Lambeth Council (202006404)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006404

Lambeth Council

24 November 2021

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 resident complains about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the kitchen renewal work at the property, and;
2. its response to her subsequent formal complaint.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The landlord’s repairs policy in place at the time complained of states that repairs that were undertaken as part of an agreed program and/or improvement works would be carried out within a specified timescale, or 90 days unless otherwise stated.
The landlord’s complaint policy in place at the time complained of sets out a three-stage process:
1. Early resolution, where the landlord would try and resolve the issue straight away, without a written response, and the complaint would be recorded as closed unless the landlord received further communications.
2. Local resolution stage, where a more senior member of staff would take a fresh look at the problem and provide a response within 20 working days.
3. The final review stage, undertaken by an Improvement & Review Officer and a member of Senior Leadership Group.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that compensation can be paid in cases where service failure has adversely affected the customer.

Summary of events

The Ombudsman understands that planned works to upgrade the kitchen at the property began around August 2020. The resident has explained that they were intended to take 10 days to complete (the landlord has provided no information on timeframe).
On 14 September 2020 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about the works (the Ombudsman has not seen a copy of this). As she received no response, she contacted this Service on 28 September 2020, and the Ombudsman then wrote to the landlord on 30 September 2020 requesting that it respond to the complaint.
As the resident heard nothing further, she emailed the landlord directly on 10 November 2020, referring to her 14 September 2020 complaint and the fact that there had been no response. She explained that she had spoken with the Quality Assurance Officer on 9 October 2020 and was promised surveyors would attend to inspect the kitchen works, but this had not happened. She said, ‘The work has now taken over twelve weeks and has not been completed to a safe or satisfactory standard, resulting in the flat being unfit to live in during this time.’ The resident noted that the work had taken far longer than initially proposed, which in part was due to the kitchen being left gutted for over three weeks, as well as multiple missed appointments including 12 August, 14 August, 16 August, and 3 September 2020.
The resident explained that this had been a huge inconvenience for her family, and having to live away from home was causing a financial burden. She explained that the kitchen had been left without electricity on some sockets and the washing machine, fitted as part of the refurbishment, had caused water damage to the new units. She said that the washing machine was plugged into an extension cable with the plugs sitting directly under the sink, which was unsafe, and when plumbers came to fix the leak ‘…they were shocked and were unable to carry out the work I had requested as there were live electrics in an area surrounded by water.’ The resident said that the incorrect placing of the washing machine was due to the contractor taking the wrong measurements on 10 July 2020, and the alternative kitchen design that had been installed because of the incorrect measurements was ‘unfit for purpose.’ She stated, ‘In addition to these fundamental issues with the design, the overall finish of the work is poor with incomplete tiling, no skirting boards, rubbish left outside the front door and damage to my new fridge.’
The resident asked for a full investigation into the work that had been carried out, to determine the best method for resolving the issues detailed and so that she could move back home. In addition, the resident noted that there had been no response to the complaint she made five weeks ago, and in general communication had been poor.
Following on from further contact from the resident, the Ombudsman again wrote to the landlord noting that it had yet to issue a complaint response and asked it to do so within five working days.
Internal emails dated 27 November 2020 and 9 December 2020 evidence the landlord making enquiries about the case with the contractor, and noting that a post inspection failed on 26 October 2020 as kitchen cupboards needed to be re-measured and fitted. The contractor stated that a post inspection was passed on 4 December 2020 and said ‘The reason behind the delays is that we were having trouble getting in contact with our subcontractors back in July which slowed down the progression of the works. I have also been advised that the subcontractors we assigned the jobs to were affected by the lockdown and the restrictions due to covid, many of their staff were on furlough and therefore they were short staffed.’
There was further contact from the resident in December 2020, in which she explained to this Service that the kitchen upgrade had taken 15 weeks to complete. She stated that after post inspecting the work, the landlord’s surveyor recommended some flooring and tiling work be carried out. The resident explained that she was seeking compensation for the length of time it took to complete the work, during which she did not have the use of her kitchen.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord again on 28 December 2020, with a final request to provide a complaint response. The landlord responded on 13 January 2021 stating that the matter was logged at the local resolution stage of its complaint process and the investigation was still ongoing. It said ‘I have escalated this matter to our Repairs Manager asking that the customer is provided with an urgent update. We will of course address any delay in complaint handling when considering a suitable remedy for this complaint.’
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord again on 4 February 2021, issuing it with a Complaint Handling Failure Order under paragraph 13 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, on the basis that it had failed to comply with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The landlord was advised that it had not managed the resident’s complaint within a reasonable timescale, resulting in unnecessary delay and inconvenience. The landlord was ordered to provide a formal complaint response by 11 February 2021 and, if it did not do so, the complaint could be formally investigated by the Ombudsman.
As the landlord did not provide a response, the complaint was accepted for formal investigation, with the resident explaining during a telephone call on 14 February 2021 that the kitchen renewal work was completed in December 2020, but not to a satisfactory standard because of a leak from the kitchen sink that started after completion. She said that overall, it had taken three to four months to complete the kitchen renewal work.
On 1 March 2021 the landlord provided a response to the complaint. In this it said ‘Delays to works being completed are due Covid-19 restrictions preventing access during lockdown and contractors working with a ‘limited work force’ at that time.’ In addition, it said that errors with specifications and the scope of works had caused further delays. It said that the resident had since brought to its attention further concerns around the quality of works, a leak under the sink and the damage it caused. These issues were being addressed separately and the area surveyor would be in touch to arrange an inspection.
The landlord stated that the complaint had been upheld because there had been a lack of communication between its contractors and the resident and offered sincere apologies for any inconvenience caused. It said ‘For Compensation/re-imbursement residents can claim on their contents insurance if they have experienced damage to personal items or belongings. Alternatively, you can log a claim with Lambeth …’.
On 5 March 2021 the resident’s MP wrote to the Ombudsman, stating that the complaint response only made reference to a ‘lack of communication’, despite the resident’s efforts to contact, chase and update the landlord on a daily basis.

Assessment and findings

When considering complaints the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles, which are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
2. Put things right
3. Learn from outcomes
In her complaint to this Service, the resident explained that the kitchen renewal works were supposed to take ten days, but in fact took around three to four months. She says that at one point the kitchen was left gutted and empty for a month, meaning that she and had to move out to live with family due to this lack of facilities. She explained that shelving and cupboards were installed incorrectly, as was the sink, which resulted in a leak causing the kitchen cupboards to swell.
The resident has also said that the washing machine was relocated as part of the work but the landlord did not move the plug sockets to allow for this, and instead ran an extension cable from under the sink to plug in the washing machine. However, the extension plug was submerged in water after the leak, and it took around a week for the landlord to resolve this. The resident also states that she was constantly having to chase the landlord, and that appointments were repeatedly missed. She has explained that more recently the landlord has offered £150 compensation, but she does not consider this a sufficient amount to remedy the matter, and suggests compensation of at least one month’s rent at £620 would be more appropriate.
The Ombudsman asked the landlord to submit information to assist with this investigation, however, very little has been provided. For example, a request was made for the resident’s original complaint and any other contact notes, correspondence, internal emails or call records relating to the landlord’s handling of the complaint. This has not been forthcoming, with only a call log of contact made by the resident on 6 October and 16 December 2020, but no details of what was discussed.
This Service also asked for records of dates the property was attended to carry out the kitchen works, and in response the landlord provided an email from its contractor confirming completion of the works in December 2020. The landlord has also provided a copy of the works order for the kitchen. Neither of these documents give any information on attendances, and there is no information regarding the original proposed timescale, or evidence that supports the landlord’s view that it was the Covid-19 pandemic that caused the delays, or any other information or evidence relating to the delays and errors with the works.
Repair records that have been provided appear to show a works order being raised in early 2020 for a kitchen upgrade. It is not clear when works started, though it appears that they were first ‘completed’ in October 2020, but then failed the follow up inspection, with full completion in December 2020. That same month the repair records show that the resident reported that the kitchen sink was leaking around the seal, affecting the property below. This Service requested copies of any survey or inspection reports, or feedback from other employees or contractors in respect of the matter but no information has been provided. The repair records show that the resident contacted the landlord in October 2020 to complain that the works had taken nine weeks to complete to date, and there was an issue with the standard. However, there is no evidence of post works inspections or action taken to address the resident’s concerns about the quality of the kitchen replacement.
Neither is there any evidence of the area surveyor carrying out an inspection following on from the March 2021 complaint response. In fact, the resident has told this Service that this did not happen, and that the leak under the sink is ongoing, causing damage to the unit, and makeshift shelves are still in place.
This lack of records is concerning and a serious failing on the part of the landlord. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the age and condition of the structure and its fittings within the property, enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors.
While the resident has not provided evidence that supports her version of events, the Ombudsman would not necessarily expect residents to be able to do so, not having access to the resources and systems that a professional body such as the landlord has.
This lack of evidence is further compounded by the brief (and extremely delayed) response to the formal complaint, which did not provide any detail on the works, nor address the issues that the resident raised. The Ombudsman notes that the response did not refute or deny the account provided by the resident and acknowledged that there were delays and errors.
Taking all the above into consideration, the resident’s account of events that the kitchen works that were intended to take 10 days in fact took around three to four months to complete is accepted, resulting in significant inconvenience to the resident who had to chase the landlord on many occasions, provide access to contractors and endure missed appointments. She was left without the full use of her kitchen for a prolonged period, and felt unable to live in the property for a month. The resident reports that there are still works outstanding.
Despite the landlord acknowledging failings in its 1 March 2021 letter, it offered no remedy to ‘put things right’ for the resident, instead directing her to make an insurance claim. It is not clear why the landlord referred the resident to make a claim for damaged belongings, as this was not something that she particularly appeared to be complaining about: Her focus was on the frustration and inconvenience of the delayed works. Therefore, the landlord should have considered offering redress via its compensation policy.
Even in cases where damage to personal belongs is claimed, before advising a resident to claim on their own insurance, the landlord should initially have considered whether its actions may have contributed to the alleged damage (outside of any strict liability claim). If the landlord accepted that it had been at fault, it may not be reasonable to ask the resident to make a claim via their own contents insurance (particularly as this might affect a future premium and may require payment of an excess). In these circumstances, it would be appropriate for the landlord to either put right any damage caused and/or facilitate a claim on its own insurance policy for any damaged belongings.
If the landlord disputes that it is at fault, it would be reasonable to refer the resident to their own contents insurance or its own insurers. In this case there is no indication that the landlord gave any consideration to whether it may have been at fault.
There is no indication in the complaint response that the landlord has taken steps to ‘learn from outcomes’ and ensure that the failings in this case are not repeated. Having said this, the landlord has confirmed outside of this specific case that it has committed to radically redesign its repair and maintenance services to provide better quality services and, from 12 July 2021, it had ten new contractors and a new in-house communal repairs team. In addition, from September 2021 the repairs section of the housing online portal was launched, enabling residents to raise repairs and view updates on these.
The changes implemented mean that the landlord has improved monitoring capabilities, with the ability to track work and contractors though improved ICT systems. Its Contact Centre will book appointments for all jobs, and residents will receive a series of texts confirming their appointment, with a reminder 24 hours beforehand, an ‘on my way’ text, a text with a link to a tracker showing their operatives location on a map, and a job completion text with a link to a satisfaction survey. 
The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s recent service improvements may mitigate the risk of some of the failings identified in this report happening again. However, while the improvements set out explicitly address the management of responsive repairs, it is not known whether they address planned works, including kitchen renewal. The landlord was asked for a copy of any policy or procedure it has which relates to major or planned works, but it did not respond to this request. It is therefore not clear how planned works are monitored or managed so that they may be completed to an appropriate standard within agreed timescales, so the failings identified in this complaint are not repeated. An order relating to this matter has therefore been made to the landlord.
Finally, there were serious failings in the handling of the complaint in both the time taken and quality of response. It took the landlord six months to provide what was a very brief complaint response, that did not address the issues raised and essentially repeated the contents of a contractor’s email received several months earlier. This approach was not in line with its complaint policy. The landlord also failed to address many of the resident’s concerns, including the extension plug being left under the sink submerged in water. Given the potential safety hazard reported here it is especially concerning that the landlord missed the opportunity to investigate how this situation arose. The landlord’s failures in record keeping are likely to have hindered its ability to address the resident’s complaint.
The landlord also missed several opportunities to put matters right for the resident. Its complaint response did not offer any remedy to the resident for the delays with the kitchen renewal, and despite stating in its 13 January 2021 email to the Ombudsman that it would ‘address any delay in complaint handling when considering a suitable remedy for this complaint’, the landlord did not do so.
Outside of this complaint, the landlord has advised the Ombudsman that, since October 2020, it has reviewed its complaint case management. This has included planning a casework system upgrade to monitor compliance and reporting which allows for daily performance management and aggregation of trends. In addition, it communicated its intention to restructure its Housing Complaints Team to improve complaint handling. However, it is not known whether these planned changes have taken place.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with section 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in:
1. The landlord’s handling of the kitchen renewal work at the property;
2. its response to the subsequent formal complaint, and;
3. its record keeping.

Reasons

The kitchen renewal works took too long and there were issues with workmanship, resulting in significant inconvenience to the resident. The landlord took six months to provide a single brief complaint response which failed to identify what had gone wrong and offered no resolution. The landlord has been unable to provide information to this Service when requested, indicating considerable record keeping failings.

Orders

Within one month of the date of this report the landlord must pay the resident a total of £925, comprised of:
1. £600 for the time, trouble, inconvenience, and frustration caused by the failings in the handling of the kitchen renewal works.
2. £325 for the time, trouble and frustration caused by the failures in the complaint handling.
If the £150 that the resident has stated was offered has already been paid to her, this can be deducted from the above.
Within one month of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Arrange for a surveyor to attend the property in relation to the concerns around the quality of works, the ‘makeshift’ shelves, and a leak under the sink and the damage it has caused (as per the 1 March 2021 complaint response), and then complete any repairs identified within four weeks of the inspection.
2. Review its record keeping practices, including those resulting from the redesign of its repair and maintenance services, for responsive and planned repairs and maintenance. This is to ensure that accurate and accessible records are kept and maintained, both of works raised and completed and of resident contact. As part of its review, the landlord should consider whether a record management policy and staff training are required. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman confirming this has been completed and detailing the outcome.
3. Review and confirm whether the redesign of its repair and maintenance services will apply to planned works and, if so, how this will mitigate the risk of the failings identified in this case happening again. If the redesign does not address planned works, the landlord should confirm its current policy, procedure and/or approach to monitoring these works as well as what changes will be made to reduce the risk of the failings identified in this case happening again. This should include reference to monitoring of and adhering to agreed timescales, completing work to appropriates standards and keeping residents informed. The landlord should report the outcome of this review to its appropriate governing body.
4. Confirm whether the proposed changes to complaint case handling have been implemented and, if so, how this will mitigate the risk of the failings identified in this case happening again. If the changes have not been implemented, the landlord should confirm when these will take place.