Lambeth Council (202109540)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109540

Lambeth Council

30 January 2024

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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of repairs.
2. Concern about charges for communal heating.
3. Complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant in a 2 bedroom flat in a block, and her tenancy began in 1976. The landlord recorded the resident as vulnerable, due to her age.
The resident made a disrepair claim to the court against the landlord in 2017, and the case was resolved in 2020. The court ordered the landlord to pay damages to the resident. The disrepair case, and the associated repairs, are not within the scope of this investigation, but are included here as useful context to the later complaint.

Summary of events

The resident contacted this Service on 28 July 2021 and said:
1. There were problems with the kitchen that the landlord had recently replaced, and the new hob had started to rust
2. The wallpaper, which was done as part of the previous refurbishment, had started to come off the walls and ceiling
3. She had been reporting concerns about the above issues since March 2021 and had been told somebody would get back to her, but nobody had
4. She had been paying for communal heating that she did not use, as she had her own heating
This Service wrote to the landlord on 26 August 2021 and asked it to open a complaint investigation and contact the resident to discuss her concerns. The landlord responded on 27 August 2021 and said it had opened a complaint investigation, and would issue a response within its policy timeframes.
The resident contacted this Service on 16 September 2021 and said she had not received a response to her complaint. This Service contacted the landlord on 4 October 2021 and asked it to issue a complaint response within 5 working days. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 6 October 2021 and said:
1. It had instructed its contractor to complete repairs to the kitchen units, and complete redecoration works to resolve the wallpaper issue
2. It had asked its contractor to prioritise the works, and it would be in touch to book the repairs.
3. It provided the number for call centre if the resident wanted to contact it to discuss available dates for the repairs to take place
4. It apologised for the delays in completing the repairs and the inconvenience caused. It also apologised for the delay in sending the stage 1 complaint response.
From the evidence available for this investigation, it does not appear that the landlord booked the above repairs around the time of issuing its stage 1 complaint response.
The landlord’s repair log shows that it booked to complete the kitchen unit repairs on 1 March 2022, and the resident asked to rearrange the appointment due to a medical appointment. The landlord attended to complete works to the kitchen unit on 16 March 2022, the outcome of the repairs visit is not recorded.
The resident emailed this Service on 27 May 2022 and said that the landlord had not provided her with a stage 2 complaint response. The resident attached a letter to the email, dated 20 November 2021, that she said she sent to the landlord at that time. From the evidence available it is not possible to determine whether the landlord received the letter. The letter said:
1. The resident was unhappy with the stage 1 complaint response and wanted her complaint to be taken to stage 2
2. The landlord had not responded to all parts of her complaint, including her concern that she had been charged for communal heating that she did not have use of
3. There were still outstanding repairs at her property. She had contacted the call centre to try and book the repairs but was unable to get through
This Service contacted the landlord on 27 May 2022, and the landlord said it had not received the resident’s stage 2 escalation request. This Service wrote to the landlord on 24 June 2022, asked it to open a stage 2 complaint investigation, and issue a response by 8 July 2022.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 15 June 2022 to complete further works to the kitchen units, and the notes reflect the resident refused access.
The landlord sent the resident a letter on 1 August 2022 and said that it could not consider her complaint under its complaints process, as it related to a disrepair claim. The resident contacted this Service on 27 August 2022 and said that she was unhappy as the landlord’s letter had “not addressed” the concerns outlined in her complaint. This Service contacted the landlord on 5 September 2022 and asked it to send the resident a stage 2 complaint response by 19 September 2022.
The landlord attended the resident’s property to complete work to the kitchen on 13 September 2022. The notes reflect the resident refused access because she wanted a “housing officer to look at all the work needed to be done in her property”.
Following further contact from the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord again on 6 October 2022 and asked it to issue a stage 2 complaint response by 13 October 2022. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 13 October 2022 and said:
1. Its contractor had been trying to prioritise the repairs to the kitchen units and redecoration (wallpaper), but they had been unable to gain access. It asked the resident to get in touch to book the repairs
2. When the heating system was due to be replaced the resident chose instead to have her own system installed. As such, she should not have been charged for the communal heating
3. It had removed the heating charged on the resident’s account dating back to 2007, and credited her account £4,976.67. It provided a form for her to request a refund of the credit if she wanted to.
The resident contacted this Service on 21 October 2022 and said that she was unhappy with the landlord’s final complaint response and said:
1. She had not had access to communal heating since 1991, so was unsure why she had only been refunded from 2007
2. The landlord’s suggestion that she had refused access for repairs appointments was incorrect
3. She wanted the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint.
This Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 10 January 2024 and asked to provide evidence to support why it had decided to refund the heating charges from 2007. The landlord was unable to provide evidence on how it calculated the refund.
The resident contacted this Service on 10 January 2024 and said that the repairs to the kitchen and wallpaper were outstanding and restated that she had not refused repairs appointments. The resident expressed a concern that she reported various repairs issues in the monthly housing officer visits, but the landlord never followed up.

Assessment and findings

Relevant Obligations, policies, and procedures

The landlord’s Repairs Manual 2021 states that it is responsible for kitchen units if they need replacing, and plaster/wall finishing except for minor cracks. The manual says the landlord will complete “routine” repairs within 28 working days and “planned” repairs within 90 days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that the landlord can award up to £250 for time and trouble. The compensation policy states that when awarding compensation, it should also offer a full apology and explanation of what action is being taken to prevent a recurrence of the problem.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it operates a 2 stage complaints process. Stage 1, which it calls the ‘local resolution’ stage, and stage 2 which it calls the ‘final review’ stage. The policy states that stage 1 complaints should be acknowledged, in writing, within 2 working days, and responses should be sent within 20 working days. Stage 2 complaints should also be acknowledged within 2 working days, and responses sent within 25 working days.

Reports of repairs

As outlined above, the resident has made disrepair claims to the courts against the landlord throughout her tenancy. The latest of which was closed in 2020. It is noted that the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of repairs related to the disrepair claims. As the repairs related to the disrepair claim were subject to legal proceedings, which the courts awarded damages for, the landlord’s handling of those repairs are not within the scope of this investigation. This investigation has focused on the landlord’s handling of resident’s reports of repairs raised in July 2021, and her concern about the general conditions within her property.
When the resident asked this Service to investigate her complaint, in October 2022, she raised a concern that the landlord’s handling of the repairs had impacted on her health and mental wellbeing. The serious nature of this is acknowledged and we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit.
The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
The landlord was put on notice about the repairs needed to the resident’s kitchen units in July 2021. The evidence available indicates that the landlord did not try to attend to the repair until 1 March 2022. This was well outside of the timeframes set out in its repairs manual and was a failing in its handling of the matter. This caused the resident an inconvenience of not having her repair attended to within a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of October 2021, lacked detail in relation to its handling of repairs, and its tone was inappropriate. The landlord upheld the complaint, and accepted there were delays in completing repairs, and said its contractor would be in touch to book the repairs. It also explained the resident could book them herself.
Given it admitting a failing, due to delays, a more proactive approach would have been appropriate. Actively booking the repairs as part of its complaint response would have gone some way to putting right its admitted failing. The landlord classed the resident as vulnerable due to her age. Considering this, it is of particular concern that it was not more proactive in booking the repairs.
Despite admitting a failing in its handling of the repairs, the landlord did not show any meaningful assessments of its actions in its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord did not set out how the delays had occurred, or what it would do to prevent similar happening again. That it did not do so, or offer any redress for its admitted failing was a further failing in its handling of the matter. Its actions were not in line with the approach set out in its compensation policy. Its approach at stage 1 failed to apply the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of learning from outcomes and putting things right.
It is evident that the landlord sought to complete works to the kitchen throughout 2022 with visits in March and June 2022. From the records provided the outcomes of the visits are not clear, and it is difficult to determine what repairs the landlord completed. It is noted that the landlord’s ability to resolve the kitchen repair issue appears to have been limited by the resident refusing access at certain times. It is also noted that in a conversation with this Service, on 10 January 2024, the resident disputed she had refused access for repairs. The Ombudsman does not seek to dispute the resident’s claims or indeed the landlord’s assertion that the resident refused access at times, and it is not possible to determine either way.
It is evident that the resident refused a repairs visit in June 2022 because she had wider concerns about repairs in her property. The notes from that visit state that the resident requested a housing officer to visit to discuss her concerns about repairs at the property. This Service has seen no evidence to indicate that the landlord attended to discuss the resident’s concerns about repairs issues. This was unreasonable and a further failing in its handling of the resident’s concerns about repairs. The resident was evidently distressed about the condition of her property, that the landlord did not visit, as she had asked, was unreasonable and caused further detriment.
From the evidence provided for this investigation, it does not appear that the landlord tried to attend to complete redecoration works until September 2022. The records indicate the job was closed on 26 September 2022, citing no access. The records lack detail on the reasons the landlord was unable to gain access to the property, which is a failing in its record keeping.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of October 2022, also lacked detail and did not give a meaningful assessment of its actions up to that point. It is noted that it cited it had difficulty in gaining access to the resident’s property, and encouraged the resident to rebook the repairs. The evidence shows that the landlord did have some difficulty in accessing the property to complete repairs, and therefore the delays were somewhat outside of its control.
However, the landlord did not give any detail of the times it had attempted the repairs, or an assessment of why it felt its approach was reasonable. Its silence on the resident’s wider concerns about repairs, and the property’s condition, was unreasonable. The stage 2 complaint response was inappropriate in relation to the resident’s concern about repairs and its response lacked detail which caused further inconvenience.
The landlord’s records keeping around the repairs was poor and lacked detailed recordings of outcomes. The evidence indicates that the landlord was not proactive in engaging with the resident about her concerns about the condition of her property. That it did not follow up on her request for a visit by a housing officer was inappropriate. It is noted that the apparent difficulty in gaining access limited its ability to respond to some repairs. The landlord’s handling of the repairs that are within the scope of this investigation to consider amount to maladministration. It is also evident the resident tried to raise concerns about repairs that the landlord did not engage with appropriately. As such, a series of applicable orders are set out below.

Concern about charges for communal heating.

In raising her concerns with this Service, the resident stated she had been charged for communal she had not received since 1991. This Service has seen no evidence to indicate that the resident raised this concern with the landlord until her complaint in July 2021. It is not possible to assess the landlord’s actions dating back to 1991, given the length of time that has passed. This investigation has, therefore, focused on the landlord’s actions after the resident made it aware of the issue, in July 2021, and whether its approach was reasonable in the circumstances
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of October 2021, was silent on the heating issue, which was inappropriate. The resident made a complaint to the landlord, through this Service, about being charged for heating she did not have use of. There is no evidence to indicate that the landlord discussed her concerns about the complaint more widely, including this matter, with the resident. This was a failing in its complaint handling and the substantive issue. This approach inconvenienced the resident as she did not get answers to specific concerns she had raised with the landlord.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint acknowledged the resident had paid for heating she was not receiving and refunded her the amount paid dating back to 2007. The records provided to this Service, in relation to the heating system aspect of the complaint are limited, it is therefore not possible to determine how the landlord reached the calculation to refund the heating dating back to 2007. That the landlord was unable to provide an explanation of how it calculated the figure was a failing in its record keeping, and an appropriate order is made below.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response lacked any detail, or indeed an apology, for the fact the resident had been paying for a service she had not received for, at least, 15 years. The lack of learning, or contrition, for the admitted failing was inappropriate. The resident was charged a significant sum of money for services she was not receiving. The lack of assessment of its own actions was unreasonable, and is a failing in its complaint handling and the matter itself.
In line with its compensation policy, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to set out its understanding of how the issue occurred, and what it would do to prevent similar issues arising again. That it did not offer an apology, or compensation, for the distress and inconvenience caused by the issue was unreasonable. The landlord’s approach lacked empathy, and it failed apply the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of learning from outcomes and putting things right.
That it refunded the money the resident was incorrectly charged went some way to putting things right for the resident. However, the lack of learning and clarity on how it reached the refund figure was inappropriate. That it did not seek to offer redress for the distress and inconvenience caused, added to the length of time and amount of money the resident was charged, was inappropriate. The failings identified in this investigation amount to a finding maladministration.

Complaint Handling

On receipt of the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues in this complaint, in July 2021, we asked the landlord to open a complaint investigation. The landlord advised it would issue a complaint response within its policy timeframes. It did not do so, which was a failing in its complaint handling which caused the resident an inconvenience.
There is no evidence to indicate that the landlord formally acknowledged the resident’s complaint. This was a failure to apply its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The resident had raised several concerns as part of her complaint and its lack of engagement directly with her about the complaint was inappropriate.
The Code states that, when formally acknowledging a complaint, a landlord “must set out its understanding” of the resident’s complaint. That it did not created and unfair complaints process for the resident. The resident missed an opportunity to discuss her complaint directly with the landlord and ensure it fully understood what she was complaining about.
Despite telling this Service it would issue a complaint response within its policy timeframes, the landlord did not send its complaint response until October 2021. This was 2 months after the complaint was made. This was well outside of the timeframes set out in its policy and the Code, and caused further detriment to the resident. The delay was unreasonable, and created a protracted complaints process for the resident. She was cost further time and trouble in needing to seek assistance from this Service in order to get a response to the stage 1 complaint.
When the landlord did send its stage 1 complaint response, it appropriately apologised for the delay. However, it did not offer any redress, or show any learning about what caused the delay, or what it would do to prevent delays happening again. This was a failure to appropriately apply its compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of learning from outcomes and putting things right. This was a further failing in its complaint handling and the resident experienced a further inconvenience of not being offered redress to put admitted failings right.
The resident claimed, in an email to this Service in May 2022, that she tried to escalate her complaint to stage 2 in November 2021, and provided a typed letter. The landlord told this Service it had not received the escalation letter. On the evidence available, it is not possible to determine whether the landlord did or did not receive the letter. The Ombudsman does not seek to dispute the resident’s claim. However, it is not possible to determine if the entirety of the delay in progressing the complaint to stage 2 is the fault of the landlord. What is apparent is that, after this Service asked the landlord to open a stage 2 complaint in June 2022, there was an unreasonable delay in the landlord issuing an adequate response.
The landlord first sent a stage 2 complaint response in August 2022, which was well outside of the timeframe requested by the Ombudsman. This was a further failing in its complaint handling. In addition to this, its response of 1 August 2022 was inappropriate and did not address the resident’s complaint. That it cited a disrepair case as a reason for not responding to the resident’s stage 2 complaint was inappropriate.
It is noted there was a historic disrepair claim, which could not be dealt with as a complaint. But the resident had raised concerns about repairs that were not part of the disrepair claim, as well as issues that were completely unrelated to repairs. That it did not address these aspects of the resident’s complaint was inappropriate and a further failing in its complaint handling. The resident experienced further inconvenience of not only a delayed response, but a response that was inappropriate and did not seek to address any of her concerns. The landlord told this Service, in early 2022, the disrepair case was closed in 2020. Its later response to the resident in August 2022, that it would not issue a stage 2 response, is concerning. It approach supports the conclusion that the landlord was obstructive in the resident’s access to the complaints procedure.
The landlord did not issue a final complaint response until October 2022, 5 months after this Service asked it to open a stage 2 complaint. This was well outside of the timeframes set out in its policy and the Code and a further failing in its complaint handling. The resident experienced an unfair and hard to access complaints process. The resident experienced further inconvenience, time, and trouble due to the landlord’s obstructive approach. The need to repeatedly seek assistance from the Ombudsman caused a further detriment.
It is noted the landlord acknowledged its letter of August 2022 was inappropriate and apologised for its earlier response. This was appropriate in the circumstances. However, that it did not apologise for the overall delay in issuing a stage 2 complaint response, and that it repeatedly missed deadlines set, was unreasonable. Its complaint response failed to show any learning about its complaint handling or offer redress for the delays experienced by the resident. This was inappropriate and a further failing in its complaint handling.
As outlined earlier in this report, both complaint responses admitted failings in the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues of the complaint, and lacked evidence of learning. The stage 1 complaint response also failed to address all aspects complained about which was unreasonable. The lack of a meaningful assessment of its actions, and offer of redress when admitting failings, was unreasonable. This was a failure to apply the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of learning from outcomes and putting things right, as well as its own compensation policy, in its complaint responses.
The unreasonable delays in sending complaint responses, and the obstructive approach to the complaint process are of particular concern. The complaint responses lacked learning, empathy, and a detailed assessment of the landlord’s actions. That the landlord admitted failings, but did not offer redress was inappropriate. The number of failings identified in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling amount to a finding of severe maladministration.

Wider complaint handling concerns

In February 2022, the Ombudsman issued a special report about the landlord, highlighting concerns with its complaint handling. The report recommended the landlord review its complaint handling procedures to reduce the risk of similar failures in the future. We continued to identify problems with the landlord’s performance, reaching findings of maladministration and severe maladministration following investigations into 20 separate complaints from residents.
In June 2023 we told the landlord of our intention to carry out an inspection to find out the reasons for its ongoing failures in complaint handling. In December 2023 we issued a report setting out our findings with further recommendations for service improvement.
In this investigation we have identified failures similar to those that led to our special report in 2022 and subsequent inspection in 2023. We therefore order the landlord to consider the findings highlighted in this investigation against the recommendations in our inspection report of December 2023.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concern about communal heating charges.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord’s record keeping around the repairs was poor and lacked detailed recordings of outcomes. The evidence indicates that the landlord was not proactive in engaging with the resident about her concerns about the condition of her property. That it did not follow up on her request for a visit by a housing officer was inappropriate. It is noted that the apparent difficulty in gaining access limited its ability to respond to some repairs.
The landlord appropriately refunded the resident for the communal heating, as she did not have access to it. The landlord’s complaint response lacked empathy and did not apologise, or offer redress, for the distress and inconvenience caused. That the landlord did not explain how it had calculated the refund amount was also inappropriate.
The complaint process was protracted and hard to access for the resident. There were unreasonable delays in issuing complaint responses, and the resident was cost time and trouble in needing to seek assistance in getting responses. The letter in August 2022 was inappropriate and did not address any concerns raised. The complaint responses lacked learning, empathy, and a detailed assessment of the landlord’s actions. That the landlord admitted failings but did not offer redress, was inappropriate.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Instruct a director to apologise, in person, to the resident for the failings identified in this report
2. Pay the resident £1,300 in compensation, made up of:
  1. £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs
  2. £200 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concern about communal heating charges
  3. £800 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint
3. Revisit the refund for the communal heating charges, and consider if a further refund is due to the resident. A detailed calculation of how it worked out the refund must be provided, in writing, to the resident. The calculation must also be provided to this Service.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Conduct a review into its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs. The review should consider how the following factors contributed to the delays in completing repairs:
  1. Its poor record keeping,
  2. Its poor communication
  3. The lack of consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities
  4. Its lack of proactive engagement on the repairs
  5. It should consider the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports on Knowledge and Information Management and Attitude, Respect and Rights to identify areas for service improvement
2. Instruct an appropriately qualified officer to meet with the resident, at her property, to discuss her concerns about ongoing repair issues, and must:
  1. Identify outstanding repairs
  2. Agree an action plan with the resident of when it will complete each repair
3. The outcome of the meeting, and action plan must be shared with this Service.
As set out above, the landlord is ordered to consider the findings highlighted in this investigation against the recommendations in our inspection report of December 2023.