Lambeth Council (202108805)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108805

Lambeth Council

26 August 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

The resident’s complaint was about:

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied a ground–floor, three-bedroomed property with her son, under a secure tenancy.

Legal and policy framework

There was no dispute that the landlord was responsible for the repairs the resident had reported, pursuant to the tenancy agreement and/or Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
Under the repairs policy, emergency repairs which would cause serious health and safety issues would take place within 24 hours, routine repairs within seven (such as securing a lock) or twenty eight days (such as a repair to a ceiling), depending on the repair, and planned repairs within 90 days such as plaster work and work that prevented problems arising. According to the landlord’s repair records, boiler issues were marked with a timescale of three days, and window repairs with a timescale of 90 days.

Chronology

There was a history of reports of disrepair by the resident, which, according to the resident, dated back to 2017. On a date in 2018 or 2019, she instructed a solicitor, as a result of which the landlord and the resident’s solicitor agreed to jointly instruct an expert surveyor who produced a survey report on 23 July 2019 (“the 2019 Report”). The surveyor noted a number of defects, including damp and mould, and works to the bathroom which the landlord had commenced but not completed, so that the washbasin was not secured, a shaver light had been left hanging, and the basement entrance let in draughts. The boiler pressure was at zero and the radiators appeared to be undersized.
As a result of the 2019 Report, the landlord agreed to carry out the works recommended by the surveyor (“the Works”) and to pay the resident a sum in compensation, which agreement was finalised on a date in November 2019. The evidence showed the parties agreed a date by which the works should be carried out but did not show that date.
The Works included an assessment of and works to the space–heating system, boiler, and radiators in order to address pressure and leaks, treat mould in various rooms, carry out replastering, dampproof the bathroom, replace the bathroom window, trunk the bathroom wiring, affect repairs to the basin and bath, descale the drainage, fit a door to the rear bedroom, replace the kitchen fire door, adjust the basement front door, replace the architrave of the ground floor entrance, and replace outside steps.
According to the landlord’s repair records, the relevant orders, except in relation to the space heating, were raised on 16 September 2019, marked with a timescale of 90 days, and marked as completed on 15 October 2020.
According to the resident in 2019, there were two appointments made for an electrical survey of the property and a gas engineer to attend to evaluate the boiler, heating, and radiators. On both occasions, the contractors failed to attend and, according to the resident, was to have rescheduled the appointments, but had not done so.
On 12 November 2019, the landlord emailed the resident that the electrician was due to attend that day but no access was provided. According to the landlord’s emails, the resident’s solicitor had previously confirmed that access would be provided.
On 14 November 2019, the resident informed the landlord that the resident would be away due to family circumstances for a few weeks and to await a date for access. On 31 January 2020, according to the landlord’s records, the contractor was due to attend but no access was provided. According to its internal emails, the landlord arranged appointments to carry out the works.
The resident’s solicitor chased the Works on 26 February 2020. The landlord noted in its internal email of 23 March 2020 that there had been “serious issues with access”. It would request further dates from the contractor.
There was a gap in the evidence during which time (26 March 2020 to 10 May 2020) there was a lockdown and guidance to landlord was issued that landlords should only effect emergency repairs.
On 5 June 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident confirming an appointment for 16 June 2020 “to carry out works”. There was no evidence of the outcome.
There followed a further gap in the evidence. However, according to the repair records the drain clearance and descaling was completed on 3 July 2020. The resident later reported that the wires in the bathroom were removed on 23 July 2020. It was not disputed that the internal works were completed on 15 October 2020. According to the resident the sink remained detached from the bathroom till October 2020.
On 26 October 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident’s solicitor stating it would like to post-inspect the work on 28 October 2020 and asking it “to ensure” that the resident provided access.
According to an internal email of 28 October 2020, the resident did not allow access for a post-inspection that day.
On 29 October 2020, the resident wrote to her solicitor to state that contractors had attended that day but it was not convenient to do so. She had not seen or received her solicitor’s email until that evening. She was at home all day on the 28 October 2020, awaiting a gas engineer who did attend. She objected to getting the blame for the delays.
The landlord wrote to the resident (and her solicitor) on 30 October 2020 stating that it had sent the appointment letter for 28 October 2020 on the morning of 26 October 2020. It invited the resident to provide dates for access, alternatively confirm that she was satisfied with the Works or to let it know what she was not happy with. The surveyor would re-attend as soon as she could.
A second lockdown began on 5 November 2020 for a period of 4 weeks. The resident reported issues with her space heating as an emergency and the landlord replaced the boiler on 2 December 2020.
An inspection of the front door in relation to a gap along the side and top of the door and a lock was carried out on 11 or 15 December 2020. There were further reports in relation to a front door which, according to the repair records, followed a break-in.
A third lockdown commenced on 6 January 2021, which eased off gradually over the following months, in stages.
A post-inspection took place on or around 20 January 2021, which reported some “snagging”. According to the resident, it was agreed at the post-works inspection that the bedroom bay window needed to be addressed but again there was no action taken. She later reported it as a fresh repair. Again, according to the resident, the bathroom was not signed off and it became apparent that a substantial part of the bathroom would have to be done again, along with some minor repairs.
On a date in February 2021, the resident reported that her next-door neighbour had dug up their side of the garden causing the party wall to collapse, leaving a trench in her garden. According to the repair records, the landlord undertook a repair on 19 February 2021 to make it safe and on 9 March a structural engineer attended to inspect it. The landlord informed the resident in April 2021 and/or in its later complaint response (the evidence is not quite clear) that the responsibility for repairing the wall was the neighbour’s and that it was seeking to enforce that obligation against the neighbour.
In 2021, the resident reported further issues with the water pressure. Further to a report in February 2021, according to the landlord’s records a job was raised to flush and inspect the radiators and which was marked as complete on 17 February 2021. According to the resident, new radiators were fitted on 26 February 2021. On 12 March 2021, an engineer identified an issue with a hot water pipe. On 31 March 2021, the work was carried out, but according to the resident the plumber stated it made no difference. However, he changed a filter which appeared to resolve the issue.
Also in early 2021, the resident chased repairs to her windows. According to the landlord’s repair records, it raised a repair on 23 March 2021 that the main bedroom bay window required three new bottom sashes, repairs to internal sills, and repairs to the wall plastering and was “cancelled”. A few days later. it noted it was waiting authorisation to carry out the works.
According to the landlord’s repair records, repairs to the bathroom basin and bath were carried out on 31 March 2021 and according to the resident, fresh bathroom repairs recommenced on 26 April 2021 and were finished on 7 May 2021.
On 6 April 2021, the resident made a complaint that the leaseholders next door had caused the party garden wall to collapse leaving a trench on her side of the wall. There had been an inspection on 8 March 2021 but no follow–up. She attached a record of her contact with the landlord.
On 9 April 2021, a job was raised to repair the second bedroom as well as the main bedroom bay window. On 23 April 2021, the second bedroom window was repaired but the resident reported that the repair was not successful. According to the landlord’s repair records, it raised a job accordingly which its repair records was marked as completed on 4 May 2021. According to an internal email of 13 September 2021, the main repairs had been carried out “earlier this year”.
On 5 May 2021, the landlord wrote its first complaint response as follows:
1. The fence repairs (to rectify the wall), plastering, and the front door repair had been raised as a priority.
2. A separate review of the previous windows repairs had been raised. The teams were to provide an update on the progress.
3. Her concerns regarding boiler and water pressure repairs had been forwarded to the relevant team.
4. The complaint was “partly upheld” as it recognised an improved level of communication on the progress of works would have been beneficial. It apologised.
According to an email from its contractor and the resident of the same day, the landlord had raised an order for further window repairs, as well as a recall of previous window repairs.
In response to an enquiry by the landlord, its contractor replied on 18 May 2021 as follows:
1. The contractor was due to carry out the decoration to “the ceiling and filling” on 9 June 2021.
2. It had attended the property in relation to the garden wall on 11 May 2021 and reported that someone had attempted to rebuild a section of brick wall using concrete blocks without mortar. It awaited instructions regarding the structural engineer’s report of 8 March 2021.
3. There had been delays due to demands on the contractor and “the door” would be installed by the end of the month.
According to an internal or contractor email of 20 May 2021, a job had been raised to attend to the resident’s fence as nothing was supporting it and a concrete post was installed to support the fence.
On 2 June 2021, in response to an enquiry by the landlord on the same day, its contractor wrote to inform the landlord that the electrical works had not been completed, attributing this not to having been given access in 2019. The landlord booked repairs as specified in the 2019 Report the following day.
The landlord wrote on 3 June 2021 to the resident and her solicitor requesting access for 14 June 2021.
On 7 June 2021, the resident requested escalation of her complaint as follows: The contractor had informed the resident on 19 May 2021 that the front door and frame would be replaced by the end of the month. She was waiting to hear about the bedroom window and garden wall. She considered the landlord did not monitor works, blamed her for not giving access, and left her to chase the landlord. She attached a call log. The resident attached a chronology of events and steps she had taken including her calls to the landlord and contractors, which were numerous.
According to the resident, on 7 June 2021, she chased the window repairs and was referred back and forth between the landlord and contractor. The landlord’s contractor attended to fill holes in the wall on 11 June 2021.
The resident did not provide access on 14 June 2021 for the contractor to undertake electrical works.
On 15 June 2021, the landlord sent a warning letter to the resident threatening proceedings if the resident did not give access for works on 24 June 2021 to carry out electrical works.
On 24 June 2021, the resident signed a customer satisfaction form stating that the contractor did not find a shaver light or exposed cables as “they” had removed old cables and the resident had declined a shaver light with trunking given the works in the bathroom had been completed.
On 8 July 2021, the landlord noted that the door repair would be referred to new contractors at the end of the month and there was no update about the windows. According to the landlord’s internal emails, the contractor stated that the delay was due to the time it had taken to approve the works and sort the costing. According to the landlord’s internal emails, the repairs to the main bedroom windows were still outstanding.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 July 2021 with its second stage response as follows:
1. It stated that “All repairs referenced in the report” had been completed. There were further repairs to be undertaken including the bedroom wall under the window, and the window internally required repairs. The landlord had instructed a new contractor. There were several failed access attempts for works to be undertaken and referred to its “most recent” letter dated 15 June 2021.
2. In relation to the damage to the garden wall, the landlord had undertaken repairs for their part. However, the damage has been caused by the neighbouring property and was for the leaseholder to remedy. This has been referred to the housing/enforcement team for it to arrange to contact the leaseholder. The expectation was for the leaseholder to be instructed to reinstate and repair the damage.
According to the landlord’s repair records, following further issues with water pressure being logged in May 2021, a boiler leak was repaired on 3 August 2021. According to the landlord, the only outstanding repairs were those to the main bedroom window which were due to be undertaken in January 2022.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s investigation was hampered by the poor quality of the landlord’s records. The landlord’s repair records were not complete and lacked detail. For example, the jobs quoted were not sufficiently specific, in that they did not always specify for example which door and which window it was referring to. The records were difficult to follow without cross referencing with the resident’s own records.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.

Given compensation was agreed in November 2019, this report will focus on the repairs from November 2019.
The evidence indicated that there was some difficulty with access in late 2019 and early 2020. However, there was no evidence that the landlord provided further appointments between 31 January 2020 until 5 June 2020. There was no evidence that works were begun or carried out until June/July 2020. While the resident has stated that the works did not commence until September 2020, also according to the resident, the electrical works in the bathroom electrics had been carried out in July 2020. Lack of access, for whatever reason, may have delayed the works at the end of 2019 to the beginning of 2020 and the repairs would have been hampered by the pandemic. However, given the repairs should have commenced before the first lockdown, which lifted on 10 May 2020, this was an unreasonable and inappropriate delay by the landlord.
While the internal works and works to the external doors were completed on 15 October 2020, the resident’s complaint included further issues including the boiler, doors, and windows.
It was not disputed, though there was a discrepancy about the dates, that further works to the bathroom were necessitated due to inadequate works. As a result, the resident suffered further inconvenience.
The evidence showed that the resident was chasing and was dissatisfied with the work to the exterior doors. The evidence showed there were a number of break-ins or attempted break-ins which the resident felt were due to the poor condition of the door. It is outside the expertise of the Ombudsman to determine whether that was the case. Moreover, the evidence was not clear which door the reports and the repair records referred to. However, the evidence showed that the gap which related to the basement door was addressed in December 2020 and a weatherboard was installed. This was an unreasonable delay. While the evidence indicates that the remaining difficulties were linked to the break-ins, the delays were part of the resident’s complaint. The evidence also showed that there were considerable delays to those further repairs.
The window to the main bedroom was not included in the Works. However, the evidence indicated that the issue was raised in late 2020/early 2021 and this repair was only due to be completed on 22 January 2022, one year later. Regardless of the fact that the bedroom window was not part of the Works, it was part of the resident’s complaint, and there was service failure, given to the inappropriate delay.
While the job was raised in 2019, there was no evidence that the landlord attended to Works in relation to the space heating, namely to address the lack of radiators, low boiler pressure, and leaks. Instead, the evidence shows that the resident reported the issues on a number of occasions as fresh emergency repairs. While the boiler was replaced in December 2020 and the radiators were inspected, and the heating system flushed in February 2021, there remained issues throughout 2021, where the resident not only suffered the inconvenience and discomfort of her heating being compromised but also the inconvenience of having to chase the landlord and its contractors, and the works themselves.
Given the same issues of low water pressure and leaks persisted, it is reasonable to conclude that the issues the resident experienced in 2020 to early 2021 were due to the landlord not having complied with the 2019 Report sooner. While there were further issues from February 2021 onwards, fault is not entirely attributed to the landlord, as from then, it made reasonable attempts to address the resident’s reports, even if there were some delay between May 2021 and August 2021.
There was an emphasis on the resident not providing access. While there were instances of her not doing so, in the main the evidence showed that access was provided and on two occasions, access was unnecessary (in June 2021) and can be attributed to the landlord (in October 2021). Moreover, while a resident has an obligation to provide access, the evidence indicated that the landlord allowed matters to drift. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to be proactive. This was frustrating for the resident. The landlord’s mistaken view that it was necessary to attend in June 2021 also demonstrated poor record-keeping to arrange for works that had already been carried out a year earlier.
Overall, the evidence showed not only poor communication but also inappropriate delays to the works being carried out. The resident not only had to live with the disrepair and the inconvenience of the works, but the frustration of chasing the landlord and its contractors. While the Ombudsman recognises that the events occurred during a pandemic, this did not fully explain the extent of the delays identified in this report and in the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to this complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the removal of the neighbour’s garden wall.

The resident reported the issue of the garden wall in February 2021. The issue was addressed shortly after and reviewed in May 2021 when a repair was raised. While there was a delay in reassuring the resident and communicating its intentions, and some delay to finalising the works between February and May 2021, the Ombudsman considers that the actions by the landlord were reasonable and appropriate given that it made the wall safe pending taking action against the neighbour whose responsibility it was to repair the wall. However, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord should consider taking action and recharging the neighbour if this process is too lengthy, given the inconvenience to the resident, and will make a recommendation in that regard.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord recognised that the communication was poor but did not recognise the delays which it unduly attributed delays to the resident, which added to her frustration. It “partially “upheld the resident’s complaint but did not consider offering compensation. It unreasonably limited the resident’s complaint to the Works. There was undue emphasis on the resident not giving access, including a reference to its inappropriate warning letter of June 2021 to do works that had already been carried out. There was no evidence that the landlord undertook a review of its repairs history and was accordingly somewhat dismissive of the resident’s complaint.
It did not demonstrate the Dispute Resolution Principles set out in the Ombudsman’s guidance about complaint handling for treating people fairly, and following fair processes, putting things right and learning from outcomes. The complaint handling did lead to some monitoring of the repairs which otherwise appeared to have been missing. Given the lack of a proper review of the events, despite the level of detail provided by the resident, the Ombudsman also finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the removal of the neighbour’s garden wall.
In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The evidence showed not only poor communication by the landlord but also inappropriate delays by the landlord to the works being carried out. While the Ombudsman recognises that there were some issues of access and the events occurred during a pandemic, this did not fully explain the extent of the delays identified in this report.
The landlord responded to the resident’s reports in a timely manner and addressed the issues, even if there was some delay and communication could have been better. The actions it took were reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.
While there was some evidence of benefits to the complaint handling, overall, the landlord’s complaint responses did not demonstrate a proper review of the repairs’ history and missed the opportunity that a complaint provides of reflection on the landlord’s actions.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation in the amount of £950 within 28 days as follows:
1. The sum of £750 in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
2. The sum of £200 in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord should confirm compliance with the order to the Housing Ombudsman service with the above orders within 28 days of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should arrange for its surveyor to attend the resident’s property within 28 days in order to undertake a review of the condition of the resident’s property, in particular in relation to whether the works referred to in this investigation have been completed.
2. The landlord should also provide a copy of the report to the resident, together with a schedule of any outstanding works that it identifies including timescales, within 14 days of the inspection.
3. The landlord should review its arrangements for monitoring its timescales for undertaking repairs and the performance of its repair contractors.
4. The landlord should consider repairing the wall itself and recharging the neighbour if the process of enforcement has proved to be too lengthy.
5. The landlord should review its record keeping to ensure it is clear and comprehensive.
6. The landlord should ensure that it utilises its complaint procedure to undertake a meaningful and reflective review of its actions.
7. The landlord should ensure all relevant staff are aware of the Complaint Handling Code and consider attendance at training events, such as learning from complaints workshops.
8. The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within 28 days of this report.