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

Lambeth Council (202104181)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104181

Lambeth Council

22 March 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 in the property.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property, and the landlord is a freeholder. The property is a studio flat located on the first floor. The property is occupied by a tenant of the leaseholder; but for the purpose of this report, the leaseholder will be referred to as the resident and the freeholder as the landlord.
  2. On 28 May 2021 the resident contacted this Service to advise of damp and mould issues in the property. A surveyor had spoken to the resident in March 2021 and had raised orders to tackle damp issues within the property, but the work had not been completed and the damp remained an issue. The resident explained that he had raised a formal complaint to the landlord outlining his concerns that the identified works to tackle the damp issue had not been completed, yet he had not received a response. The resident stated that his complaint was issued to the landlord in April 2021; however, no copy or log of the initial complaint has been provided. Throughout the complaints procedure, the resident voiced his frustrations and concerns that several months had passed without the work being completed, and that he had not been given clear timeframes for when the work would be carried out. He also noted that himself and his tenant were concerned about the potential health and safety risks that untreated damp and mould could pose to the occupants of the property.
  3. The landlord’s final response acknowledged its failings in allowing the damp issues to remain untreated for such a timescale and recognised its ‘poor levels of service’. It also admitted that it was unacceptable that the resident had to contact the landlord on multiple occasions to enquire about the works. It also suggested that the landlord was working closely with the new contractors to improve the performance of its repairs services and that it had reminded the team the importance of maintaining a good level of communication. The landlord pointed towards the fact that it had changed contractors and therefore it was unable to explain why the work had not been completed initially. New dates were given to the resident (21 to 29 September 2021) for the work to be completed.
  4. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and on 24 October 2021, the resident confirmed to this Service that he wanted the case to be investigated. He stated that he was disappointed that ‘despite assurances given in both responses…work remains outstanding with no delivery date’. He also stated that he had a number of ‘missed, cancelled and unproductive appointments, as well as further delays caused by the passing of jobs from one subcontractor to another’. He also noted that he felt unsatisfied with the investigation that had been carried out and that nobody had taken ownership of the issue. He believed that a single point of contact (SPOC) with the landlord would help to rectify the issue and ensure that the work is carried out quickly.

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

  1. Section 6 of the repairs policy outlines the responsibilities for leaseholders regarding repairs. It explains that the landlord is responsible for ‘all repairs to the outside of the building and common areas’. It also notes that the leaseholder would ‘normally be responsible for repairs inside the property’.
  2. Section 8 of the repairs policy details the time that repairs must be undertaken, relevant to the priority of the repair. Given that this repair is not part of an agreed programme or improvement works, the policy states that the work should take 30 days at most.
  3. Section 5 of the complaints policy outlines the timeframes in which the landlord will respond to complaints. It states that a response will be issued within 20 days and if more time is needed, the landlord will ‘explain to the complainant how long [it thinks] it will take before [it] can respond’.
  4. Section 4 (a) of the landlord’s compensation policy identifies ‘unjustified delays’ as a service failure that could warrant remedial compensation.
  5. Section 6 of the compensation policy states that the landlord should ‘obtain the complainant’s own view on an appropriate remedy to resolve the complaint.’

Landlord’s record keeping

  1. Although we are still able to determine this case using the information that was available, it is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is unclear or missing evidence, we may not be able to accurately conclude whether or when an action took place, or that a landlord followed its own policies. This Service has identified a service failure in the landlord’s record keeping that has affected the time in which repairs were carried out to the property. Aspects of the poor record keeping has also affected this Service’s ability to investigate this complaint. It is therefore recommended that the landlord conduct a review of its record keeping processes.

Response to reports of damp & mould

  1. In March 2021 a surveyor spoke to the resident and identified several works to the property that needed to be completed. This Service is unable to verify the date that the surveyor spoke to the resident as the date has not been provided. The landlord did provide a repair note stating that, in a call with a contractor on 18 May 2021, it was made aware to the landlord that there is ‘a leak into the house and is very damp’ and that the ‘cast iron drainpipes need to be renewed’. This repair note suggested that the ‘action target date’ was 1 June 2021. This note confirms that there were certain repairs needed that fell within the remit of the landlord as they were located outside of the property (repairs policy, section 6). Additionally, in line with section 8 of the repairs policy, the work was booked to be completed within 30 days of this correspondence.
  2. Although the landlord was right to make these plans, its contact with the contractor was made over one month after the resident had initially issued his complaint relating to the overdue work (08 April 2021). Unfortunately, due to the landlord’s record keeping, it is difficult for this Service to determine whether the landlord was late in responding to the complaint or whether or not it had actually received the complaint from the resident as the landlord has not provided any evidence of receiving it. No copy of the complaint has been provided and the landlord, in its formal response, referenced the 28 May as the date of the resident’s complaint being issued. This, however, is the date that this Service contacted the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident.
  3. The landlord’s formal response was issued on 30 June 2021. In the response it assured the resident that the issues raised had been passed on to its responsive repairs team and apologised that the work orders remained outstanding. It rightly acknowledged its failing by confirming that the work should have been done by this point, confirming that the work was already overdue. It also noted that it was in the process of changing contractors and that the work orders ‘are likely to be passed over’ to the new contractors. The landlord gave a new date for the work and noted that it ‘hopes’ the work will be completed after 12 July 2021. The landlord was right to offer an apology and to give the resident a new date for the works to be completed as this is in line with this Services’ dispute resolution principles as it states that a landlord should take steps to acknowledge it’s failing, apologise and offer a specific action that will attempt to put the resident back to a place that it would be in had service failure not occurred. It has done this by confirming new dates for the repair to be completed.
  4.  Given the amount of time that the work had remained outstanding (the required repairs were identified in March 2021) the landlord should have attempted to seek the resident’s own view on a suitable remedy (compensation policy, section 6) in regard to its delay in making the repairs, which it did not do. Additionally, given the length of delay, the landlord would be expected to offer some form of compensation in recognition of this. This is also a suggested remedy as stated in the landlord’s compensation policy. Section 4 (a) recognises ‘unjustified delays’ as a service failure that may warrant an award of compensation. Its failure to adhere to its own compensation policy is a service failure.
  5. The landlord also provided no explanation as to why the work had not been completed. This would be expected as the resident should be provided with clarity as to why their property had been left in a state of disrepair. It also did not guarantee that it would ensure that the new contractors would receive the work orders when they take over. Additionally, despite the landlord stating that ‘we do hope the works will be completed’, it has not provided a guarantee that it would ensure the works are completed on time. When it has been confirmed by the landlord that the works were already overdue, the landlord should ensure that its obligations are completed by the given dates and, if not, it should make clear as to why there has been a delay.
  6. On 07 August 2021, the resident requested that his complaint is escalated as he was unhappy with the response that he had received and that the works had still not been completed. The resident explained that he had been contacted by the landlord, yet he had not been given a timeframe for the repair works to be completed and asked for a date in which they will commence. The landlord’s formal response was issued on 17 September 2021.
  7. In the response, the landlord confirmed that it expected a plumber to inspect the property and that a voicemail had been left for the resident to confirm this. The landlord also listed several works that had been booked and their new dates to be completed (21 to 29 September 2021). The landlord explained that as the contractor had changed, it was ‘unable to establish with certainty why the work wasn’t completed as scheduled’. This is unacceptable reasoning as the contractor falls under the responsibility of the landlord. It is up to the landlord to keep an account of communications and actions relating to its contractors and the work they intend to issue. If the work is not completed, and the landlord is made aware, then it is the responsibility of the landlord to determine why it was not completed. The issue was raised with the landlord before the contractor had changed and therefore the landlord should have taken steps at that point to determine why the contractor had not completed the work.
  8. The landlord also acknowledged the resident’s frustrations ‘relating to the poor levels of service [he had] received’ and agreed that it was unacceptable that the resident had to contact the landlord on multiple occasions to enquire about the repair works. The landlord highlighted that it had taken steps to ensure the new contractors improve the performance of the repairs services, including reminding them of ‘the importance of maintaining a good level of communication’.
  9. Where possible, we add value by looking beyond the circumstances of the individual complaint and considering whether anything can be improved in terms of process and systems. The landlord’s assertion that it will look to improve the performance of its repairs services shows a willingness to learn from the complaint and that it has acted in line with this Service’s dispute resolution principles. However, it is also included in the dispute resolution principles that a landlord tries to put things right, and to offer a remedy that will correct the service failure. The landlord has not offered any type of remedy to the resident in recognition of its further delay in completing the works; and given the length of delay, simply acknowledging it is not enough to provide a sufficient remedy to the service failure of not completing the scheduled work.
  10. On 24 October 2021 the resident confirmed to this Service that he would like the case to be investigated as he was unsatisfied with the landlord’s stage two response. The resident noted that, ‘despite several assurances given in both responses…work remains outstanding with no delivery date’, and that the dates have ‘come and gone without fulfilment’. He also expressed that he was unhappy with the landlord’s investigation and noted that he would like a SPOC with the landlord to ensure that the work is carried out quickly.
  11. Evidence submitted by the landlord shows that works have since been carried out to the structure of property with the resident responsible for internal repairs (which is supported by section 6 of the landlord’s repairs policy); however, it is unclear exactly which work was issued and what dates the work was completed. It also noted that external rainwater pipe works remain outstanding.
  12. Because the landlord had not completed the works within the timeframe that its repairs policy set out, and the fact that the delays were so extensive, this Service believes that there has been maladministration in the landlord’s failure to carry out the work within a reasonable time. The landlord had offered multiple dates in which it would complete the work yet on each occasion the work was left incomplete, and the resident had not been offered an explanation as to why. Additionally, it had not offered any form of compensation to the resident in either of its formal responses, which would be expected given the extent of the delays, and its ability to provide a discretionary award of compensation as set out in its compensation policy.
  13. The landlord’s record keeping has also made it difficult for certain aspects of this report to be written. The evidence provided to this Service by the landlord at times is unclear and lacks important information. Evidence issued of completed works that omits the type of work and the date that the work was completed makes it difficult for this Service to determine how much of the outstanding work has been completed and whether it has been completed within a reasonable timeframe. The unacceptable record keeping has also had a detrimental effect on the resident as he has been left without an explanation for why the work to his property has remained outstanding for an unreasonable amount of time and why two different contractors have not completed the work. This is another service failure on the part of the landlord and should be rectified by ensuring it takes steps to improve the record keeping and communicating of information with its residents.

Landlord’s complaint handling

  1. As it is unclear as to when the landlord received the resident’s initial complaint, it is difficult for this Service to determine how late the landlord’s formal response was. With this in mind, this Service will use the date of contact between this Service and the landlord to stand as the initial date of contact. This Service contacted the landlord on 28 May 2021 and asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint within ten working days (14 June 2021). On 14 June 2021, the resident contacted this Service to advise that he had still not received a formal response from the landlord. This Service offered a second deadline for the landlord to respond to the complaint (25 June 2021). The landlord missed this deadline also, with no explanation or request for extra time to be given. The formal response was eventually issued on 30 June 2021; however, it did not acknowledge the delay in response to the complaint or offer a reason as to why the response was delayed. The landlord’s formal response to the resident’s complaint escalation was also delayed as it took over one month for the response to be issued.
  2. Section 5 of the landlord’s complaint’s policy states that its response will ‘normally be provided within 20 working days’ and that ‘should more time be required, [it] will explain to the complainant how long [it] think[s] it will take’. The landlord’s response, on both occasions, was late and without explanation as to why it would be late. In certain circumstances, there are occasions where it would be reasonable for a landlord to delay providing a complaint response. However, in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy, the landlord should have kept the resident informed of any delays and managed the resident’s expectations accordingly, setting clear timescales in which the resident was likely to receive a response. Therefore, because the landlord failed to adhere to its obligations set out in its complaints policy, this does constitute a service failure.
  3. Additionally, a key component of the resident’s complaint was the potential health and safety risks of damp and mould. The resident also noted in its complaint escalation that his tenant was very concerned about her health as the mould was ‘growing liberally throughout the flat due to damp conditions’. This is something that the landlord should have addressed in its formal response as it was a clear concern of the resident. It should also be noted that damp and mould growth has been identified as a potential health risk under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The failure to respond to this aspect of the resident’s complaint is a service failure and should have been addressed in the landlord’s complaint response.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration by the landlord in the way it allowed the scheduled works to remain incomplete for such time.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s record keeping which left the resident feeling his questions remained unanswered and also led to unnecessary delays in works being completed.
    3. Service failure by the landlord in the way that it did not adhere to its complaints procedure when giving a late response to the resident’s complaint. Also, its failure to address all aspects of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £350 compensation. This can be broken down to:
    1. £250 for the delay in works
    2. £50 for record keeping failures
    3. £50 for complaint handling failures
  2. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its record keeping practises to ensure that information relating to its contractors and their work is kept in detail to reduce the likelihood of a similar situation occurring in the future.