The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Lambeth Council (202203490)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203490

Lambeth Council

15 December 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 the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property and the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord and lives with her 3 children. It is understood that since bringing the complaint to the Ombudsman the resident has moved to another property but is still a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident reported an issue with a broken window in her kitchen on 11 May 2021. On 20 July 2021, she reiterated that the repairs to the kitchen window and kitchen door remained outstanding.
  3. On 15 March 2022, the landlord inspected the resident’s property after identifying a problem with damp. It said a specialist damp survey was required, as the issue was causing the stairs to rot. The landlord found damp was affecting the hall and stairs in the resident’s property, and mould was present in the bedroom, living room and kitchen.
  4. The resident raised a formal complaint on 24 March 2022. She said the issues she raised in 2021 had not been repaired, and there had been a flood in the kitchen caused by a leaking pipe which damaged her flooring. She asked the landlord to complete the outstanding repairs to the kitchen window and door, and to replace her damaged flooring.
  5. The resident complained again on 4 May 2022. She was unhappy she had not received a response from the landlord, and stated the stairs in her property had become dangerous due to the rotten wood deteriorating and forming a hole. The resident explained she had young children and her child had developed asthma from suspected spores from the damp wood and wall. The resident said surveyors had found a wall in the property was 77% saturated with moisture. Additionally, issues of the damaged flooring, broken kitchen fire safety door and broken kitchen window remained.
  6. The resident brought her complaint to this Service on 20 May 2022. She said she had made several complaints and the repairs had not been completed. She was worried her children would injure themselves on the rotten staircase and she was unhappy her wallpaper had come away from the wall due to the damp. To resolve her complaint, she wanted her stairs repaired, wallpaper and kitchen flooring replaced, and her kitchen window fixed.
  7. The landlord recorded a stage 1 complaint on the same day. It provided a stage 1 response on 4 July 2022. The landlord stated that the kitchen window and kitchen door had been repaired on 16 August 2021. It said it had attended on 14 April 2022 and completed a mould wash, repaired a worktop and resolved the leak in the kitchen. The landlord offered the resident £655 compensation for ‘delays in service, inconvenience and time and trouble of chasing for a repair’.
  8. The landlord completed another property inspection on 6 July 2022. In internal email communication, the landlord said it was ‘clear no work was carried out in 2021 to the kitchen window or door’ and that although a mould wash had been done in some areas, the resident had carried this out herself. It found repairs to the worktop had been carried out poorly. The landlord said it agreed to repair the kitchen window and door, renew the kitchen floor and repair the worktop on raised these works for 15 August 2022.
  9. The resident escalated her complaint on 14 July 2022. She remained dissatisfied with the response because there was no ‘set date’ for the works to be completed, and she felt this meant the work ‘could be outstanding forever’. The resident was unhappy that a report had not been provided following a damp survey that was completed on 7 June 2022, and said this was the most important issue with the property and needed to be rectified as soon as possible. Regarding the damage to the stairs, the resident was concerned this had not been fixed as her child had recently had an accident on the stairs. Additionally, the resident explained that she was unhappy with the quality of the replacement flooring she was offered following the leak in the kitchen. She also informed the landlord her son’s asthma condition, which she felt had been caused by the damp, had resulted in a visit to hospital in June 2022.
  10. The landlord received the report following the damp survey (carried out on 7 June 2022) on 4 August 2022. The damp survey concluded the property was suffering from rising damp and dry rot was apparent in the stairs. It said condensation and mould were present in the property, and recommended the bathroom extractor fan to be upgraded and a low energy moisture tracker fan be installed in the kitchen. Further recommendations to treat the damp included:
    1. Removal of wall plaster in affected areas;
    2. A chemical based damp proof course;
    3. Re-rendering and re-plastering work
  11. On 11 August 2022, notes show the kitchen door, window and flooring were repaired. On 15 August 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and said she was unhappy an operative had attended without an appointment and was unclear about what repairs were to be completed. She said the window was not successfully repaired and the closing mechanism for the kitchen fire door was not fitted.
  12. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 24 August 2022. It said the following works would be completed by its contractor:
    1. Remove and reinstate the floor coverings and furnishings
    2. Renew the sealant to the kitchen worktop
    3. Remove and reinstate the sockets, switches and trunking
    4. Redecoration
    5. Mould treatment
    6. Upgrade to extractor fans
  1. The landlord also said that works had been raised following the damp survey, and contractors would contact the resident directly to arrange the work.
  2. The resident complained again on 8 February 2023 that the works were outstanding. In March 2023, the landlord advised the resident she would need to be decanted for works to be completed and the resident refused. On 17 April 2023, the landlord awarded the resident priority banding to move. It is understood the resident began a new tenancy on 19 June 2023.

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours, such as ‘flooding that is damaging a property’. It states it will respond to non-urgent repairs within 7 working days, and routine repairs within 28 working days.
  2. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaint policy. The policy defines a complaint as: ‘an expression of dissatisfaction by a housing resident, leaseholder or other stakeholder, where an initial response to their problem has not proven satisfactory’. The policy states it will provide a written response within 20 working days at local resolution stage, and escalate to review stage if necessary. The timescale to respond at review stage is 25 working days. It is worth noting that these timescales exceed those advised in this Service’s complaint handling code (the code). As of October 2022, the code should be adhered to by all member landlords.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the property and the resident’s reports of damp and mould

  1. 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 only 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair- treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
    2. Put things right, and;
    3. Learn from outcomes.
  2. 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’
  3. The resident first raised an issue with a broken kitchen window on 11 May 2021, and raised both the kitchen door and window as an issue on 20 July 2021. It is unclear from the records provided what action was taken in response to the resident’s reports, though the landlord stated in the stage 1 response that the repairs were completed in August 2021. However, in the inspection from July 2022 the landlord acknowledged ‘no work was carried out in 2021’. Therefore, there appears to be an issue with the landlord’s record keeping in regards to repairs. The Ombudsman expects landlords to keep a comprehensive records of repairs attended to. Furthermore, this meant the landlord relied on inaccurate information in its stage 1 response, which would have been understandably frustrating for the resident. This was a failing on the part of the landlord.
  4. Internal notes indicate that the landlord attended the resident’s property on 11 August 2022, to repair the kitchen door and window. These records are again unclear, though on the balance of probabilities it appears unlikely the repairs were completed as the resident complained about the window and flooring works being outstanding in February 2023. Contractors attended again on 15 August 2022, though from the contact notes it is apparent this was not communicated to the resident ahead of time. The resident stated the contractor was unable to successfully repair the window and the closing mechanism for the fire door was not fitted. In the absence of more comprehensive repair records, the Ombudsman has given weight to the resident’s account.
  5. The next record of the above repairs being attended are from 23 September 2022 when they were marked complete. This was 1 year 4 months from the window first being reported and 1 year 2 months from the kitchen door being reported. Though the landlord has attended during this time, it is not clear from the records why the above repairs were not carried out sooner. This is a failing on the part of the landlord and does not adhere to timescales set out in its own repairs policy. This is of concern to the Ombudsman, given that the kitchen door was a fire safety door and the landlord was aware of vulnerabilities within the household.
  6. The first record of the damp and mould being raised is from 3 February 2022. In response, the landlord completed a property inspection on 15 March 2022, 28 working days later. The records from the inspection state that a specialist damp survey was required due to water ingress in the hall and stairs area, and that mould treatment was required for the bedroom, living room and kitchen. The landlord stated its records show a mould wash, repairs to the worktop and repairs to the leak under the sink were completed on 14 April 2022, though it unclear from its repair records provided to the Ombudsman what was completed. This was carried out 22 working days later, which is a reasonable time frame.
  7. The landlord ordered a damp and survey, which was completed on 7 June 2022. This was appropriate in the circumstances. However, it was unreasonable that it took 56 working days months for a damp survey to be completed after the issue was reported. The report was received by the landlord on 4 August 2022, and it is acknowledged the landlord had some difficulty receiving this report and was unable to include its recommendations in the stage 1 response.
  8. That being said, there is no evidence the landlord took any action in regards to the damp survey recommendations until March 2023, when it advised the resident she would need to be decanted. This was 8 months after receiving the report. The landlord reasonably ought to have communicated this to the resident earlier. It should have reasonably been aware the resident would need to be decanted for works to be completed in August 2022, when it received the report, especially given it had been notified of respiratory vulnerabilities within the household. This significant delay in acting on the damp survey recommendations was a serious failing on the part of the landlord. This left the family living in a property suffering from rising damp, dry rot, condensation and mould for a significant period. This was a distressing and worrying experience for the resident and her family.
  9. It is understood the resident refused to be decanted temporarily and instead requested a permanent move. The landlord then awarded the resident priority banding in April 2023, which allowed her to bid on larger properties and eventually move in June 2023. This was fair and reasonable in the circumstances, though the landlord could have considered doing this earlier given that it should have been aware of the need for the property to be vacated for damp treatment in August 2022.
  10. Overall, there were failings in the handling of repairs to the property and the resident’s reports of damp and mould, which had a significant detrimental impact on the household.
  11. The landlord has taken some steps to put things right and offered the resident £655 compensation for ‘delays in service, inconvenience and time and trouble chasing for a repair’. In light of the failings identified in the investigation, the compensation offered does not adequately the level of detriment caused to the resident and her family, caused by the time taken to address the repairs. Furthermore, there is no evidence the landlord ‘learnt from outcomes’, following the stage 1 response, as the repairs were yet to be completed at the time it provided the stage 2 response.
  12. In light of the above, a finding of severe maladministration is made.  The Ombudsman has previously investigated complaints regarding the landlord where failings similar to those detailed in this case were found. While the landlord complied with the orders made at that time, which included steps to improve its handling of repairs and record keeping, the findings in this investigation (and others) indicate that issues persist. Therefore, the Ombudsman has made additional orders below in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’, and continues to engage with the landlord to improve its services.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (CHC) sets an expectation that landlord should reply to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2 from the date of escalation.
  2. The landlord’s complaint policy defines a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction’. The resident first complained about the outstanding repairs and damage caused by a leak on 24 March 2022. She said she had highlighted issues with the property prior to moving in, such as window and door repairs, and these were yet to be completed. The resident complained again on 4 May 2022, informing the landlord of an issue with damp and mould meant the stairs were rotting. The resident chased a response from the landlord on 19 May 2022.
  3. The landlord recorded the resident’s complaint on 20 May 2022, after involvement from this Service.  The landlord reasonably ought to have recognised the resident’s email from 24 March 2022 as a complaint and recorded it at the earliest opportunity. The stage 1 response was provided on 4 July 2022 after the resident chased it for an update several times. This was 68 working days after the resident complained, exceeding the timescales set out in both the landlord’s policy and the CHC. This is a failing on the part of the landlord and would have likely contributed towards the resident’s distress.
  4. The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 14 July 2022. The landlord sent the resident an acknowledgement letter on 17 August 2022, and the stage 2 response on 24 August 2022. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days and provide a response within 25 working days. The acknowledgment was sent 24 working days after the resident escalated her complaint, and the stage 2 response provided 29 working days after. The landlord set out the expected timescales for response in the acknowledgement letter and told the resident it would reply by the next day. Though the landlord did write to the resident to explain it would not be able to provide a response when expected, the timescales for the acknowledgement letter and stage 2 response did exceed both the landlord’s policy and the CHC. This is a failing on the part of the landlord.
  5. Further, the works that the landlord said it would complete in its stage 2 response did not happen. This was a failing in the complaint process to adequately monitor the resolutions offered and ensure that these were delivered.
  6. As above, the Ombudsman has previously investigated complaints regarding the landlord where failings similar to those detailed in this case were found, and the findings in this investigation indicate that issues persist. The Ombudsman has made additional orders below to put things right, and continues to engage with the landlord.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property and the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident the £655 compensation already offered, if it has not done so;
    2. Pay the resident an additional £700 compensation (made up of £500 for its failings in its handling of repairs to the property and the resident’s reports of damp and mould, £100 for complaint handling failings and £100 for the resident’s time and trouble).
  1. Within 12 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Amend its complaint policy to comply with the new joint Complaint Handling Code from the Housing Ombudsman and Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman from April 2024, including its handling of Member’s Enquiries alongside formal complaints. It should write to the Ombudsman setting out the changes it has made.
    2. Adapt its complaint closure processes to accurately reflect when a complaint is closed, and then track the subsequent remedy to completion. It should write to the Ombudsman setting out the changes it has made.
    3. Review its process for recording completed repairs to ensure it has a clear repair record which the resident agrees with. The landlord should ensure the solution accommodates vulnerable residents. It should write to the Ombudsman setting out the changes it has made.
    4. Assess the handling of the reports of damp and mould in this case against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (October 2021), to determine the reasons for failings, and what action has already or will be taken to prevent these in the future.