Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Lambeth Council (202101978)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101978

Lambeth Council

12 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 is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould issues.
    2. The landlord’s failure to communicate in response to the resident’s complaints.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The property is a one-bedroom flat in a block, with the resident’s tenancy beginning in January 2005.

Summary of events

  1. The landlord has provided a copy of its repairs’ history for the property. It shows that a works order was set up in March 2020 to remedy some damp and mould issues. Prior to that, the last reported work in relation to damp and mould was in February 2017.
  2. On 18 February 2021 the resident’s nephew contacted the landlord’s complaint team to chase up complaints made by his mother on behalf of the resident (his uncle). He said that his mother had raised a stage 1 complaint on 25 January 2021 and had escalated that complaint on 11 February 2021 after receiving no response. He says his mother was promised a response by 25 February 2021. The nephew appreciated that the deadline for responding had not yet passed, however he pointed out that previous promises made over the phone to his mother had not been met, including a promise that a new contractor would call the resident. He asked that the resident’s issues be addressed and rectified as soon as possible. The resident’s sister has also provided this Service with details of a number of approaches she made to the landlord during February – April 2021 where she says she was promised responses within certain timeframes but then heard nothing more.
  3. On 16 April 2021 the contractor reported to the landlord that the required works had been completed. The resident confirmed to this Service, on 18 May 2021, that the work had been completed but stated that he had never received any response to his complaints, or emails about compensation.
  4. Having first contacted the landlord on 29 April 2021 asking it to respond to the resident’s complaint, this Service chased the landlord again on 21 May 2021, asking it to provide a written response to the resident within five working days. The landlord responded to this by sending the resident an acknowledgement, saying it would respond to the recent complaint (received from the resident on 14 May 2021) by 14 June 2021.
  5. On 28 May 2021 the resident’s nephew contacted the landlord to make a request for compensation. He said that the resident’s health had been affected, there was an on-going history of mould and damp in the property and there had been numerous service failures.
  6. This Service advised the landlord, on 1 June 2021 that it had not provided responses by the two previously requested deadlines. It was therefore further requested to provide a response to the resident’s complaint within five working days.
  7. On 18 June 2021 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It said that the report of damp was received from the resident in March 2020 and that a surveyor had inspected the property on 16 March 2020. Delays occurred due to Covid lockdown restrictions and a change of contractor, with a second contractor completing the works in April 2021. The landlord said that it was upholding the resident’s complaint in respect of a delay in completing the work and offered £150 for any inconvenience suffered.
  8. On 25 June 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord, giving his permission for his sister to act on his behalf. Subsequent to this, the resident’s sister contacted the landlord to explain why they were dissatisfied with the stage 1 response. She said that the response had failed to list or acknowledge the history of the repair which dated back at least 14 years. She also said the response had not addressed the landlord’s failure to respond to multiple contacts within its service standards. As well as having to phone the landlord and contractors multiple times, two emails from the resident’s nephew, dated 18 February 2021 and 28 May 2021 had gone unanswered.
  9. The landlord supplied its stage 2 complaint response on 2 August 2021. It enclosed a copy of the property’s repairs history as recorded on its database and said that it could not comment on issues that occurred but were not reported. It reiterated that the last report of damp and mould was received in March 2020 and was rectified in April 2021, the delays occurring due to the Covid lockdown and a change of subcontractor. It said that it was currently changing its repairs contractor which should improve the repairs service in the future. The landlord said that the email sent by the resident’s nephew on 28 May 2021 was added to the existing complaint file and the contents considered as part of the stage 1 response and apologised for any instances where communications did not meet the resident’s expectations. The landlord said that the compensation issue had been acknowledged in the stage 1 response with the offer of £150 to recognise the delays to the works being completed.

Assessment and findings

  1. Following a detailed review of the evidence submitted by both parties, the Ombudsman’s investigation considers the action taken by the landlord in response to the resident’s reporting of damp and mould issues and whether it followed its own policies and procedures, kept to the law and acted reasonably and proportionately in the circumstances.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repair timescales range from emergency repairs to planned repairs. Routine repairs should normally be completed within 28 working days. The longest timescale is for planned repairs which should normally be completed within 90 working days.
  2. The landlord’s complaints’ policy states that complaints should be acknowledged within two working days, that full stage 1 responses should be provided within 20 working days and stage 2 responses within 25 working days.
  3. In terms of compensation, the complaints’ policy states that, even where it is not clear that it has failed in its duty of care, it may still be appropriate to offer a small ex-gratia payment to the customer for time and trouble. Therefore, service areas should consider compensation as a matter of course.

Damp and mould issues

  1. The resident says the property has had issues with damp and mould since he moved in. Looking at the repairs log, it is true that there have been various issues over the years. However, based on the available evidence, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that the landlord failed to deal with those issues as and when they arose. Based on the repairs log, on every occasion the landlord has responded to reports of damp or mould and carried out remedial action. For example, the landlord treated the property for damp in February 2017. There were no further reports of damp until 2020.
  2. No evidence has been provided to this Service of the resident reporting the issues in the period prior to the report of March 2020, nor of any formal complaint having been made during the period. Thus, this report is limited to the events occurring since March 2020. This is because Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme states as follows: ‘The Ombudsman will not consider complaints which, in his opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.’ In accordance with the above paragraph, this Service cannot consider the previous incidents in assessing the landlord’s handling of the present case as these have become historical and cannot reasonably be investigated at this time.
  3. A surveyor inspected the property on 16 March 2020, recommended that work should be carried out, and set up the necessary works order. Therefore, the landlord’s initial response to the resident’s reporting of damp and mould was reasonable.
  4. It is likely that the damp issue fell into the category of being a routine repair, meaning that the deadline for carrying out repairs was 28 working days. In this case it took 13 months to complete the works. The resident’s reporting of the problem coincided with the first Covid lockdown when only emergency repairs were being undertaken and where it is likely that the landlord and its contractors would have been experiencing staff shortages that would have affected their operations. Therefore, much of the delay is understandable. The landlord has also said that a change of contractor caused further delay. However, the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint in respect of the delays in its stage 1 response and offered £150 compensation.
  5. In identifying whether there has been any maladministration, the Ombudsman considers both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make any findings of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to offer redress.
  6. As already mentioned, the Ombudsman has been unable to conclude that the damp issue reported in March 2020 had any link with the damp reported in 2017 or earlier. Therefore, any consideration of compensation for delay is just for the period March 2020 – April 2020. Overall, the Ombudsman considers that the apology and the offer of £150 is a reasonable remedy to the resident’s complaint about how the landlord dealt with his reports of damp and mould in the property.

Communication issues in response to the resident’s complaints

  1. The evidence suggests that the landlord asked the resident to formally give his consent for his sister to act on his behalf. However, the Ombudsman is unclear why this did not happen until June 2021 or if this lack of consent was a reason for the landlord failing to respond to the resident’s sister or nephew at an earlier point. The resident’s sister says that she first contacted the landlord in January 2021. When family members first started making contact, the landlord should have made it clear that it would need the resident’s permission to engage with any third parties.
  2. The landlord’s first acknowledgement of the complaint states that it will respond to the complaint received on 14 May 2021 (which the Ombudsman has not seen a copy of) rather than encompassing any earlier complaints made by the resident’s sister dating from 25 January 2021 onwards. Although a full response was promised by 14 June 2021, it did not finally respond until 18 June 2021, and it then did not address that part of the complaint about lack of communication.
  3. Although the landlord’s stage 2 response did address why it had not responded to the second email from the resident’s nephew dated 28 May 2021, it did not mention why it had not responded to his first email dated 18 February 2021. It also did not address the numerous times that the resident’s sister had contacted its complaints team and then not received the promised responses. Therefore, the stage 2 response make no determination on whether the landlord had failed to meet its own service standards, although it apologised if it was felt that that was the case.
  4. The landlord failed to meet a number of the standards set out in its own complaints policy. Even if it is accepted that the landlord took the stage 1 request to date from 14 May 2021, the landlord did not acknowledge it within two working days and did not provide the full stage 1 response within 20 working days. The landlord did not acknowledge the stage 2 request at all.
  5. It is also concerning that the landlord failed to comply with requests from this Service to provide responses to the resident within defined timescales or to engage with this Service about why it might not be able to meet those timescales.
  6. Although the landlord’s own policy states that its service areas should give consideration to compensation when responding to complaints, the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord has done that in respect of communication issues when dealing with the resident’s complaint. The Ombudsman considers it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay a further amount of compensation in remedy for that part of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer with regard to its handling of the damp and mould repairs issue which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves that part of the complaint.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of communication issues when handling the resident’s complaints.

Reasons

  1. The landlord has apologised for the delay in completing the repairs and offered £150 compensation which the Ombudsman considers to be a reasonable and proportionate response to that part of the complaint.
  2. The landlord did not follow its own policies and procedures in dealing with the complaint, particularly in terms of keeping the resident and his representative informed and not adhering to its own advertised timescales.

Orders

  1. I make the following orders to be complied with by the landlord within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. The landlord should pay the resident the £150 already offered in respect of the delay to repairs, if it has not already done so.
    2. In addition, the resident should pay £100 to the resident to compensate him for poor communication when dealing with the complaint, making a total compensation payment of £250.