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

Lambeth Council (202107314)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107314

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

  1. The resident complaints about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. the installation of a shower head and water pump, and;
    2. boiler repairs.
  2. He also complains about handling of the formal complaint and the level of compensation offered by the landlord.
  3. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

  1. Both Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act and the landlord’s own repairs policy set out that the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair and good working order any installation for supplying water, including hot water.
  2. The repair policy sets out four categories for day-to-day repairs:
    1. Priority 1 – those repairs that the landlord must undertake within 24hrs and/or by emergency callout of the repair being reported.
    2. Priority 2 – undertaken within 2 working days after the repairs is reported.
    3. Priority 3 – undertaken within 5 working days of the repairs being reported.
    4. Priority 4 –undertaken within 30 working days of the repair being reported
  3. The landlord’s complaint policy in place at the time set out a three-stage process:
    1. Early resolution was 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 communication.
    2. At the local resolution stage, a more senior member of staff would take a fresh look at the problem and a response provided within 20 working days.
    3. The final review stage was undertaken by an Improvement & Review Officer and a member of the Senior Leadership Group.
  4. The timescales in the landlord’s policy do not reflect the timescales in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. However, the landlord operates complaint handling processes which cover a range of services, and has confirmed through its Complaint Handling Code self-assessment that it aims to respond to housing complaints within overarching corporate timescales.
  5. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that compensation can be paid in cases where service failure has adversely affected the customer. The policy provides some examples of appropriate payments:
    1. Loss (amenity or financial) – £5 to £15.
    2. Time and trouble – £50 to £250
  6. It states ‘All parts of a compensation payment should be cumulative. Example:  Investigating officers find that a complainant has been adversely affected by an unreasonable delay in carrying out repairs. The investigating officer awards £100 for the delay and £150 for the complainant’s time and trouble in pursuing the matter to achieve a resolution (giving a total payment of £250 compensation.’

Summary of events

  1. The landlord has explained in its recent communications with this Service that the resident contacted it on 27 November 2020, and the record of this states ‘…the tenant has a health condition so he cannot sit in the bath tub but he can stand up, he spoke with social services and they advised he can wait for 8-9 months until he gets a wet room or call us to arrange for the bath tap to be changed so a shower hose/head can be installed on the bath…please arrange for the tap on the bath to be changed so a shower hose/head can be installed.’
  2. Additionally, the resident reported a loss of heating and hot water in December 2020. On 9 February 2021 the resident contacted the landlord with a formal complaint about the ‘…the unacceptable, unprofessional and unsatisfactory approach to the completion of following jobs…’ which he detailed as repairs to the boiler (which he said was left in a was left in a ‘dangerous and unfit state’ from October 2020), and the installation of a shower head in the bathroom. The resident said that he had unnecessarily taken time off work to wait for contractors and asked for compensation for his use of electrical fan heaters during the delays to the boiler repair.
  3. In relation to the boiler, the resident said that while it had passed the gas safety inspection carried out in October 2020, on Friday 11 December it stopped working leaving him with no heating and hot water. He reported this to the out of hours team but was told he had to call back on the Monday during normal office hours. He did so and an operative attended on 17 December 2020 who the resident said found that the reset switch and circuit board needed to be replaced, but first had to be ordered from wholesalers.
  4. Once the parts arrived the resident said that the operative returned to install the new parts, but having done so, noted that the boiler was not in good working order because several parts were corroded and the gas and oxygen mix was incorrect, and therefore condemned the boiler. The resident complained that this was not picked up at the October 2020 inspection, or the 17 December 2020 attendance, and asked ‘Why was I left with a boiler that was clearly faulty and dangerous.’
  5. Regarding the installation of a shower head the resident explained that an operative attended on 10 December 2020 to assess what was required, so that the work could be completed the following day. However, after installing the shower unit, the operative realised that there was insufficient water pressure to make the shower of any reasonable use. The resident expressed dissatisfaction that this had not been picked up at the initial assessment.
  6. As he said he was advised to do by the operative, the resident contacted the landlord to ask for a pump to be installed to improve the water pressure, and was given an appointment for 22 December 2020, however nobody attended, and no one contacted the resident to advise of this. He said that he spoke with the call centre and found that the work had been reassigned to a different contractor, who would be attending on 24 December 2020, however when the operative arrived, they were unable to procure the correct pump and so rebooked to attend on 4 January 2021.
  7. The operative did install the pump on 4 January, but the resident stated that they had not been able to fit the appropriate electrical supply, so had to pass this on to a subcontractor to complete the following day. However, the subcontractor did not arrive for the appointment. The resident said that after he made numerous calls to chase this up, he was informed that operatives would attend on 11 January 2021 to complete the required electrical work. In the meantime, the resident had to call the emergency out of hours team to report that there was a leak coming under the bath where the plumbing had not been connected correctly.
  8. When the operative arrived on 11 January 2021 as arranged, they were unable to complete any work, stating that they had not known the scope of the works required and so would return on 13 January. When two more operatives arrived on this day, they also stated that they were unable to complete the works and didn’t have the necessary materials. A further appointment was therefore booked for 14 January 2021, but no one arrived, and when the resident made contact about this was told it was because operatives could not find a parking space. The resident said he was then informed they would attend the following day, but again no one arrived, and this time when he made contact, he was told it was due to a lot of emergency work coming in. Another appointment was booked for 18 January 2021.
  9. The resident was unhappy the operative had failed to reconnect the water overflow pipe, resulting in a leak flooding the property below. The resident also said that the installation of the shower head caused unnecessary damage to the bathroom wall, which had not been repaired. He concluded ‘I am not an unreasonable man and I understand that we are in the midst of a pandemic and as such resources can be stretched but I think you can a agree that the way that I have been treated has been unprofessional and stressful to my mental health.’
  10. The contractor provided a response to the 9 February 2021 complaint that same day, in which the safety of the boiler was discussed with the resident. The contactor explained that following the annual service visit in October 2020 the boiler was deemed safe to use and said, ‘Under no circumstances would we or could we leave a boiler connected in an unsafe condition.’ They noted that when the operative returned to fit the parts once these had been obtained, they then found that there was a slight leak from the main heat exchanger and signs of rust. It was therefore passed back to a manager to assess the situation. They said ‘…due to age of boiler and cost of parts that the boiler was beyond economical repair and instructed for a new boiler to be fitted…I can assure that at no point was the boiler left working in an unsafe condition.’
  11. The resident responded to this stating that the level of corrosion and rust apparent couldn’t have happened between October and December 2020 and he believed that the rust must have been there for some time. He asked why this wasn’t picked up in October 2020 or the first visit in December 2020. In response the contractor stated ‘There may have been rust but at no point was the integrity of the appliance compromised and so the boiler would have been safe to use at that time. I have questioned the engineer that called following the breakdown of your boiler and he assures me that there was no evident leak on his first call in December and again that although there was signs of rust the appliance was sealed and that the leak was only evident on his return visit.’
  12. Separately, the landlord acknowledged the complaint and said that it aimed to respond by 9 March 2021. When the resident had no further contact by this date, he emailed the landlord to chase up. The landlord responded on 17 March 2021 apologising for the delay, explaining that it was still waiting for an update from its gas team and hoped to have a response by the end of the week.
  13. The landlord issued its local resolution response on 23 March 2021. In this it said that its gas team had provided information on the boiler repair: The boiler was found to be safe at the October 2020 annual service. A job was then raised in December 2020 for loss of heating, but due to the holiday period it had been difficult to obtain parts as suppliers were closed, and in addition the Covid-19 pandemic caused delays in obtaining parts from suppliers. When the operative returned to install parts, a leak was found, along with signs of rust. Therefore, the matter was passed to the Gas Team Manager to assess. The Manager then decided that due to the age of the boiler and cost of parts, the boiler was beyond economical repair and instructed a new one be fitted. The Manager had stated that at no point was the boiler left working in an unsafe condition.
  14. In relation to the shower head, the landlord noted that its repair records indicated a work order was raised to supply and fix a mixer tap and shower pump in the bathroom, and when an operative attended on 24 December 2020 they found that parts were required. The appointment was rebooked for the 4 January 2021 for a subcontractor to attend. The landlord said that this appointment had been missed by the contractor.
  15. On 10 January 2021 a job was raised due to a leak into the flat below. On         11 January 2021 an operative attended the resident’s property to assess the leak and found that parts were required for a shower pump. On 13 January 2021 operatives did not have enough time and parts were required. The landlord acknowledged that the appointment was missed on 14 January 2021 but said there was no record of an appointment being made for 15 January 2021. Works to install the shower pump were completed on 18 January 2021. There was a further attendance on 20 January 2021 to install a spur to the shower pump as it was found that pump had been displaced and was touching the bath causing a loud noise.
  16. The landlord said that it had checked records and there was no repair raised for a shower head, and the original report was ‘Description: DV Supply and fix mixer tap and shower pump as tenant has low pressure to bath.’
  17. The letter concluded that the complaint was ‘…part Upheld as it is acknowledged an improved level of communication on the progress of repairs would have been beneficial.’ The landlord apologised for the delays experienced and for any inconvenience caused and said that as a goodwill gesture it was offering compensation of £15 for the use of an electrical heater, and for the inconvenience and delay of three weeks whilst the resident was waiting for the boiler repair to be carried out.
  18. The resident lodged a review stage complaint on that same day. He disagreed that the boiler wasn’t left in an unsafe state, referring to the gas safety certificate from October 2020 and saying ‘The level of corrosion could not have occurred in December alone. Plus there was no explanation given as to why this wasn’t picked on the occasion of the safety check as well as the initial inspection that determined that parts would be required.’
  19. The resident provided a photograph of the shower head which he felt demonstrated that it had not been professionally finished. He also said that the operatives who had carried out the work had been unprofessional.
  20. The landlord provided a review stage response on 30 April 2021 setting out a history of the repairs and complaint. It said that it had liaised with both the repair and gas teams during its investigation of the complaint, stating ‘Regarding the boiler, the contractors maintained that at no time was the boiler unsafe to use. This was also stated in the email correspondence to you from [the contractor].’
  21. Concerning the shower head installation, the landlord noted that an order was raised on 17 December 2020 to supply and fix a mixer tap and shower pump. The job was reported as completed on 21 January 2021. The contractor had advised that the order raised for the mixer tap and shower pump did not include work for the shower head, and so the landlord had now raised a new order to ‘renew shower head and hose to bathroom mixer taps and silicone seal around bath.’
  22. The letter went on to apologise for the inconvenience of the intermittent heating and hot water the resident experienced and recognised his unease about the condition of the boiler that resulted in rendering it unsuitable for use. It said ‘In the opinion of the gas engineer, the boiler was not considered unsafe for use before the decision was made to change it. However, I acknowledge your concern about the corrosion of the boiler before it was replaced. I appreciate the engineer’s affirmation that the boiler was not left in an unsafe condition.’ The landlord partially upheld the complaint because of the inconvenience the resident experienced while the issue was being resolved, apologised for this and offered £50 in compensation. 
  23. The landlord also apologised for the handling of the shower head installation. It acknowledged that operatives had to attend on several occasions to address the repair and leak, and that the service was below the standard it aimed to provide to residents. In recognition of the time and trouble taken to pursue the completion of the work, it offered £50.

For the missed appointment on 4 January 2021, it offered a further £15, making the total compensation awarded £115.

Assessment and findings

  1. 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
  2. In his complaint to this Service in June 2021, the resident explained that his complaint is about the ‘…poor, unprofessional and dangerous attitude undertaken by Lambeth contractors with regards to the installation of a hot water pump, the repair and subsequent replacement of my hot water boiler.’ He described the offer of £115 as ‘woeful’ for the stress and inconvenience caused. He explained that operatives had damaged the bathroom wall when they installed the shower head and broke the seal around the bath when they installed the hot water pump. He said, ‘The safety cert that was completed in October 2020 where upon it was subsequently discovered that the level of corrosion that was in place before that time.’ The resident noted (in August 2021) that it had taken two additional visits to repair the broken seal around the bath and the damage to the bathroom wall has not been repaired.
  3. As part of this investigation, the landlord was asked to provide its records of repairs, such as information provided by the landlord’s staff and operatives who inspected the property, and communications with the resident. The landlord has not been able to provide a copy of any correspondence received from the resident or copies of calls with the resident. It has no evidence of information provided by the landlord’s staff and operatives who inspected the property. It has explained that due to a change of contractor, it had limited historical information in terms of operative notes. It also said that it did not hold data on telephone conversations. In regard to the heating and hot water repair, it said it had ‘no information…to provide.’
  4. 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.
  5. Records should be kept in such a way that allows them to be stored and retrieved when required. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors.
  6. While the resident has not provided evidence that supports his 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.

Mixer taps/shower head

  1. There are discrepancies between the resident’s understanding and account of the works to the mixer taps/shower head and the landlord’s. The landlord states that the original order was raised on 17 December 2020 and was to fit mixer taps and a pump, with no job raised for a shower head. The resident recalls that the job was to fit a shower head, and it was not until the operative attended for the first appointment on 10 December 2020 that it became apparent that a pump would be required.
  2. The landlord’s more recent communications with this Service in which it stated that the resident contacted it on 27 November 2020 to ask for a mixer tap so that a shower head could be installed, contradicts its complaint response that the job was first raised on 17 December 2020. Taking the resident’s recollection of events into account it seems reasonably likely that the 17 December 2020 job that the landlord refers to was raised in response to the resident contacting it after the initial 10 December 2020 appointment, when he was advised to speak to the landlord about a pump. This indicates that the landlord’s response was inaccurate here, and further highlights the importance of the landlord maintaining accurate, accessible records of such works.
  3. There are other discrepancies between the resident’s account and the landlord’s, for example with the resident referring to a missed appointment on 22 December 2020 but the landlord not referring to this in its responses, and the resident stating that operatives did attend and carry out work on 4 January 2021, but the landlord saying that this was a missed appointment. However, both accounts refer to the works being completed on 20 January 2020. There is no indication in the limited information available as to what ‘priority’ this work was considered, but even if it was the lowest ‘priority 4’, it still took significantly longer than 30 working days given the works were first reported on 27 November 2020, with multiple visits and missed appointments. This would have been inconvenient and frustrating for the resident.
  4. The landlord has recently explained to this Service that the original order to install the shower head was issued to a contractor who was unable to complete the work before the end of their contract. It said ‘This has since been re-issued to our new contractor…as part of a WIP (work in progress) transfer.’ It provided a new order number for `Renew shower head and hose to mixer taps.’ It is presumed that this refers to the job that was raised as part of the review stage April 2020 response and indicates that this has been outstanding for a number of months. Having said this, it is not clear why an order to renew the taps and shower hose was raised, given that there is no indication that they required renewal. Rather, the resident had complained that the shower head was installed poorly and there was damage to the wall. This does not seem to have been addressed.
  5. The review stage response did recognise failings in the handling of the matter and that the service was below the standard the landlord aimed to provide, and offered £50 for the time and trouble the resident took in pursuing the matter. It also offered £15 for the missed appointment on 4 January 2020. The apology and offer of compensation were appropriate and demonstrate that the landlord was taking steps to ‘be fair’ and ‘put things right’ for the resident. However, the resident has detailed around eleven appointments that were made to address this issue, with several missed, and the additional problem of the works causing a leak into the flat below. There were then a further two visits to repair the broken bath seal. In light of this, the outstanding works order from April 2020, and given that the landlord’s compensation policy allows for higher amounts for time and trouble, the total of £65 was insufficient as a remedy. A higher amount is therefore ordered below.

Boiler

  1. It is not clear when the boiler repair was first raised, as there are discrepancies between the resident’s account and the landlord’s, with no records available to interrogate.  For example, the resident states that he contacted the landlord on 14 December 2020 and an operative attended on 17 December 2020, whereas the landlord says that the order was raised on 18 December 2020.
  2. As with the shower head/mixer tap, there is no indication as to what ‘priority’ this repair was given, but it is reasonable to expect a loss of heating and hot water in December to be treated as an emergency and attended to within 24-48 hours. From the landlord’s own account, the boiler was not fully repaired until 5 January 2020. The resident has explained that he was without heating and hot water for the entire period, and the landlord provided one small electric heater only.
  3. The resident was without heating and hot water for a three-week period and therefore the landlord failed to carry out its obligations under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act. This would have been extremely inconvenient and no doubt uncomfortable for the resident, especially given the Christmas period this timeframe spanned. While the landlord has acknowledged the delay in repairing the boiler and offered £50 in compensation, this is inadequate to address the adverse effect of the failings. Further, the resident had the added inconvenience and frustration of multiple attendances by operatives to try and address the issues. While the landlord has stated that the Covid-19 pandemic and the Christmas period made it difficult to obtain parts, it has provided no information or evidence to support this position.
  4. In relation to the resident’s concerns about the safety of the boiler, the Ombudsman has seen a copy of the gas safety inspection certificate (supplied by the resident) dated 21 October 2020, which records no defects found. It can therefore be concluded that the boiler was in safe and working order at this point, and the fact that there was a leak and rust apparent in December 2020 does not lead this Service to conclude that a gas safety check, carried out by an appropriately qualified professional, was incorrect.
  5. In relation to the December 2020 attendances, the landlord has not provided any information or evidence to support its position that the boiler was at no point left unsafe. As already stated in this report, it is crucially important that a landlord keeps records of such works so that it can satisfy itself (and this Service when requested to do so) on such matters. However, the email exchange between the resident and the contractor detailed in the summary section of this report (which was provided to the Ombudsman by the resident) does support the landlord’s explanation that the boiler was not left in an unsafe condition.
  6. While it is understandable that the resident felt concerned about the boiler and whether the leak/rust was apparent prior to the second December 2020 visit, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to speculate on this. The contractor appropriately reassured the resident that the boiler was not unsafe, and that the leak was not apparent at the first December 2020 visit. When the issue was found, the boiler was shut down.

Complaint handling

  1. It does not appear that the ‘early resolution’ stage of the complaint process was used in this case, which was appropriate given the complexity of the issues raised. The ‘local resolution stage’ was provided two weeks outside of the 20-working day timeframe (which already exceeds the Ombudsman’s Code timescale of ten days). Neither did the landlord make contact to update the resident when it was unable to provide its response by the specified date.
  2. £15 compensation was offered seemingly under ‘loss of amenity’ in relation to the cost of running an electrical heater and the inconvenience of the boiler being out of service for three weeks. This was wholly inadequate and not in line with the compensation policy, which states that compensation should be cumulative, for example offering amounts for the delay itself, as well as the time and trouble experienced.
  3. The review stage response was provided more than five weeks after the review request. While the landlord’s complaint policy in place at the time did not give a specific timeframe for review responses, this exceeds the timescale which the Ombudsman considers reasonable and applies through his Complaint Handling Code. This sets out that a stage two/review decision should be provided within 20 working days from receipt. The response also exceeded the review stage timescale recently advised by the landlord, which is 25 working days. Neither was the review undertaken by an Improvement & Review Officer and a member of Senior Leadership Group, as required in line with the landlord’s complaint policy.
  4. While the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord attempted to provide a full response to the resident’s complaint, some parts of this were inaccurate, and the landlord has not provided any evidence to support its description of events.
  5. While the landlord attempted to ‘put things right’ by offering acknowledgments, apologies and compensation, the compensation offered, which was at the very lowest amount as set out in the compensation policy, was insufficient to remedy the inconvenience, time and trouble experienced. It is also noted that while the local resolution response acknowledged two missed appointments (4 and 14 January 2021) the review stage response only acknowledged and offered compensation for one.
  6. Neither is there any indication in the complaint responses that the landlord has ‘learnt from outcomes’ or taken any steps to 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 that it from 12 July 2021 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. 
  7. 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 text messages 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.   
  8. The Ombudsman is satisfied that these improvements will help to avoid failings in the future such as those identified in this report.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with Section 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. service failure with the installation of a shower head and water pump;
    2. maladministration in the boiler repairs;
    3. service failure in the handling of the formal complaint, and;
    4. maladministration in the record keeping.

Reasons

  1. There were long delays to both the shower head/mixer tap works, and the repairs to the boiler.  The resident suffered time, trouble and inconvenience due to this and the multiple attendances by operatives, as well as the discomfort of being without central heating and hot water in the winter months. The landlord has acknowledged that its communication on these works was poor.
  2. The complaint responses were delayed, and in places inaccurate. The compensation offered did not provide an adequate remedy to the resident, and there is no indication of ‘lessons learnt’ from this particular complaint.
  3. Additionally, the landlord has not been able to provide any records of the repairs or its communications with the resident regarding these.

Orders

  1. Within one month of the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident a total of £400 for the time, trouble and inconvenience experienced, broken down as follows:
    1. £100 in relation to the mixer taps/shower head works;
    2. £250 for the boiler repair, and;
    3. £50 for the complaint handling.
  2. If the £115 offered via the complaint process has already been paid to the resident, this can deducted from the above.
  3. Within one month of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. If it has not done so already, attend the property and carry out any necessary works to make good the shower head/bathroom wall.
    2. Review its repairs record keeping practices, including those resulting from the redesign of its repair and maintenance services, to ensure that accurate and accessible records are kept and maintained, both of repairs raised and completed, and 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.