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

Lambeth Council (202203297)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203297

Lambeth Council

10 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of various repairs to the property.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The resident’s daughter is acting as the resident’s representative, and will be referred to as ‘the representative’ throughout this report.
  2. In October 2021 repairs were logged to the resident’s kitchen and bedroom, including renewing tiles, plastering, and wallpapering, due to water damage. Some of these works were completed in early 2022.
  3. The representative raised the complaint on 2 February 2022. She complained about the landlord’s handling of 3 separate works orders for repairs in the resident’s property. The representative stated that the landlord had missed pre-arranged appointments and had communicated poorly regarding the repairs. She said that the resident should be compensated for the distress caused, and also requested compensation for her own loss of earnings (£178.38) after taking 3 days off work to assist her mother for appointments which were missed.
  4. The stage 1 response was issued on 19 May 2022. The landlord partially upheld the complaint in acknowledgement of delays, and as its level of communication could have been improved.
  5. The representative escalated the complaint on 24 May 2022. The stage 2 response was issued on 29 June 2022. The landlord apologised for the delay in providing the stage 1 response and acknowledged that it did not meet its standards for responding to complaints. The landlord also apologised for the inconvenience experienced in progressing the work to the resident’s kitchen and bedroom ceiling. It said that her concerns had been reported to management who met with the contractors regularly so that measures for continuous improvement could be put in place. Regarding the tiling works in the kitchen, the landlord found that the job was cancelled because the work had not been formally agreed. The landlord found that there was poor communication in relaying this information to the resident.
  6. The representative raised the resident’s complaint with the Ombudsman on           6 July 2022. The representative said that the landlord should acknowledge its poor handling of the overall issues, and ensure that the resident receives a better service in future. She said that the resident was noted on the system as being elderly and vulnerable, but was not treated as such by the landlord. She reiterated her request for the resident to be compensated for the distress and inconvenience caused and to be reimbursed for loss of earnings due to 3 missed appointments.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman is unable to consider the representative’s request to be compensated for loss of earnings. This is because a family member of a resident who does not hold a landlord/tenant relationship with the landlord themselves is not entitled to complain except as a representative of the person in the landlord/tenant relationship. However, the Ombudsman has considered the request for the resident to be compensated for distress and inconvenience caused.

Kitchen redecoration

  1. The landlord’s repairs manual sets out its timelines for responding to repairs. It states that an R1 routine repair will be fixed within 7 days, an R2 routine repair will be fixed within 28 working days, and an R3 planned repair will be completed within 90 days. The repairs manual states that if a resident is elderly, vulnerable or has a disability, and there is no other member of their household or family who can help, the landlord may be able to decorate certain rooms under a planned programme. The manual also says that vulnerable tenants will have their repairs prioritised for quicker action.
  2. A works order was raised on 22 October 2021 for the resident’s kitchen to be redecorated. The repairs record documents that she is a vulnerable tenant. The works order was raised as an R1 routine repair, and an appointment was scheduled for the landlord’s contractor to attend on 26 October 2021 for an inspection to take place. This appointment was scheduled within the timescales as set out in the repairs manual, however the resident complained that the contractor did not attend on this date and that the landlord did not inform her that the appointment had been cancelled.
  3. The representative stated that she contacted the landlord during the afternoon of 26 October 2021 due to the non-attendance of the contractor. She said that she received a call back from the landlord at 4:55pm to notify her that the appointment had been cancelled because the wrong contractor had been booked. This is consistent with an entry on the repairs record dated 27 October 2021 which reflects that the contractor informed the landlord that the works order was scheduled incorrectly and had been rescheduled for 12 November 2021. This error was a failing on the part of the landlord, which caused a delay.
  4. The landlord is expected to maintain communication with the resident about repairs, and should inform a resident if a scheduled appointment has been cancelled. The landlord has not provided any call records or emails to reflect that it made contact with the resident or the representative to notify them in advance that the appointment would not go ahead. The landlord explained that the works order was assigned to the wrong trade. However, it did not explain what it would do to prevent this error from happening again.
  5. The representative stated that it was unacceptable that the resident was required to wait a further 2 weeks due to the mistake made by the landlord, and that the job ought to have been prioritised. As stated above, the repair had been categorised as a routine repair which requires a response within 7 working days. The landlord therefore did not adhere to its repair timescales when re-scheduling the appointment. Given that the landlord had made an error when raising the works order, it would have been appropriate to have made efforts to rearrange this for an earlier date.
  6. The repairs records indicate that the resident emailed the landlord on 8 November 2021. She asked whether it was possible for the work to the kitchen to begin on 29 November 2021, due to the representative being available to assist while the decorating took place. The contractor informed the landlord that there was no availability on 29 November 2021, and that the timeframe for the works to be completed would be subject to the report following the inspection scheduled for 12 November 2021. While this will have been frustrating for the resident, it is reasonable that the inspection was required to take place prior to the work being scheduled. It is unclear from the information provided whether this was communicated back to the resident.
  7. The inspection of the kitchen was carried out on 12 November 2021 and the work was subsequently completed on 4 February 2022. The representative stated that following the 12 November 2021 appointment, she was required to continually chase up the landlord to schedule the appointment for the works.
  8. The landlord conducted a search of its phone systems to establish whether the resident or the representative had contacted the landlord in regard to repairs to the kitchen. The landlord said that the search found 1 call that was made in February 2023 that related to repairs. However, this appears to have related to a newer works order that is not relevant to this complaint. It is unclear what time frame the searches considered, and whether this included calls made around the relevant time. It is therefore difficult to reach a clear conclusion as to whether the resident incurred time and trouble in chasing up the landlord to arrange an appointment for the works to be completed. However, the evidence that is available does show that it took over three months for the redecoration works to be completed.

Re-tiling works

  1. The repairs record reflects that the representative reported that the resident’s kitchen tiles required renewal and a works order was raised on 22 October 2021. The repairs record states that the resident is vulnerable.
  2. The representative stated that the landlord did not schedule an appointment, and that she was required to contact it to chase this up. An appointment was eventually scheduled for 4 November 2021 for the tiling to be inspected. The representative stated that a contractor attended on this date and booked an appointment for the work to take place on 30 November 2021. The repairs record supports that an appointment was booked for 30 November 2021 by the contractor.
  3. Within the complaint, the representative said that the contractor did not attend on the 30 November 2021 and neither her nor the resident were informed in advance that the appointment would not be attended. The representative stated that she contacted the landlord and was advised to wait until 5pm for the contractor to arrive, despite the works being scheduled for the whole day. An entry on the repairs log on 30 November 2021 reflects that, following on from the representative’s enquiry about the appointment, the landlord called the resident and left a voicemail to confirm that the appointment was still booked for that day. The evidence therefore indicates that the landlord’s communication fell below the standard expected as it did not inform the resident that the appointment was cancelled, and it appears to have given incorrect information to the resident that the appointment was still due to take place when this was chased up on the day.
  4. The representative said that she contacted the contractors the following day and was told that an operative had not attended because the tiling works had not been authorised by the landlord. Within the stage 2 response, the landlord stated that the appointment was cancelled because the job had never been formally agreed by the responsive repairs team.
  5. There is no evidence to indicate that the decision not to authorise the work was properly explained to the resident. The landlord ought to have been proactive in communicating this to decision and setting out its position on why the works order was cancelled. While decorating a property is the responsibility of the resident, the repairs manual states that the landlord will decorate certain rooms if the resident is elderly, vulnerable or disabled. By booking in the appointment on 30 November 2021, the resident’s expectation was that the works would be completed. Given that it had agreed to decorate the kitchen, it remains unclear as to why it refused to renew the tiling. The representative informed this Service that the kitchen tiles still require renewal.

Bedroom ceiling repair

  1. The repairs record reflects that a works order was raised on 27 October 2021. This states that the ceiling and walls in the resident’s bedroom were water damaged, and the works order was raised for replastering or redecorating as required. The landlord assigned this as an R2 routine repair, requiring a 28 day response. The representative stated that an inspection of the ceiling was due to take place on 30 November 2021 by the landlord’s surveyor and a contractor. It is noted that 2 appointments had been scheduled for 30 November 2021. One to carry out an inspection of the bedroom ceiling, and another to re-tile the kitchen which was dealt with above. The appointment to inspect the bedroom ceiling was not attended, and the landlord did not contact the resident to advise that the appointment would be postponed.  As such, both of the appointments on this date were not attended.
  2. The repairs record reflects that the representative had contacted the landlord on 26 November 2021 to state she had booked the day off work to and wanted to confirm that the 30 November 2021 inspection was still due to take place. A further entry made on 30 November 2021 states that the appointment had been postponed. The notes provided to this Service by the landlord state that the reason given for this was because the contractor and surveyor needed to attend together and would inspect the kitchen and bedroom during the same appointment. The representative stated that the landlord later informed her that the surveyor had been off work the previous day.
  3. It is recognised that appointments may need to be postponed for various reasons, including due to staff absences. However, the landlord should ensure that it notifies residents in such circumstances. No evidence has been provided to reflect that the landlord contacted the resident or the representative on 30 November 2021 to inform them of the cancelled appointment. This is a failing by the landlord.
  4. The landlord and surveyor attended the property the following day and inspected both the kitchen and the bedroom. The repairs record reflects that works to the resident’s bedroom ceiling were scheduled to commence on 21 February 2022. The work was carried out on this date, and the evidence indicates that this was completed by 25 February 2022.
  5. While it is appropriate that the landlord scheduled the work and repaired the ceiling, it is noted that the repair took place outside of the 28 day timescale required for R2 routine repairs. The severity of the damage to the ceiling is not known, and therefore it is difficult to measure the level of detriment to the resident of any delay in completing this repair. However, it is noted that the resident is elderly and vulnerable, and the landlord’s repairs manual states that it will prioritise repairs for vulnerable residents. This does not appear to have been done on this occasion, as the repair was scheduled for approximately 55 working days after the inspection on 1 December 2021. This amounts to a further failing by the landlord. The landlord should endeavour to complete repairs within the prescribed timescales, and prioritise these based on the needs of a resident.
  6. Overall, there were failings by the landlord in the way it handled the various repairs to the resident’s property. The failings amount to maladministration by the landlord.
  7. The resident experienced distress and inconvenience as a result of the landlord’s lack of communication regarding the 3 cancelled appointments, and time and trouble was incurred in chasing this up with the landlord. Further frustration will have been caused following the cancelled appointment to inspect the kitchen as the resident was required to wait for an additional 2 weeks for the appointment to go ahead. The works to the bedroom ceiling were also unreasonably delayed. It is acknowledged that the resident is elderly, and the appointments do not appear to have been prioritised as per the landlord’s repairs manual. Furthermore, there appears to have been a lack of clear communication regarding the decision not to authorise the re-tiling work which is likely to have caused additional distress to the resident.
  8. Where there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider suitable remedies in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  9. The landlord apologised for the level of service received from the contractors in relation to the repairs to the kitchen and bedroom ceiling. The landlord also  acknowledged that there was poor communication in relaying to the resident that the re-tiling work had not been formally agreed, and that this was likely to have been frustrating given the representative had taken time off work. However, it did not take sufficient action to put things right.
  10. The landlord should pay the resident £400 in order to remedy the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in handling the various repairs issues. This amount is line with amounts set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for financial redress, which suggests amounts of £100 to £600 where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident, but where there has been no apparent permanent impact.
  11. The landlord stated that the resident’s concerns had been reported to management who meet with the contractors regularly to put measures in place for continuous improvement. It is unclear as to whether any measures have been implemented as a result of the complaint. In order to ensure the landlord learns from outcomes, it should review its handling of the repairs.
  12. The landlord should establish why the appointment cancellations were not communicated to the resident, and put in place any measures to ensure that residents are properly informed if work will not place. The landlord should also establish why the works to the bedroom ceiling were completed outside of the timescales stipulated. Consideration should be given to whether measures should be implemented to ensure elderly or vulnerably residents are treated as a priority.
  13. The landlord should also give further consideration to whether it will re-tile the resident’s kitchen, taking into account that the resident is elderly and vulnerable. If it decides to complete this work, an appointment should be scheduled and the work carried out within a reasonable timeframe. If the landlord decides not to complete the work, an explanation should be provided to both the resident and the Ombudsman.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days and stage 2 complaints within 25 working days. The resident’s complaint was raised on 7 February 2022 and the stage 1 response was issued on 19 May 2022. The stage 1 response was therefore provided 71 days after the complaint was raised, which is significantly outside of the timescales stipulated in its policy. The landlord initially informed the resident that a response would be provided by 7 March 2021. However, no evidence has been provided to reflect that the landlord updated the resident regarding the delay. There was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the stage 1 complaint, which will have added to the resident’s frustration.
  2. The resident’s complaint was escalated on 24 May 2022 and the stage 2 response was issued on 29 June 2022. The response was provided 25 working days after escalation, and the landlord therefore adhered to the required timescales.
  3. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay within its stage 1 response. While the delay was acknowledged within the stage 2 response, the landlord did not make any attempt to put things right. Furthermore, while the landlord acknowledged that there was poor communication and delays in completing the works within its complaint responses, it did not consider the request for the resident to be compensated for the distress and inconvenience caused by this. The complaint handling was therefore poor in this regard.
  4. There was a detrimental impact on the resident as she was required to wait a significant amount of time for the initial complaint response. The landlord should pay the resident £150 compensation to remedy the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.
  5. The landlord should also review its handling of the resident’s complaint to establish why the significant delay occurred, and implement any lessons learnt as a result.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of various repairs to the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord should pay the resident a total of £550 compensation. This is made up as follows:
    1. £400 in recognition the distress and inconvenience associated with the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
    2. £150 in recognition of the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
  2. The landlord should review its handling of the repairs. The landlord should establish why the appointment cancellations were not communicated to the resident, and (if it has not already done so since 2021) put in place any measures to ensure that residents are properly informed if work will not place. The landlord should also establish why the works to the bedroom ceiling were completed outside of the timescales stipulated. Consideration should be given to whether measures should be implemented to ensure elderly or vulnerably residents are treated as a priority. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman with the outcome of this review.
  3. The landlord should further consider whether it will carry out the re-tiling work in the resident’s kitchen. If it will complete the work, this should then be scheduled and completed in a reasonable timeframe. If it decides that it will not carry out this work, a clear explanation for this decision should be provided to the resident that is in line with its repairs policy.
  4. The landlord should also review its handling of the resident’s complaint to establish why the significant delay occurred, and implement any lessons learnt as a result. The outcome of this review should be communicated to the Ombudsman.
  5. The landlord should evidence compliance with the above orders within 28 days of this report.