Lambeth Council (202202383)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202383

Lambeth Council

7 November 2023

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 reports of leaks, damp, mould and water damage in the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord in a 1-bedroomground-floor flat.
On 19 April 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that his radiator was leaking, and that he was unable to contain the water. He also reported mould on his toilet cistern. Between June and September 2021, the resident continued to report leaks coming from his radiator. He added that leaks occurred every time he turned the heater on and that it was affecting his electrics and had caused damage to his flooring and wallpaper. On 5 May and 12 August 2021, the resident reported mould in his bathroom and throughout his property.
On 29 October 2021, the resident complained to the landlord. He said that he had suffered water damage in his property since March 2021 and that his flat was ‘falling apart’. He added that when his new boiler was installed the pressure caused a pipe to burst which damaged his flooring and wallpaper and caused mould on the ceiling. Further, he stated that the landlord had not properly repaired the brickwork outside his flat and that this was also causing water damage.
On 5 January 2022, the landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process. In summary, it said that its builder attended the property in October 2021 when it repaired a hole in the wall. They suggested that the leak was coming from the walkway above. It added that it had raised an order to remedy the mould and the condition of the walls and that its contractor would contact the resident to schedule the work. It apologised for the delay in carrying out this work and the inconvenience caused.
In the resident’s escalation request, he asked the landlord to finish the repairs. He said that his flooring needed renewing and that wallpaper was hanging off the walls. He added that the water was coming from the outside wall where the pipe was installed and was running into his electrics. He felt that the landlord was displaying a lack of thought and that it did not want to resolve the issue.
The landlord issued its final response on 10 February 2022. In summary, it said:
1. It carried out a mould wash on 21 January 2022.
2. It carried out a damp and mould survey on 27 January 2022 and raised repair orders to resolve the leak as well as redecoration of the affected areas.
3. The target date for these repairs was 11 March 2022.
4. It acknowledged that its stage 1 response should have provided a definitive date for the mould wash.
5. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused and awarded £250 compensation for not following the correct procedures.
6. It had implemented a new process that would create a pre-inspection request for a surveyor to attend the property to carry out a full damp and mould survey.
The resident referred his complaint to this Service on 15 June 2022. He stated that the landlord had not repaired the kitchen, and that water was still leaking into his property, causing further damp and mould. He also stated that the landlord had not carried out any meaningful repairs to the external walkway. As an outcome, he wanted the walkway to be made watertight, his home to be made good, and compensation for delays in completing the works and the damage to his flooring.
The landlord completed the external works on 21 July 2022. In August 2023, the landlord informed the Ombudsman that it had completed all necessary internal repairs to the resident’s property to resolve the matter. Further, it stated that it has carried out additional extensive works to the property, including a bathroom and kitchen upgrade and a full decoration throughout. It has also agreed to fit new carpets in the resident’s front room and bedroom.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These 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 three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
2. Put things right, and;
3. Learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.’
Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for carrying out various repairs to the property, including repairs to water heating inside the property, outside pipes and walls, as well as electrical wiring.
The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that there are 5 repair classifications:
1. Emergency repairs – those repairs that the landlord must undertake within 24 hours of the repair being reported such as repairs that are a risk to the resident’s health and safety and/or may damage the building or security of the property.
2. Urgent repairs – those repairs that the landlord will attend within 3 working days.
3. Non-urgent repairs – those repairs that the landlord will respond to within 7 working days.
4. Routine repairs – those repairs that the landlord will respond to within 28 working days.
5. Planned repairs – those repairs that the landlord undertakes as part of an agreed program and/or improvement works within a specified timescale or 90 days unless otherwise stated.
The Ombudsman’s investigation was hindered by the inadequacy of the landlord’s repair records that it provided to this Service. These records lacked details such as repair completion dates and information about the actual works completed. It also contained duplicate entries for the same jobs, in some instances with differing target dates. Furthermore, it is unclear if the landlord carried out the repairs it said it had in both its stage 1 and 2 responses. An order has therefore been made for the landlord to review its record keeping in relation to repairs to ensure information is clear and detailed.
The landlord’s repairs log showed that it raised orders from April to September 2021 to address leaks from the resident’s radiator. However, it is unclear what, or if any, work was carried out to resolve the issue. Therefore, based on the evidence seen, this Service can only conclude that the landlord failed to fix the issue within the timescales set out in its repair policy. Given that the resident had reported a water leak on 19 April 2021 that he said he was unable to contain, the landlord should have treated this report as an emergency and attended to it within 24 hours. However, it is unclear if it did so. The landlord’s repair logs indicated that it raised his further reports of leaks as urgent repairs, however, again, it is unclear if it attended to these. In any case, the repair records highlighted that this was a consistent issue that remained unresolved for at least 5 months. This would have caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident.
Furthermore, its repair records highlighted that the resident reported, on more than one occasion, that the leaks were affecting his electrics and the water was running into his plug sockets. While there was evidence that the landlord initially raised work orders to address this, it is, again, unclear what action the landlord took to resolve this matter. Additionally, there was no evidence that it raised any further repairs regarding his electrics after June 2021, despite the resident clearly mentioning this in his escalation request, some months later, in January 2022. This would have been a significant safety concern to the resident, yet there was no evidence to show that the landlord treated this issue with any urgency. This was further evidenced by its failure to address this concern in its final response. This was a significant failure on the part of the landlord.
On 3 separate occasions, prior to his complaint, the resident reported damp and mould in his property. Despite these reports appearing on the landlord’s repairs log, there was no evidence that the landlord took any action to resolve the matter. Its internal records indicated that it was not until 15 September 2021, following his 21 August report, that it attended the property to assess the issue. On inspection, it was found that the wallpaper was lifting off and that there was mould on the kitchen ceiling. The landlord subsequently asked for a surveyor to attend to investigate this issue. Its records suggest that a surveyor attended the property more than 4 months later, on 27 January 2022. However, the landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of the surveyor’s report to support this. This again indicates issues with the landlord’s record keeping. In any case, this was a considerable delay that would have caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The Ombudsman would reasonably expect that on receiving reports of mould, the landlord should respond, arrange an inspection and investigate to determine the causes of damp and mould and, if necessary, carry out remedial repairs within a reasonable timescale. The landlord failed to do this. Had the landlord investigated the issue of damp and mould at the earliest opportunity, it is likely it would have resolved the leak much sooner. Overall, the landlord’s failure to repair the leak within a reasonable timescale left the resident living with damp and mould in his property for a prolonged period.
The landlord stated in its final response that it had carried out a mould wash of the property on 21 January 2022, yet there is no evidence to support this. Instead, its internal records suggested that it attempted a mould wash approximately 6 weeks later, on 9 March 2022. It is unclear why it took the landlord almost 6 months, following its September 2021 visit, to arrange this. This was an unacceptable delay.
Following the surveyor’s visit on 27 January 2022, it identified repairs to the external walkway and brickwork to resolve the leak. The landlord’s final response gave a target date for these repairs of 11 March 2022, yet it failed to complete the repairs by this date. Its records indicate that it completed the repairs on 21 July 2022. This was over 4 months outside of its target date. The landlord did not keep to its timescales in this respect, and it failed to communicate with the resident about the delays. This led to the resident chasing it for an update in May 2022. The landlord also failed to complete the internal repairs and redecoration by 11 March 2022 as agreed in its final response. These were failures on the part of the landlord that would have undermined trust in the landlord and tenant relationship.
In the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman, he said he wanted his home to be made good and compensation for the damaged flooring and delays in completing the works. The landlord recently tried to ‘put things right’ for the resident by carrying out numerous internal repairs to the property, including the insulation of external walls, renewed skirting boards, a kitchen and bathroom renewal, and a full decoration throughout the property. It has also agreed to fit new carpets in his front room and bedroom. While this Service considers that this goes some way to resolving the resident’s complaint, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence to confirm the works, such as a post-inspection report or photos of the work carried out. The Ombudsman has therefore made an order below in respect of this.
While this Service does not consider complaints about damages and/or liability of damages, as such matters are better dealt with through an insurance claim or the courts, the Ombudsman recognises that the landlord has acted fairly and in keeping with this Service’s Dispute Resolution Principles by agreeing to fit new carpets for the resident.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of reports of leaks, damp, mould and water damage in the property was poor. It failed to deal with repairs in accordance with its policy timescales and there was no evidence that the landlord treated the resident’s concerns with the urgency and attention that was required. Moreover, there were a series of failures that had a significant adverse effect on the resident. In particular, there were considerable delays in addressing and resolving the leaks and subsequent damp and mould, which the resident has lived with for a prolonged period. Further, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the £250 compensation awarded by the landlord does not adequately reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident by the failures identified in this report.
This amounts to maladministration from the landlord. In line with this Service’s remedies guidance, awards of between £600 to £1,000 compensation should be made where the Ombudsman has found failure which significantly impacted the resident. In view of this, orders are made below for remedy.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of reports of leaks, damp, mould and water damage in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its record keeping.

Orders

The landlord must, within the next four weeks:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a further £750 compensation in addition to the £250 already offered, for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of reports of leaks, damp, mould and water damage in the property.
3. The landlord must review the failings identified in this report to determine what action has been/will be taken to prevent a recurrence of these. The landlord must write to the Ombudsman with the outcome of this review.
4. Provide evidence that it has carried out the various internal repairs and redecoration as stated in its email to this Service dated 16 August 2023.
5. Carry out a review of its repairs record keeping in this case. The landlord should demonstrate that it has considered implementing a system that provides clear and detailed information on completion dates and works carried out. It should also assess itself against the Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Management Spotlight Report. The landlord must write to the Ombudsman confirming this has been completed and detailing the outcome.