Lambeth Council (202104783)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104783

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 leaseholder 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 leaseholder complains about the landlord’s handling of his application for consent to carry out alterations to the property.

Background

2. The landlord’s website provides brief information on leaseholder alterations, stating that:
   1. Leaseholders must obtain permission to make structural alterations, and the fee for the service is £400
   2. Leaseholders must make a written request, with details of the proposed works, and the application fee.
   3. The landlord may send a building surveyor to inspect before giving consent.
3. 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.
4. 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

5. On 11 December 2020 the leaseholder submitted an application to carry out alterations at his property, paying the £400 fee for the service. This was acknowledged by the landlord, and an appointment was made for the leaseholder to discuss the matter with a surveyor.
6. On 12 February 2021 the leaseholder emailed the landlord to say that his scheduled call from its surveyor to discuss the application had not occurred. The surveyor had not contacted him, and the leaseholder said he had been unable to reach him on his mobile number.
7. Over the following two weeks the leaseholder emailed the landlord on several occasions explaining that he had been trying to contact the surveyor and the repairs department, but no one was responding, and that he was eager for a decision so he could progress the works to his property.
8. On 25 February 2021 the landlord wrote to the leaseholder granting partial permission for some but not all of the alterations. That same day the leaseholder asked to appeal the decision.
9. On 8 March 2021 the leaseholder submitted a formal complaint. In this he referenced the discussion he had been due to have with the surveyor on 12 February 2021, explaining that this had not happened, and that he had called the surveyor seven times and left messages, as well as emailed, with no reply. He said ‘I had hoped that the telephone appointment would have given us the opportunity to discuss the scope of the alteration work as well as any additional measures that could have allayed concerns of damage or change in appearance to the roof of the property that the council may have had. However, none of my telephone calls or voicemail messages were ever returned.’
10. The leaseholder expressed his dissatisfaction that partial consent had been granted without any discussions surrounding the proposed work, and that he had received no answer to his request to appeal the decision.
    He stated ‘Alongside this complaint, I would like to make a request through the Complaints Department to appeal this decision and would like to request the opportunity to discuss the proposal with a Surveyor.’
11. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and provided its response on      6 April 2021. It acknowledged that the leaseholder had made several attempts to progress the alterations application and apologised that he had to resort to putting in a complaint to be heard. It said, ‘I have sent an email to [the surveyor] to contact you regarding the issues you raised.’ The letter concluded that the complaint had been partly upheld as an improved level of communication on the progress of the application would have been beneficial, and said that the application would be monitored to ensure that it was progressed.
12. On the 13 April 2021 the leaseholder emailed the landlord noting that a week had passed and there had been no further contact. He asked to escalate the complaint to the review stage. He chased the landlord again on 15 and 18 April 2021 asking it to escalate the complaint. The landlord acknowledged this on 19 April 2021, and over the following weeks the leaseholder continued to contact the landlord to try and obtain a response.
13. A review stage response was provided by the landlord on 18 May 2021. The letter noted that the leaseholder wanted to appeal the partial consent decision and to discuss the proposal with a surveyor. It stated that the repairs team had confirmed that the alteration consent was assessed based on the documentation provided. The surveyor also visited the property on ‘numerous occasions’ and the application was reviewed by two repairs managers. The letter concluded ‘Regarding your request to appeal the decision made and discuss this matter, Officers consider that sufficient assessment of the request had been made before the decision was made. Consequently, permission cannot be granted…’ It acknowledged that there was a lack of prompt response to the leaseholder’s enquiry and apologised for this.
14. In June 2021 the leaseholder contacted his councillor (Cllr), and following their involvement, the landlord agreed to grant full consent to the alterations, on the basis that the leaseholder would be responsible for ‘…the ongoing maintenance and/or renewal of the rooflight and the adjoining roof structure disturbed by the rooflight works…’
15. The confirmation letter that was subsequently sent dated 22 June 2021 said the consent was on the basis ‘That you, or any subsequent leasehold owner of the property, will be liable for any damage to the front elevation pitch inclusive of any leaks that occur from the date of installation of the skylight window for a period of 24 months. This is to include any damage to the existing roof during works. It is known that at the date of this letter the roof is sound and watertight with no defects present.’
16. The leaseholder responded on 23 June 2021 pointing out that this was not what had been agreed and asked for the letter to be amended. Over the following weeks the leaseholder chased a response to this, contacting his Cllr stating that again the surveyor was not responding to any of his calls or emails, and asking why this was permitted. Staff members at the landlord also tried to get in touch with the surveyor but reported that they received no response.
17. On 9 July 2021 the leaseholder was provided with the amended letter.

Assessment and findings

18. When considering complaints the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles, which is 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
19. In his complaint to this Service the leaseholder has set out his frustration with the way in which the landlord handled his application and subsequent communications, complaining that it consistently failed to respond to his emails and telephone calls and ignored appointments to discuss the application. He notes that while the landlord said in its complaint response that the property was inspected, this is incorrect, as no inspection ever took place. He also expressed concerned that he had no right to appeal the landlord’s decision.
20. As part of this investigation the landlord was asked to provide evidence on the case, such as internal correspondence or contact notes concerning the application; records concerning the landlord’s investigation into the leaseholder’s application; any assessment carried out, and copies of any survey or inspection reports or any supporting information from surveyors. It was also asked to provide any policies, procedures or other guidance which concern the handling of leaseholder alteration applications. Little evidence has been provided and there is no information on guidance used when making such assessments.
21. The landlord did not treat the leaseholder fairly or follow fair processes following on from the missed telephone appointment on 12 February 2021. The evidence available, as outlined in the summary section above, shows the leaseholder making several attempts to contact the landlord with no response forthcoming. Neither is there any indication that it responded to his request to appeal the 25 February 2021 decision. The landlord’s published ‘customer standards’ state ‘we make it easy for you to access services and interact with us’ and ‘we update you before you need to chase us.’ These standards were not met.
22. The leaseholder’s subsequent 8 March 2021 complaint appears to have been dealt with at the ‘local resolution stage’ of the complaints process, which was reasonable in the circumstances, and was provided roughly in line with the timeframes set out in the complaint policy. The 6 April 2021 letter recognised the communication issues and apologised for these. This was a reasonable response, and it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged its failings.
23. However, the response did not outline any action to put things right for the leaseholder other than asking the surveyor to contact him. Given that a repeated failure to do so was at the heart of the complaint, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have taken more practical action to resolve the issue via the complaint process, by setting out any appeal rights, and either proving an appointment to discuss the matter with the surveyor or explaining if this was not possible. 
24. As it was, the leaseholder once again had to chase the landlord on a number of occasions as no one contacted him about his application. There is no evidence that the landlord monitored the application to ensure that it was progressed, as it had said it would in its ‘local resolution’ response. Neither is there any evidence that the leaseholder was given guidance on his right to appeal.
25. The review stage response did not clarify whether there was a right to appeal or not, and erroneously stated that the surveyor visited the property on ‘numerous occasions’. There is no evidence that any visits took place, and the leaseholder himself has stated that no visits were caried out. The review stage response also said that the application was reviewed by two repairs managers, but again no evidence has been provided that supports this statement. The only evidence of consideration given to the application is an internal email dated 25 February 2021 which states that permission would not be granted for the skylight, due to the age of the front pitch on the roof and likely damage that would be caused, and that it would not be in keeping with the style of the property.
26. It is acknowledged that, because of the landlord’s concerns about the impact of the skylight, consideration of the application may not have been straightforward. Nonetheless, the landlord’s decision making was not transparent, and the landlord has not provided evidence which demonstrates that the delays in the application process were reasonable.
27. While the review stage letter acknowledged that there was a lack of prompt response to the leaseholder’s enquiry and offered apologies for this, it took no action to put things right or learn from outcomes. This was especially pertinent given that the ‘local resolution stage’ response had already recognised and apologised for communication failures, but these then happened again: The surveyor did not contact the leaseholder and his enquiries went unanswered until he submitted the escalated complaint. There is no suggestion in the complaint response that the landlord investigated the cause of these failings or took any action to address what appears to have been an ongoing problem with communication.
28. Finally, the review does not appear to have been carried out by an Improvement & Review Officer and a member of Senior Leadership Group. This is not in keeping with the complaint policy.
29. The landlord overturned its original decision of February 2021, and did later agree to grant full consent to the alterations. It was unreasonable that it took the leaseholder four months, a formal complaint and the involvement of his Cllr to obtain this decision and that eight months passed between the leaseholder’s application and the landlord’s final letter of consent. The landlord’s delays caused the leaseholder time, trouble and frustration. Further, once the outcome was agreed, the leaseholder then had the added inconvenience of spending another two weeks trying to obtain the correctly worded permission letter, again not being able to obtain a response from the surveyor. 

Determination (decision)

30. In line with section 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the consent to alter application.

Reasons

31. There were a number of failings on the part of the landlord, specifically in relation to transparency in decision making, unreasonable delay and poor communication.
32. The landlord’s responses to the complaint contained inaccuracies, and do not show that the landlord took action to put things right for the leaseholder in terms of the time, trouble and inconvenience he was caused. In addition, the works planned to his home were delayed while he pursued his application.
33. Neither do the responses to the complaint show that the landlord has learned from outcomes or otherwise taken steps to ensure that the fallings apparent in this case are not repeated.
34. As such, orders for remedy are made below, noting that the landlord’s own compensation policy allows for compensation to be paid in cases where service failure has adversely affected the customer.

Orders

35. Within one month of the date of this report the landlord should:
    1. Pay the leaseholder £250 as a remedy to the time, trouble and inconvenience he was caused.
    2. Confirm to the Ombudsman and leaseholder whether it has a policy and procedure for considering applications from leaseholders to carry out alterations. If this does not exist, the landlord should develop a policy and procedure which includes making applicants aware of the process at an early stage (including any appeal rights) and keeping applicants updated.
    3. Provide training to staff in any existing or newly created policy and procedure which relate to applications to alter, to ensure that staff are aware of the relevant process.