2020 and possibly some work having been undertaken on 2 April 2020, nothing further has been done to resolve the situation.

 

  1. In its final complaint review of 24 January 2020, the landlord accepted that there had been delays in it taking action to fix the problem and there were missed appointments along the way. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s overall operation has been impacted by the pandemic restrictions as they have affected all areas of society. However, the landlord would reasonably have been expected to take action to progress the repair in the months prior to the pandemic and the government restrictions being put in place, and in the time since those restrictions were relaxed in early summer 2020.

 

  1. The landlord’s Repairs Manual states that where a repair cannot be concluded straightaway an explanation will be given with a plan for where the issue will be taken from there. There is little evidence of the landlord formulating any sort of plan to resolve this issue or of keeping the resident informed. Instead, the evidence demonstrates that, during periods when the resident did not actively pursue the landlord for progress, there was no impetus on the landlord’s part to move the matter forward or complete the repair. As a result, the resident has been left with an ongoing unpredictable problem, despite her complaint having been reviewed, admissions of fault having been made by the landlord, and compensation being offered.

 

  1. The landlord has unreasonably delayed in resolving this repair issue and this is inappropriate. The fact the fault cannot be identified might lessen the landlord’s failing in the sense that it suggests that the solution is not straightforward – it defies investigation and any reasonable landlord might, therefore, have had the same difficulty. However, the evidence shows that the delay here is also due to the lack of a proactive approach by the landlord coupled with a lack of communication with the resident – and this should have been avoidable.

 

The Complaint

 

  1. The landlord delayed in providing its written response at the review stage. It committed to giving a response by 30 December 2019 and, whilst it did contact the resident that day to say that it needed another 7 to14 working days, its response was still a week late on this revised timetable. This was not in accordance with its Complaints Policy and was inappropriate in the circumstances, particularly given the longstanding nature of the complaint. This would have understandably compounded the resident’s frustration and exacerbated the ongoing difficulties posed by the substantive issue.

 

  1. The landlord offered compensation of £300 for the resident’s time and trouble and for missed appointments. It is not clear how many appointments were missed (and therefore what figure is attributable to those) but, given that the maximum amount the landlord’s Compensation Policy envisages for such inconvenience is £250 there is an element in the offer to reflect that failing.

 

  1. The landlord’s policy does allow it to compensate residents for distress, anxiety, worry and uncertainty in addition to the above. In the circumstances, it might, therefore, reasonably have been expected to offer some compensation on this basis in addition to that in respect of inconvenience. Together with the fact that the complaints process did not serve to move the repairs forward, and the issue remains unresolved, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s offer of redress was not sufficient to recognise the impact of its failings on the resident. As a result, an order for increased compensation is made in that regard.

 

Determination (decision)

 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak to her property.  

 

Reasons

 

  1. The resident has suffered an intermittent leak to her property for four years which, it is agreed, comes from the roof and is the landlord’s responsibility to repair. Identifying the source of the leak has proved difficult, but this has been exacerbated by delays in attempting to find a resolution to the problem, and failures in communication on the landlord’s part. The resident has been put to significant time and trouble in maintaining the impetus on the landlord to manage the repair. The leak has been present, intermittently, during most of her occupation of the property. It is reasonable to conclude that it has caused significant anxiety, worry and distress as well as taking up her time.

 

Orders

 

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:

 

37.1         pay the resident £400 compensation. If the £300 compensation offered previously has already been paid, this may be deducted from this sum;

 

37.2         arrange for an inspection of the roof (if this is not already in hand) to identify the fault;

 

37.3         contact the resident to update her on the situation and provide a timetable and plan for resolution of the repair.