Lambeth Council (202100331)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100331

Lambeth Council

8 January 2022

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 refers to the landlord’s handling of:

1. The resident’s reports of a water leak into her property.
2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a leaseholder of the property, the landlord is the freeholder. The property is a ground floor flat.

3. The resident emailed the landlord on 31 January 2021 following a phone conversation and attached various images of water damage caused to her living room and external balcony. The landlord arranged for a telephone inspection to take place on 3 February 2021 to identify the cause of the water penetration. 

4. The resident asked for a complaint to be raised on 3 February 2021 and explained the following:

a. She said that no one had carried out an inspection of the property as agreed. She said that this would cost her financially as her private contractor could not complete the repair works as planned and would need to return at a later date.

b. She advised that she had previously told the landlord that whilst carrying out repairs to the internal parts of the property, she had noticed that two walls in her lounge were damp. Her private contractor had established that this was caused by the external brickwork being saturated. There were also several large gaps above her balcony and pools of water which were causing further erosion of the structure above.

3. She had needed to take an emergency day off work for the inspection scheduled for that day but did not receive a phone call as expected which she felt was unacceptable. She added that no one had called to update her and she expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had advised that it could not locate her phone number.
4. She asked that a surveyor attend the property at the earliest opportunity to assess the damage to both the external and internal parts of the building. She added that she wished to claim costs for the additional day that her contractor to attend and for the damage caused to her curtains and blinds as a result of the water damage.

5. The landlord’s records show that an inspection was carried out at the resident’s property on 4 February 2021 with a further inspection scheduled for 16 February 2021. The resident asked for an update on 9 February 2021 and queried why a further inspection had been arranged for 16 February 2021. She added that she had not received an acknowledgement for her complaint and asked for the complaint procedure to be sent to her.

6. The landlord responded on the same day and advised that the visit on 16 February 2021 would allow it to fully inspect the rear balcony of the flat above. It said that it would also inspect the internal parts of the resident’s property to confirm the likely source of the issue. It said that 16 February was the first available date for both its contractors and the resident of the flat above, who would need to provide access to their property.

7. Following the inspection on 16 February 2021, the landlord arranged for the following works to take place to prevent water penetrating into the resident’s property:

a. Renewal of the surface of the balcony of the flat above.

b. Repointing the hole above the resident’s living room window.

c. Check for any defects around the PVC door of the flat above.

d. Clear and renew the gully to the rear balcony of the flat above.

8. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 3 March 2021 and explained the following:

a. The surveyor due to carry out the initial inspection had apologised for the appointment not going ahead and had subsequently carried out a telephone inspection on 17 February 2021. It added that a work order was raised to renew the surface of the balcony above and a subcontractor attended on 18 February 2021. They submitted variations to the original order and an appointment had been arranged for them to attend on 9 March 2021.

b. It said that the resident would need to claim via her contents insurance in the first instance for damage caused to her carpet, sofas, curtains etc. it explained that the resident could also raise a liability claim against the landlord’s insurer and provided information on how to do so. The landlord explained that the resident’s complaint was partially upheld as its communication on the progress of the repairs could have been improved. It confirmed that the resident could ask for her complaint to be reviewed if she remained dissatisfied.

9. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 8 March 2021 as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She had been informed by the contractors that the repairs to the balcony would take place on 12 March 2021 and the information she had been provided by the landlord was incorrect. She asked why she had been provided with incorrect information and why the works had not yet started. She asked the landlord to confirm the correct date as the leak into her living room was ongoing and damaging freshly plastered walls.

10. The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 22 March 2021 to ask for an update regarding her complaint and the works to her balcony. The landlord responded on the same day and confirmed that the work to the balcony above had been completed and it was only the work to the bricks near the resident’s windows which were outstanding. It confirmed that it had followed-up on this work and added that a further repair order had been raised to inspect the drain to the flat above to ensure that there were no defects. The resident responded and expressed dissatisfaction regarding the delay as she had not been able to complete internal works to her property until she had confirmation that the external works were completed.

11. The resident emailed the landlord on 8 April 2021 and attached photos of the partially completed repair to the balcony above. She said that she had been told that the area would no longer leak and asked when the remaining repairs would be completed. She also asked for confirmation that she could proceed with her internal repairs.

12. The landlord’s records suggest that the resident received an email from the surveyor on 16 April 2021 advising that the works to the above balcony had been completed and that she should not carry out any repair works inside her property for three to four weeks.

13. Following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 16 April 2021 and asked it to respond to her complaint at stage two of its internal process within 20 working days.

14. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 27 April 2021 and said it would respond by 1 June 2021. The resident responded and expressed dissatisfaction that it had taken the landlord a significant length of time to acknowledge her escalation request. She attached photos of the work the landlord’s contractors had completed and noted that she did not feel the works were satisfactory.

15. Following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 21 May 2021 and asked it to provide its stage two complaint response by 28 May 2021 as the resident first asked to escalate the complaint on 8 March 2021.

16. On 1 June 2021, the landlord emailed the resident to inform her that it needed further time to review her complaint and it would provide its response within five to ten working days. Following further contact from the resident, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 10 June 2021 asking it to provide its response within five working days. Around this time, the resident informed the landlord that her insurer had agreed to cover the cost for her shutter and balcony decking.

17. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 15 June 2021 and acknowledged that the initial inspection date was not kept and another appointment was arranged for which it apologised. It noted that the repairs were carried out but the service the resident had been provided was below the standard required. It said it had informed the surveyor of her concern regarding the quality of work undertaken to make good the ceiling of the balcony above her flat and the balcony rail and the surveyor had agreed to contact the resident to arrange a further inspection.

18. The landlord apologised for the delay in responding to her stage two complaint and its communication regarding the repairs. It advised that the surveyor would confirm during their visit when she could proceed with the decorating and repairs inside the property. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and offered £100 compensation for the delayed escalation of her complaint and £75 for its poor communication.

19. An appointment for a surveyor visit was scheduled for 24 June 2021.

20. On 2 August 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to ask why the contractors had not attended an appointment arranged for the previous week to complete the outstanding repairs.

21. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the amount of compensation offered by the landlord and believed this to be inadequate given that she had lost the use of her living room for four months. She added that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the repairs and complaint.

22. In its communication with this Service, the landlord confirmed that there was a large crack underneath the balcony of the above flat which needed to be filled and painted. The balcony railings also needed to be sanded down and painted. These were the only outstanding repair orders at the time when the complaint was referred to the Ombudsman for formal investigation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a water leak into her property.

23. The Lease confirms that the landlord would be responsible for repairs needed to the external parts of the property including the external walls. The resident would be responsible for repairs to the internal parts of the property, including the internal plastering. The landlord’s repairs policy states that routine repairs, including those to repair a ceiling/broken fence etc, should be carried out within 28 working days unless otherwise stated.

24. The landlord has admitted and apologised for its failure to attend the initial telephone inspection on 3 February 2021. It has also acknowledged that its communication with the resident regarding the repairs and whether they had been completed was poor. It noted that the surveyor had also failed to respond to the resident’s query about when she could proceed with the internal decoration repairs to her property following the external work being completed which was likely to have caused inconvenience.

25. The resident’s frustration that she would need to pay for her private contractor to attend at a later date to complete the repairs was understandable. However, this may have also been the case if the inspection had gone ahead on 3 February 2021 as the repairs were not likely to have been attended to that day. It is not disputed that the landlord’s lack of communication about when she could proceed with the works is likely to have caused inconvenience and uncertainty as she had spent time and trouble pursuing a response. It was reasonable for the landlord to refer the resident to her insurer in the first instance for any damage caused to the internal parts of the property due to the water penetration. It also took reasonable steps to provide its own insurance details for the resident to make a claim if she wished.

26. Landlords often have insurance policies to cover negligence claims as a way of managing such costs. The landlord would not be expected to consider any claim for damage to the resident’s personal possessions itself rather than referring the matter to its insurer.

27. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes, apologising to the resident and offering compensation. However, the landlord’s overall offer of £175 for delays in responding to the complaint and miscommunication was not sufficient in view of all the circumstances. This compensation does not adequately address the distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of delays to the repairs and concerns about the standard of the work. The resident needed to chase the landlord for updates which added to her inconvenience. In view of this, the landlord should offer the resident a further £200 compensation, bringing the total payment to £275 for errors in its handling of the repairs.

28. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website which suggests that we may award compensation of between £250 to £750 for cases where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. Examples could include a complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant.

29. It is unclear from evidence provided as to whether the outstanding repairs to the balcony have now been completed. It is recommended that these are carried out within four weeks if the landlord has not already done so.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

30.The landlord’s complaint policy states that it has a two-stage complaints procedure. At stage one, a response should be issued within 20 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. At stage two, in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint Handling Code (which is guidance that landlords are expected to follow), a response should be issued by the landlord within 20 working days. If at any stage there is likely to be a delay, the landlord would be expected to contact the resident, explain the reasons for the delay and provide a new response timescale.

31. In this case, the resident asked for a complaint to be raised on 3 February 2021. The landlord issued its stage one response on 3 March 2021, which was within a reasonable timescale, in line with the landlord’s policy. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 8 March 2021, however this was not acknowledged by the landlord until 27 April 2021, following the Ombudsman’s involvement. The landlord sent a further email on 1 June 2021 stating that it needed further time to issue a response. The stage two complaint response was issued on 15 June 2021, which was significantly outside of what the Ombudsman would consider a reasonable timescale in line with the Complaint Handling Code. The landlord failed to keep the resident adequately updated on the progress of her complaint which is likely to have caused inconvenience.

32. The landlord has apologised for its delayed stage two response and offered £100 compensation to the resident in view of the inconvenience caused. This amount was proportionate and was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance, which suggests awards of £50 to £250 where there has been service failure by the landlord which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome. For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this aspect of the complaint satisfactorily.

Determination (decision)

33. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a water leak into her property.

34. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in regard to its handling of the associated complaint, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

35. The landlord acted fairly by admitting its communication failures and acknowledging the inconvenience caused to the resident as a result. The landlord attempted to put things right by offering compensation. However, the amount of compensation was not sufficient to fully reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by delays to the repairs, workmanship issues and miscommunication by the landlord. The landlord should pay a further £200 compensation in view of these issues.

36. The landlord has admitted service failures related to its handling of the resident’s complaint at stage two of its internal process and has offered compensation which was proportionate to the impact its failures in complaint handling had on the resident.

Orders

37. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a further £200 compensation for any distress and inconvenience she experienced as a result of delays and miscommunication relating to the repairs following a water leak.

Recommendations

38. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident £175 as previously agreed if it has not already done so as the Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress for complaint handling was based on this being paid.

39. It is recommended that the outstanding repairs needed to the resident’s balcony are carried out within four weeks if the landlord has not already done so.