Lambeth Council (202203038)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203038

Lambeth Council

28 July 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

This is about:
1. The resident’s complaint about missed appointments.
2. How the landlord handled a leak into the resident’s property.
3. How the landlord handled the resident’s report of loss of lighting.
4. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Policies and Procedures

The repair policy sets out 5 categories for day-to-day repairs:
1. Urgent emergency – attend within 2 hours and fix within 24 hours.
2. Emergency – fix within 1 working days.
3. Routine – Fix within 7 days (or 3 days for certain qualifying repairs).
4. Routine – Fix within 28 working days of the repair being reported.
5. Planned – Complete within 90 days.
The landlord’s complaint policy in place at the time complained of sets out a three-stage process:
1. Early resolution, where the landlord would try and resolve the issue straight away, without a written response, and the complaint would be recorded as closed unless the landlord received further communications.
2. Local resolution stage, where a more senior member of staff would take a fresh look at the problem and provide a response within 20 working days.
3. The final review stage should be requested by a resident within 20 working days of the previous response. An Improvement & Review Officer and a member of Senior Leadership Group would undertake the review. No timescale is given for completion of this review.
The landlord’s complaints policy also says it will not investigate complaints where the cause of the complaint occurred 6 months prior.
The resident has a right to repair which is outlined in the landlord’s repairs policy. The Right to Repair scheme gives a legal right to have these repairs done on time. The resident maybe entitled to compensation if the work is not done on time.
The landlord has a compensation policy which awards £20 for every identified missed appointment.
In addition, the compensation policy does have discretionary awards. For time and trouble, it provides for awards between £50 and £250.

Background.

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom ground floor flat. She has a secure tenancy that started on 7 April 2010.
The resident has explained that her daughter has a diagnosis of periventricular leukomalacia, which is a form of ‘mild’ brain damage which affects her communication, learning and sensory needs. Disturbed routines can cause an increase in anxiety which in itself can heighten her “arousal level and need for attention.”
The resident has referred to her child’s health condition as part of her complaint and has said that this worsened because of the way in which the landlord responded to reported repairs. In this case, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her child’s health and how this related to the repairs which she reported. The Ombudsman has not determined whether the landlord is responsible for any deterioration in health or exacerbation of a health condition. Such a decision requires an assessment of liability and would best be decided by a court or insurer.

Summary of events

On 12 March 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to ask it to finish carrying out the following repair work and to respond to missed appointments dating back to October 2020.
1. Broken balcony door.
2. Poor plastering in hallway and kitchen.
3. Unhappy with paint work in hallway, kitchen, and children’s bedroom.
4. Work not completed to ‘cover piping.’
On 7 April 2021, the resident contacted the landlord because she had not heard about her repairs.
On 9 April 2021, the landlord emailed the resident with missed appointment forms. A year later, the resident asked the landlord to send out a form for her to receive compensation for missed appointments.
On 3 June 2022, following contact with this service, the landlord was asked to provide a response to the resident’s concerns. After reviewing its records, the landlord responded to say that a response had been issued on 9 April 2021. It viewed contact from the Ombudsman as an escalation request and logged the contact as a ‘final review’ complaint.
On 14 July 2022, the landlord wrote an interim complaint response to the resident to say it would be in a position to provide a full complaint response following an inspection appointment due to be completed on 21 July 2022. It also asked the resident to complete a missed appointment’s form, detailing repair, job order numbers and missed appointment dates.
On 29 July 2022, the resident emailed the landlord’s complaints team to report that the bathroom light had made a “loud bang and gone off”. When the landlord’s contractor arrived, they found that the bathroom light was ‘full of water’ and this was most likely due to an unresolved leak at the leaseholder’s property. The resident said that she had been left without lights and she was concerned for the vulnerability of her children and especially the child with additional needs.
The landlord’s complaints officer asked for an urgent visit to the resident that day to consider options regarding the lack of lights in the flat. A senior surveyor responded to clarify that the contractor had already attended and that it was only the bathroom light that had been isolated due to water ingress, this light would be reinstated next week once the ceiling was dry.
On 4 August 2022 following further reports of a leak, the landlord’s out of hours service attended and gained entry to the leaseholder’s flat to establish the source. They found that the leak had stopped however observed it had come through the poor condition of the tiles and mastic around the neighbour’s bath.
On 5 August 2022, the landlord’s contractor attended the property and restored all lights except for the bathroom light which needed further time to dry out.
On 6 August 2022, the contractor attended both properties to attempt repairs but was unsuccessful. The record does not say what repairs the contractor intended to carry out in the leasehold property.
On 10 August 2022, the contractor attended both the resident’s and the leaseholder’s properties. They confirmed the leak to be coming from the tiles and mastic around the bath and recommended contacting the leaseholder to ensure they arranged the repairs.
On 15 August 2022, the contractor completed a full electrical inspection of the property. Later that day, a further leak resulted in the landlord needing to reattend using its out of hours service.
On 18 August 2022, the landlord attended both properties with the contractor to inspect the source of the leak. They gained access to the leasehold property and observed disrepair of poor mastic and tiling around waste pipes, bath and sink edges in the bathroom which were likely causes of the leak.
On 1 September 2022, the landlord sent the resident its final complaint response. It said:
1. It had spoken to the repairs manager who had advised that following an inspection on 21 July 2022, they understood all repairs were complete.
2. From reviewing their repairs records they assessed that there had been 5 missed appointments between 2020 and 2021 and offered £20 per appointment, a total of £100.
3. In explanation of events on 29 July 2022 relating to the leak, it explained that they had attended the leak on the same day and isolated the bathroom light so that it could dry out. Other sockets and lights at the home were understood to be working.
4. The leak reoccurred on 4 August 2022, the landlord sent a plumber that day and managed to gain access to the leasehold flat above. The plumber inspected and identified a leak under tiling in the leaseholder’s bathroom.
5. The contractor confirmed all lights were working on 15 August 2022 except the bathroom light which would be reinstated when it had dried out.
6. On 16 August 2022, after a further leak from the property above the landlord’s surveyor visited, entered the leasehold property, and shut off the bathroom service valve. The pipework in the kitchen and bathroom needed to be investigated to remedy the ongoing leak.
7. On 18 August 2022, the landlord’s senior surveyor attended the leasehold property and found the cause of the leak to be the sink unit not fitting correctly and water coming down the back of the kitchen units into the resident’s property.
8. The landlord had been unable to speak to the leaseholder although their managing agent had confirmed the repair would be sourced ‘immediately.’ The landlord stressed that it required notification that the repairs had been completed and wrote to the leaseholder about this matter.
9. The landlord apologised for the upset caused to the resident and her family. It confirmed its offer of £100 for missed appointments and £150 as a further goodwill gesture.

After the final response letter

On 2 September 2022, the resident responded to express her dissatisfaction with the response. resident escalated the complaint to this service because the stage 2 reply had not covered:
1. The ongoing total loss of lighting throughout the property and asked what would be done about it.
2. Damage to the ceilings and cracks around the kitchen tiled areas.
3. The bathroom floor was now stained and lifting due to constant water damage.
4. She explained that it had been very inconvenient to navigate through the property in the dark which had a knock-on effect on the family.
5. She asked for compensation to be broken down for:
  1. Missed appointments.
  2. Loss of lights throughout for over a month.
  3. Good will gesture for all the unnecessary stress and inconvenience caused.
6. She asked for:
  1. Confirmation on what will be done regarding damage in her property.
  2. When her lighting would be reinstated.
  3. What action the landlord would take against the leaseholder.
On 5 September 2022, the landlord’s out of hours service queried what steps were being taken to resolve the leak. The out of service had repeatedly attended because the leaseholders had not completed works to stop leaks into the resident’s property. The neighbourhood surveyor contacted the leaseholder’s agent who said that “they would send someone out that day to rectify the issue.”
On 6 September 2022, the resident reported an ongoing leak to the front bedroom, living room and bathroom which had been ‘leaking all night’. The landlord attended and gained entry to the leaseholders flat and found that a leak was coming from a toilet and radiator pipework.
Also on this day, the landlord updated the resident that it had spoken to the leaseholder’s agent and that they had confirmed they would visit the leasehold address to resolve the issue. After this a further update would be provided
The resident reported the leak again on 11 September 2022 which the landlord’s out of hours service attended. Pictures have been shown of water running down the kitchen wall onto the floor. Whilst in attendance plumbers from the leasehold agent’s service arrived. In discussion they “did not know” where the leak was coming from, but it “could” be coming from behind the bath or the toilet or from the radiator.
The following day the landlord queried with the leaseholder’s managing agent who had said they were “sending a plumber. The landlord asked for a call back. In an email between a manager and a surveyor it was confirmed that if there were further issues then the leasehold / enforcement team would need to act.
On 14 September 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to say that the leak was still ongoing. On disusing this with it is the surveyor an email was sent to the leasehold team to ask what action could be taken regarding the leaseholder’s lack of progress in solving the leak.
Later, on 30 September 2022 the lights were restored throughout the resident’s property with the exception of the bathroom light, where a temporary light was provided whilst the ceiling dried out. A further call was made to the leaseholder’s agent who said they were sending out a plumber.
When no update was provided by the agent, the landlord’s surveyor asked for an enforcement letter to be sent by the leasehold team.
On 12 October 2022, this Service asked the landlord whether it had considered the residents complaint at stage 1. It responded to explain that:
1. An initial complaint had been raised on 9 June 2022 about how repairs had been handled at the property. This complaint was about:
  1. In insecure balcony door.
  2. Poor plastering in the hallway and kitchen.
  3. Poor quality paint work in hallway, kitchen, and bedroom.
  4. Missed appointments going back to October 2020.
2. The leak element of the complaint had been introduced to the complaints process on 29 July 2022 and the landlord had sent its final response on 1 September 2022.
3. A further MP enquiry about the leak had been recorded on 6 October 2022 and a response due on 16 October 2022 which it felt might resolve the matter.
The original MP request listing the resident’s questions has not been provided to this service, however the landlords response on 18 October 2022 has been made available. In this response it said:
1. It had visited the resident to inspect damage caused by the leak but had not been able to gain access to the resident’s property. It had left a calling card at the time and provided telephone numbers and an inspection reference number.
2. It accepted it would be unusual for all of the property lights to be left off and speculated that the attending electrician may have done this rather than isolating the bathroom light. It considered once this was investigated and resolved further compensation maybe offered.
On 15 November 2022, the landlord inspected the property and found water damage to the kitchen ceiling, wall, and tiles as well as a deteriorated worktop behind the kitchen taps. During the visit, the resident said that the leak from the leaseholder’s property was ongoing.
On 15 December 2022, the landlord reassessed the resident’s compensation award of £250. It decided to offer a further £250 due to the total loss of ceiling lights between 29 July 2022 and 23 September 2022.
After the final response letter, the landlord has evidenced it spoke with the leaseholder directly on 8 February 2023 who confirmed they would get the leak resolved.
In correspondence with the resident in July 2023, she has explained that the leak from the leaseholder’s flat has reoccurred and that she did not know what the landlord was doing to solve the problem.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s complaint about missed appointments.

The resident initially made a complaint about outstanding items of disrepair to the property and missed appointments. The missed appointments dated back to October 2020. After contacting the landlord during March 2021 asking for a response on this matter, the resident was contacted by the landlord on 9 April 2021. It sent a missed appointment form for the resident to complete. This form was not received back from the landlord. The issue was next raised via this service a year later contact on 3 June 2022 when this Service contacted the landlord to ask it to reply to the residents’ complaints about missed appointment and outstanding work. This contact was considered by the landlord as an escalation in regard to the resident’s March 2021 complaint. Whilst the timeframe of more than a year gave the landlord opportunity to review this complaint again at stage 1, it chose to escalate it for a final response. As the resident was reporting issues that remained outstanding from the previous year this was a reasonable step for it to take to ensure the issues relating to outstanding disrepair and missed appointments were given a clear, formal response.
In the absence of a missed appointments form detailing which appointments had been missed it has appropriately sought to investigate the resident’s complaint so it could compensate the resident. The response says it considered 5 repairs to have been missed although it is not clear which repairs the landlord is referring. The Ombudsman’s code says that complaint responses should be “clear,”. The landlord’s presentation of this information consists of copies of repairs logs. Whilst this information was relevant for the investigation, the landlord did not summarise it into clear and concise points. Whilst complaint response clarity is important this did not amount to a failure by the landlord.
In regard to the missed appointments, the landlord identified £20 per appointment for 5 missed appointments, a total of £100. This is in line with its compensation policy. The Ombudsman considers this appropriate redress for this part of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s handling of a leak into the resident’s property.

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places an obligation on a landlord to maintain the structure and exterior of a property. In accordance with this obligation the landlord was required to investigate the resident’s reports of a leak into the property and to put right any issues it identified which were its responsibility.
The leaseholder was responsible for repairs and upkeep of their property which was above the resident’s property. The lease between a landlord and a leaseholder will contain a number of covenants relating to the leaseholder’s use and occupation of their property. If these leasehold covenants are breached, the landlord may be able to take action to protect their interests.
The landlord has provided its repair log for the property, in addition to its contemporaneous records of emails documenting its response to the resident’s reports of a leak from July 2022.
On 29 July 2022 the landlord responded to the initial reports of a leak into the resident’s property quickly, when notified of a leak it attended on the same day to make the property safe and attempt repairs. During August 2022, the landlord responded to reports of a leak from the leaseholders flat a further 3 times. On each occasion it attended as an urgent emergency or emergency response, in line with its repairs policy commitments.
Beyond responding to the leaks as they occurred, the landlord and / or its contractor attended the property 5 times in August 2022 to inspect its property and that of the leaseholders. Its operatives appropriately sought to gain entry to the leasehold address to identify the source of the leak. The landlord has demonstrated a proactive and responsive approach so that it could seek to remedy the ongoing cause for the resident.
The leak issue is added to already existing complaint and therefore jumps straight to being given a final response in its complaints process on 1 September 2022. This response apologises to the resident for any upset caused to her and her family and offers £150 as a goodwill gesture. This amount is not linked to any specific failing of the landlord however as per the landlord’s compensation policy discretionary payments between £50 and £250 can be made where time and trouble has occurred to the resident. adversely on the resident, including uncertainly, distress and inconvenience.
The landlord knew of disrepair in the leasehold flat and issues with access yet, in its stage 2 response it did not provide detail on steps being taken to resolve the repair in the leaseholder’s property. Despite saying that the repair would be ‘sourced immediately’ there is no evidence that it raised the leaks directly with the leaseholder’s agent until 6 September 2022, 5 weeks after the repair was first reported. This is a failing by the landlord to pursue the leaseholder in an appropriate timescale however, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s goodwill gesture amounts to reasonable redress in this matter.

Loss of lighting

At stage 2 the landlord says that lights are working throughout the property and that the remaining repair to reconnect the bathroom light would be done once it had dried out after the leak. The landlord’s records show it was reasonable for the landlord to believe the lights were working at the time it wrote its stage 2 response on 1 September 2022. This is because:
1. On 5 August 2022, the property lights were recorded as working with the exception of the bathroom lights.
2. On 15 August 2022, an electrical inspection did not identify that the main lights were off throughout.
On 2 September 2022 the resident first raised with the landlord that she ‘still’ had no lights ‘throughout’ her property. After this, the lights are not recorded as being fully reinstated until 30 September 2022. There is no clear explanation as to why this delay of 1 month had occurred. This is a failure by the landlord to ensure all follow-on work to rectify issues caused by the leak had taken place.
It is important to note that the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code encourages issues to be resolved at stage 2 to ensure resident’s complaints are addressed as soon as possible. In this case, the resident’s complaints about the lighting were not identified at stage 2 and were raised with the landlord the day after the response was sent. In this instance, as a further response was provided on 15 December 2022 this matter will be considered as part of the investigation.
It was reasonable that following the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction and request from the MP that the landlord completed a further review of the complaint on 15 December 2022 to reassess what happened in regard to the lights and offer a further response. The landlord queried the issue with its repairs team, and it was not clear whether lights had been left off throughout the property. It therefore decided that it was possible that an attending electrician had left all of the lights off rather than just the bathroom light. It then acted fairly and considerately by accepting the residents account of what happened and that she had been without lights since 29 July 2022.
The landlord then sought to remedy the inconvenience caused to the resident due to this loss of lighting using the period between 29 July 2022 and 23 September 2022. The landlord had not used the correct date for the reinstatement of the lights, which based on its own records was 30 September 2022, whilst this error in itself does not amount to a failing, the period of time where it has accepted the resident had no main lights is a full 2 months after the issue had first been reported.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and the compensation guidance of the landlord’s allows for payments of £250 in circumstances where time, trouble and distress had been caused by failures which the landlord has already addressed. In consideration of this guidance alongside the landlord’s own compensation policy which also allows for payments up to £250 where time and trouble has been caused, in the Ombudsman’s view this offer amounts to reasonable redress.

The associated complaint.

The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code says:
1. Landlords must only escalate a complaint to stage two once it has completed stage one and at the request of the resident.
2. Where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these should be incorporated into the stage one response if they are relevant, and the stage one response has not been issued. Where the stage one response has been issued, or it would unreasonably delay the response, the complaint should be logged as a new complaint.
The decision to delay responding to the resident’s complaint dated 3 June 2022 until after an inspection due on 21 July 2022 was reasonable as it allowed for a more detailed reply for the resident. However, the landlord did not discuss this delay with the resident, nor did it keep the resident updated until it sent an interim complaint response on 14 July 2021, 21 days after it was due to send the final response itself. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code section 5.14 says that extensions beyond 10 working days should be agreed with the resident. The landlord did not communicate this delay with the resident in accordance with the complaint handling code and this amounts to a failure by the landlord to appropriately handle the resident’s complaint.
It is recognised that the landlord was communicating with the resident about the leak from 29 July 2022 and through August 2022. The landlord did maintain good correspondence with the resident during this time about the pressing matter of the leak from above. The new issue of the leak was added to the resident’s complaint on 29 July 2022. It is appreciated that the landlord was seeking to expedite the resident’s urgent concerns by escalating her complaint beyond its early and local resolution stages immediately for a final response. In this case, by attaching the new issue to an already existing complaints case it resulted in a shortening of the complaints process for the newly added leak issue. This reduced the timeframe the landlord had to investigate, consider redress, and make an appropriate action plan to fully resolve the new complaint affectively giving it only 1 stage of investigation and response. Whilst some circumstances do warrant the adding of complaints to already existing complaints, in this example it has negatively impacted the landlord’s ability to fairly consider this case and provide quality responses that considered all outstanding issues and therefore provide suitable actions plans for addressing them.
When it provided its complaint response on 1 September 2022 it provided a chronology on the leak handled throughout August 2022. The landlord reasonably explains the actions it had taken responding to the resident’s repair requests, that it had completed electrical safety checks and that it would reconnect the bathroom light once it had dried out. However, the response does not fully lay out an action plan regarding timeframes on what action was being taken to ensure the leaseholder resolved the leak in their property and this essential item remained unresolved at the time of the final response letter.
This response also provides the final response on the items of disrepair and missed appointments first raised on 3 June 2023 and extended for a response after 21 July 2022. These elements of the resident’s complaint were at this point had a delay of 3 months on their response. As discussed above, by adding the leak to this complaint it shortened the response time to deal with that matter but also unnecessarily prolonged the response for these substantive issues.
After the stage 2 response, it was understandable for the resident to have been concerned about what was going to happen next with the repair. The resident’s response on 2 September 2022 and her list of questions relating to the leak and outstanding matters of repair and progression of solving the leak within the leaseholder’s property demonstrates that the landlord did not fully seek to understand the outstanding issues for her so that it could provide a comprehensive stage 2 reply. This uncertainty caused the resident distress.
Due to the final nature of the stage 2 response and outstanding issues, the resident pursued a further response from her landlord via the local MP who made an enquiry with the landlord on her behalf. This prompted the landlord to undertake a further review on 15 December 2022 and offer a further compensation payment for the loss of lighting 3 months after the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s first and final response on the subject of the leak. It was appropriate for this later review to take place; however, this has taken place a significant time later and had added time and trouble to the resident for pursuing the matter.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about missed appointments.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in how the landlord handled the leak into the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling loss of lighting at the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord compensated the resident for missed appointments appropriately using its compensation policy and in recognition of its obligations under the right to repair scheme.
The landlord responded in accordance with its policies to provide emergency and temporary repairs. It investigated the source of the leak with inspections to a leaseholder’s property. Whilst it failed to raise the issue with the leaseholder in an appropriate timescale, it did offer reasonable redress.
When it was notified that the lights had been left disconnected throughout the property for 8 weeks it reviewed its position and provided appropriate compensation.
The landlord did not appropriately communicate with the resident about delays in completing its investigation into her initial complaints. The timescale for responding to these complaints was extended and this was compounded when it added the leak issue to the already existing complaint. Once added, it then only provided 1 response about the leak which had not considered all of the issues outstanding for the resident. The final response did not provide a suitable action plan for outstanding actions regarding the leak. Later, the landlord did appropriately review compensation levels relating to the lighting but not actions that remained outstanding to resolve issues with the disrepair in the leaseholder’s property.

Orders and recommendations

It is ordered that within 28 days of receipt of this report the landlord pays directly to the resident £250 for how the landlord handled the associated complaint. This is in addition to the £350 already offered in this complaints process.
It is ordered that within 10 working days of receipt of this report, the landlord must provide an update on actions taken to fully resolve the cause of the leaks in the leaseholder’s property.
It is ordered that Within 20 working days of receipt of this report, the landlord provides a timescale for remedying any outstanding disrepair in the resident’s property.