Lambeth Council (202207742)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207742

Lambeth Council

20 March 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:
1. Repairs to a wet room.
2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant at the property since 4 October 2005. The property is a one-bedroom flat located in a sheltered scheme. The resident is vulnerable due to his age which is currently 92.
The residents’ family contacted the landlord on his behalf throughout the period of the complaint. However, for clarity, as they were representing the resident, in this report all contact has been recorded as coming from the resident.
On 5 January 2020 the resident reported that there was a back surge of water coming up through the drain in his wet room. The landlord raised a job for the drainage team to attend. The landlord noted on the repairs request that the resident was vulnerable.
On 6 January 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord, he said that a workman had attended the property, taken photographs, and said a part was needed but the workman had not yet returned. The resident had reported the issue again that day via the sheltered scheme manager. The resident said that this was a health and safety emergency because the rubber flooring in the wet room was now lifting in various places. He pointed out that he had mobility issues so this could cause him to trip and fall.
On 8 January 2020 the landlord logged another repair on its system asking for an electrician to attend the property to work on the pump in the wet room.
The landlord emailed the resident on 9 January 2020 and said that further to a telephone conversation the day before, it had raised a job for a repair to the shower pump and that the engineer would attend within 24 hours. The resident should let the scheme manager, who was responsible for reporting issues on behalf of the residents, know if the engineer did not attend.
On 13 January 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord to register a complaint. There was still an issue with the wet room drainage but the scheme manager had advised him that day that that the “repair had been marked off as complete on the system” but it was not complete.
The landlord raised further repairs jobs on its system on 17 January 2020, 25 February 2020, 6 March 2020, 11 March 2020, and 12 March 2020. The jobs all related to issues with the wet room plumbing. The country went into national lockdown on 23 March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
On 27 August 2020 the landlord raised the following repair: “there is an issue with the shower tray and the resident is elderly, please attend and remedy”. It logged another repair on 28 September 2020 that “vulnerable tenant called to report his toilet is leaking in the wet room and going into the hallway”.
On 28 September 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord. He said that he had not received a response to his letter dated 13 January 2020. He explained that the water ingress to the wet room was now worse than ever. The wet room shower pump had eventually been replaced but there was damage to the hall, the dining and living room threshold, and the door and walls. He provided photographs.
On 14 October 2020 the landlord logged another repair on its system. This was to attend and remedy a leak from the back of the WC which was leaking into the hallway.
The resident wrote to the landlord again on 16 October 2020. He said that, further to his last letter, which the landlord had signed for on 9 October 2020, the situation was now worse. The floorboards in the hall had now buckled due to the water damage. He said that 2 workmen had attended the property in the last week. The first had said that the floor in the wet room would need digging up. The second had cut a hole in the wall behind the toilet and had only applied a temporary sealant because the resident insisted, otherwise the hole would have been left unsealed. Water was still there so the issue still was not resolved. Also, workmen were attending the property without notice and the resident had hospital appointments to attend.
The landlord logged a repairs order to repair a leak behind the toilet and tray in the wet room shower on 16 October 2020
The resident wrote to the landlord again on 27 October 2020. He said that the contractor had attended without notice the day before. This was to carry out remedial work due to the water ingress but the source of the problem was still not resolved. He asked for prior notification of appointment times again.
The landlord emailed the resident on 5 November 2020 to advise that a contractor would attend the property on 10 November 2020. They would investigate under the flooring and behind the toilet cistern for leaks.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 November 2020. He confirmed that the landlord had visited the property on 2 November 2020 and that on 10 November 2020 the source of the leak had been located. He sent photographs of all the damage caused to the property by the ongoing water ingress. This included various areas of plastering, a broken waste pipe, holes in the walls and damaged paintwork throughout the property.
The landlord logged a repairs order on its system on 18 December 2020, the pump in the wet room was not working again and the toilet was leaking. It logged the same repair on 11 January 2021.
On 25 January 2021 the scheme manager logged another repairs request. The shower was blocked at the property and the pump wasn’t working. The landlord booked a follow-on repair on 1 February 2021 to check for a fault with the shower pump and wet room, it highlighted that the resident was vulnerable.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 2 February 2021, he said that he was unable to use the shower because the water was not draining again. He said that the living room wall had a long crack and the paintwork was blistering.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 February 2021 to advise that an operative would attend on 1 March 2021 to remove a floorboard in the hallway, trace and remedy the leak and replace the floorboard.
The resident emailed the landlord on 29 March 2021. He said that his daughter had worked from his flat on 1 March 2021, to be there when the workmen arrived, but no-one had attended. They had attended on 26 March 2021 instead, with no notice. The resident had called his daughter who spoke to the operative. The operative was confused about what he had been asked to do because “they didn’t usually pick up laminate flooring”.
On 26 April 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to ask for an update. He said that he would like a surveyor to attend the property and asked for this to be by appointment.
The resident wrote to a Councillor on 12 and 25 November 2021, and included photographs. He advised that the situation had been ongoing for nearly 2 years. He said that the landlord had now told him that the contractor “could not be reached” to start the work. He had water damage to every room in his home and demanded that a surveyor visit.
The landlord booked a property inspection for the 26 November 2021. It logged a repair on 13 December 2021 to “hack off defective water damaged plaster to bathroom and adjacent living room walls and replaster with a water-proof plaster and decorate including skirting renewal and renewal of kitchen vinyl”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 10 February 2022 to confirm a recent telephone conversation. He said despite being told in the conversation that a decant would be facilitated he had now been told by the contractor that he would not need to move out of the property while the work was carried out. He had also been told that the work that was booked was to replaster the living room and wet room, but the leak was still not resolved. He said he “felt as though no-one was listening”.
On 17 February 2022 the resident wrote to a Councillor. He said that a contractor had attended the property on 11 February 2022 to carry out remedial work to the walls, however the source of the leak had not yet been located. He said that the property had been inspected several times, including by surveyors, and asked to see copies of the reports. He said that he had been told that the wet room floor needed digging up, he was 90 years old, and had mobility issues and various illnesses, and wanted to know where he would he stay while this was being done.
The Councillor wrote to the landlord on 15 March 2022. He asked for an urgent and comprehensive response about who would take ownership of the issue and who would take care of the welfare of the resident. An internal landlord email dated 17 March 2022 asked a named member of staff to take ownership of the issue and for an appointment to be booked to complete the repairs.
On 13 April 2022 the contractor emailed the landlord to advise that it had tried to arrange an appointment with the resident’s family for a multi-trade plumber who could carry out plastering to attend the property the next day. The contractor said that it would prioritise tracing and resolving the leak.
On 27 April 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord. He asked for an appointment with a senior member of the repairs team and the contractor to sort out a solution.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 13 May 2022. He explained that an operative from a new contractor had visited that day with a plumber and told him that the concrete floor of the wet room would need to be dug up. This would mean that the resident would not be able to use the shower. The contractor suggested that he could stand and “have a sink wash”. The resident told the landlord that he had multiple medical conditions that meant he needed regular access to a toilet and could not stand to wash and therefore would need to be decanted while the work was carried out.
The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response on 8 June 2022. It said it was in response to a letter received on 11 May 2022. It apologised that the resident had experienced repairs issues with his wet room. It said that it had raised a job to “hack off defective plaster to bathroom and living room and replaster with a waterproof plaster and decorate including skirting renewal and renewal of kitchen vinyl”. The job was a priority and arrangements were being made to decant the resident while the work was carried out. The complaint was partially upheld due to the delays and level of communication. The landlord offered £170 compensation as a “gesture of good will”.
The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 4 July 2022. He explained that the delay in requesting this had been due to him catching COVID-19. He said that “after many years of reporting an increasingly worsening situation the apology was hollow”. He said that the new contractors were behaving the same as the old ones and had contacted him to organise remedial work when the source of the leak was still undetected.
The resident also raised concerns about the communication around the decant. The resident said that he had been told by another resident at the scheme that he was going to be decanted into the guest flat and said that a notice had been put up in a public area giving the date of his occupancy and length of stay. He said this could be a security risk as visitors to the scheme would know his flat was empty. The resident said that £170 compensation was derisory considering the amount of time that the issue had been going on and the number of times he had contacted the landlord.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 17 August 2022. It said that the contractor did not think it was necessary for the resident to move out because the property would be habitable during the work. However, the landlord had agreed to decant the resident due to the impact that the work would have on him. It said the guest flat was ready for him to move into when needed. It assured the resident that there had been no data breach and that his proposed decant had not been made public. It said that the booking record for the guest flat was on display in the communal area. The guest flat was usually used by family and friends of residents visiting their relatives and inserting the address of the resident that booked it onto the booking record was usual practice in sheltered schemes. The landlord upheld the offer of £170 compensation as a goodwill gesture.
On 5 September 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to advise that the guest room at the scheme was to be relocated to the ground floor and that no more bookings would be taken until further notice.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 29 September 2022. He said that he was unhappy with the goodwill gesture as it did not reflect the stress it had caused him or the frustration and time taken to chase the repair over a long period. The resident said he had had incurred costs providing photographs to show how the property had deteriorated over the years and that the landlord had fallen short of its duties.
He said that there had been a constant flow of contractors who did not know what they were looking for who often turned up without an appointment. The resident said the landlord first mentioned a decant in 2021 and that he had been told that the repairs would be so extensive and disruptive that it would be needed. The guest flat at that time was not suitable as it was on the 1st floor and as the new guest flat was still unfurnished, it was still not available. The resident suggested that if the guest flat was being used for a decant the booking record on display in the communal room should just be marked as “occupied” rather than the flat number being inserted. The resident also pointed out that the works order still did not include the most important aspect of the repair, which was to locate the source of the water ingress and repair it.
The landlord logged a repairs order to carry out a joint inspection at the property to determine the cause of the leak on 17 October 2022.
The landlord raised a works order on 15 December 2022 to carry out repairs to the wet room and adjoining areas. The proposed commencement date for the work was 24 January 2023.
The landlord emailed the resident on 19 December 2022. It said that following the inspection it had decided that it would be necessary to remove all permanent fixtures in the wet room, including the floor, to carry out the necessary work. Work would commence on 24 January 2023 and last 3-4 weeks. During this time the flat would be a building site and the resident would have to request permission from the landlord if he needed access to the property.
An internal landlord email of 15 March 2023 said that the work at the property was now complete. The landlord had returned the keys to the resident the day before following a property inspection. The resident returned to the property in May 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to a wet room.

The landlord’s repairs manual for 2021 said that “a repair is an emergency when the problem could cause serious health and safety problems or severe damage if not made safe”. An example given in the manual of a routine repair for which an appointment should be offered between 1 and 3 days of reporting was a blocked sink, bath, or basin. The manual also said, “As a caring social landlord we aim to look after tenants who may need some extra support. Vulnerable tenants have their repairs prioritised for quicker action”.
The landlord’s initial response to the repair request was correct and within its policy. However, the landlord did not repair the issue which was ongoing for over 3 years, from 5 January 2020 until 15 March 2023. This was not acceptable and was a severe failing by the landlord. The delay in finding the reason for the water ingress meant that the property was badly damaged which cannot but have significantly affected the resident’s enjoyment of his home for a prolonged period. This would have affected the resident even more because he spent a lot of time at home, due to his age and health problems, and particularly over the national lockdown.
The landlord noted that the resident was vulnerable from the first repairs report but the repair was still not prioritised. Even though it was made aware of health and safety issues such as compromised flooring on more than one occasion this Service has seen no evidence that it considered the extra adverse effects that this would have on an elderly resident with mobility issues. It did not provide the enhanced repairs service that it says that it will in its policy which was a major failing.
The resident’s family wrote directly to the landlord more than 18 times, this took a lot of time and trouble. Without the support of the resident’s family the situation is likely to have carried on, leaving this vulnerable resident living in unacceptable living conditions for even longer.
The landlords repairs manual 2021 also said that morning, afternoon, or evening appointments would be offered. The resident asked to be notified of appointments before the repairs operatives attended the property, but they continued to attend without appointments or with very little notice. This failure to follow its own policy delayed the process further and caused distress to the vulnerable resident who had been advised not to let unexpected callers into the property.
There is evidence that when the landlord did make an appointment, such as on 1 March 2021, it failed to attend and then arrived unannounced 25 days later. This caused the resident further inconvenience because he had arranged for a family member to be at the property for the appointment and then he had to call his family when the operative did arrive because they were unsure what they was there to do. This showed poor communications by the landlord which was a further failing.
This service has seen no evidence that the landlord replied to most of the letters sent by the resident. This was a major communications failure by the landlord which would have caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident because he felt unheard and ignored. He said in one of the letters that he “felt as though no-one was listening” because workmen attended the property on many occasions to make good the water damage when the source of the problem had not yet been identified. The resident started to send letters by recorded delivery which cost him further time and inconvenience and also had cost implications.
The landlord logged numerous repairs jobs about the plumbing in the wet room at the property but there was no oversight of the issue. The landlord should have identified that this was an ongoing issue, particularly as the resident kept writing to it to advise that there was still a problem. Even when the landlord asked a named member of staff to “take ownership of the issue” in March 2022 the problem was not resolved in a timely manner. This failure by the landlord to have oversight and find the source of the problem and rectify it, led to the vulnerable resident living in unsatisfactory living conditions for over 3 years.
Due to the multiple failings listed above and the severe detriment caused to the resident of a prolonged period, there has been severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repair to the wet room.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s corporate complaints policy defines a complaint as “…any expression of dissatisfaction, not resolved immediately to the customer’s satisfaction, about the level, quality or nature of a service which the customer feels should have been provided. This includes services provided by people or organisations acting on behalf of the council.” It says that complaints will generally involve:
1. Failure to provide a service to the customer’s expectations.
2. Delay in answering a query or responding to a request for a service.
3. Failure to follow the council’s agreed policies and/or procedures.
4. Poor communication.
5. Broken promises.

It also says that customers can make a complaint by whichever method they prefer including in writing by e-mail or hard copy.

There is evidence that the resident complained by letter on 13 January 2020. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord responded to this complaint and on 28 September 2020 the resident confirmed in another letter to the landlord that he had not received a response. The landlord’s failure to log this as a complaint was a severe failing and contrary to its policy. This caused the resident hardship because it was a missed opportunity to use the complaints process to rectify the repair sooner. Instead, the resident had to take time and trouble to write to the landlord many more times and he had to continue to live in a property which had a wet room in disrepair and damaged walls and floors.
Despite the resident making many more ‘expressions of dissatisfaction’ the landlord did not provide a complaints response for another 2.5 years. This severe delay was a major failing by the landlord. Not only was the resident denied the opportunity for an investigation into the issues by the landlord, but it also delayed his access to an investigation by this Service.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling code in place at the time said that a “complaint should be resolved at the earliest opportunity, having assessed what evidence is needed to fully consider the issues, what outcome would resolve the matter for the resident and whether there are any urgent actions required”. The stage 1 complaints response said that the job had been “highlighted as a priority and would be monitored through to completion”. However, this Service has seen no evidence that this was prioritised or monitored proactively to ensure that the promise was kept. It was a further 6 months before the landlord started the work. This failure to follow the code further delayed the process and added to the resident’s distress.
The stage 2 complaint response contained errors. It said that the delay with the completion of the work was due to the resident being ill, and that the guest flat was ready when he needed it. This was not the case because 19 days later the landlord told the resident that the guest flat was being relocated so no more bookings were being taken until further notice. As the work was due to take longer than 19 days the property would not have been available for the necessary length of time. This lack of a full investigation led to further frustration and time and trouble for the resident who then wrote back to the landlord to point out how long the repairs issues had been ongoing.
In its stage 2 response the landlord also said that it was not necessary for the resident to move out while the work was undertaken. It implied that it was doing the resident a favour by facilitating a decant. The landlord later contradicted itself regarding this in its email of 19 December 2022 when it said that during the works “the flat would be regarded as a building site and therefore permission would have to be requested if access was required to the property”. These errors led to the resident losing further faith in the landlord and the complaints process.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling code in place at the time said that the purpose of the complaints process is to “put things right” and that factors to consider in formulating a remedy can include:
1. length of time that a situation has been ongoing.
2. frequency with which something has occurred.
3. severity of any service failure or omission
4. number of different failures
5. cumulative impact on the resident
6. resident’s particular circumstances or vulnerabilities.
The landlord did not follow this advice when it offered £170 compensation as a remedy to its failings. This led to a further breakdown in the relationship between the landlord and the resident because the resident did not feel as though the landlord understood how long the situation had been going on and the hard ship he had suffered. This showed a lack of empathy on the landlord’s part which was a further failing.
Due to the multiple failings listed above there has been severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the wet room.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord must provide evidence to prove that it has complied with the following:
Pay the resident directly a total of £2,700 in compensation. Any compensation already paid should be deducted from this amount. Compensation is broken down as follows:
1. £700 for time and trouble.
2. £1,500 for distress and inconvenience.
3. £500 for poor complaint handling.
A director or above to apologise in person to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
The Ombudsman has recently made orders and recommendations in other investigations to this landlord about reviewing its complaint handling approach, and repair and maintenance service. The Ombudsman has therefore not made further recommendations around these aspects of service in this report but expects the landlord to take all relevant learning points from this case into account in its overall reviews of complaint handling and its repairs service.