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

Lambeth Council (202212247)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212247

Lambeth Council

22 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:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for it replace her property’s draughty windows, front door and frame, and compensate her for this.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord of a flat, which she rented out to private tenants. The landlord does not have a record of whether the resident’s tenants had any vulnerabilities.
  2. The landlord recorded that it responded to works raised for the property’s windows in January 2022 by arranging an inspection in February 2022. This found that there was no further action needed for the windows at that time because these had draught excluders fitted. However, the resident then reported to the landlord in March 2022 that there were outstanding works to the property’s front door and frame, which it had previously agreed to carry out. It therefore initially booked works to renew these in March 2022 before cancelling the works due to her being a leaseholder.
  3. The resident therefore chased the landlord for the works to the property’s front door and frame again in March 2022. This was because it had previously accepted responsibility for the works. Although the landlord then told the resident that the cost of works would have to be approved before it carried these out. She subsequently attempted to make and escalate a stage 1 complaint to it about this in April and May 2022, respectively. The resident complained about the property’s windows and front door and frame being overdue for renewal, with her tenants reporting that the property was cold as a result.
  4. The landlord therefore advised the resident that its asset team would consider and respond to her about upgrading the property’s windows. It also agreed to chase and update her on the works to renew the property’s front door and frame, which it considered to be on target but that had previously been cancelled. The resident then chased the landlord about her stage 1 complaint and the outstanding works again in May, June and July 2022. This was including because her tenants had continued to report draughts from gaps in the property, but she had still not received a repair appointment from it.
  5. The landlord subsequently raised and cancelled works to renew the property’s front door and frame again in July 2022 before its surveyor raised orders for this to be inspected. It then told the resident that these would take 6 to 8 weeks manufactured, but that the surveyor was unable to provide a timescale for the works. The landlord explained that this was because it might be necessary to first consult all of leaseholders in the property’s building about the works, under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (‘section 20 consultation’). However, the resident chased it for a further update in August 2022, as she had still not received the status or timescale of the works from it, and her tenants had health and safety concerns.
  6. The landlord subsequently attempted to inspect the property in August 2022 before doing so in September 2022. This found that a section 20 consultation was needed for the works, as the property’s window, front door and frame renewal costs were estimated to be £6,614, costing its leaseholders more than £250 each. The resident then chased the landlord for the works once more, including because it had previously agreed these before the COVID-19 pandemic and conditions had worsened. She added that it had taken enough time for a section 20 consultation, with its staff misunderstanding its responsibilities by raising and cancelling works. The resident therefore asked for the landlord’s permission to complete and charge it for the works herself.
  7. The landlord’s subsequent stage 1 complaint response in September 2022 apologised for its delay in issuing this. It also acknowledged the resident’s and her tenants’ frustration, inconvenience and upset, which had identified areas for improvement in its service from. The landlord additionally stated that her case had highlighted that its contractors needed further training on its repair responsibilities and leasehold properties. It outlined the above events in the case, that the contractors had previously cancelled the works because they did not usually do leasehold works, repeated the need to carry out a section 20 consultation, and agreed to escalate the complaint.
  8. The landlord also recorded that it inspected the property again in September 2022, but it and the resident disputed the presence of draughts and the need to renew the windows for these. It then measured the windows, door and frame and gave her and the other leaseholders in the property’s building notice of the section 20 consultation for the estimated cost of the works in October 2022, which ended in November 2022. This described these as being necessary because the above items were beyond economic repair. The landlord’s subsequent final stage complaint response in October 2022 acknowledged that its communication about this could have been better. It also said that the works should begin after the end of the section 20 consultation, and it apologised for the resident’s stress and inconvenience.
  9. The resident then told the landlord in October and November 2022 that water was leaking from the property’s windows, front door and frame. She therefore asked it for dehumidifiers until the works were completed. The resident added that conditions had worsened, causing her tenants stress and extra heating costs, and so she asked the landlord to compensate them for its delays. It subsequently instructed its contractors to proceed with the works in November 2022, when she chased them for an update. Although the resident did not get one, and so she asked the landlord for an installation date and compensation in December 2022. The works were then completed in December 2022.
  10. The resident subsequently complained to the Ombudsman that the landlord had taken 10 to 11 months to carry out the works at the property. She therefore asked for the outcome of her complaint to be for it to pay £750 compensation to her tenants and £500 compensation to herself. The resident explained that this was due to their discomfort and stress, the landlord’s lack of professionalism, and her work to get it to understand her rights and its obligations under her lease to carry out prompt works on notification. It then told the Ombudsman that the cost of the works to its leaseholders meant that it had to place these on hold to carry out a section 20 consultation. The landlord also confirmed to us that it did not provide dehumidifiers for leaseholders.

Assessment and findings

Windows, Front Door and Frame, and Compensation

  1. The resident’s lease obliges the landlord to repair and renew the property’s structure, including window frames, and only makes the resident responsible for entrance and other doors and frames within non-structural walls and partitions. Its homeowners guide confirms that it is obliged to carry out a section 20 consultation for large, one-off major works costing its leaseholders more than £250 each, such as replacing windows. The landlord’s repairs manual requires it to fix routine repairs within 28 working days and to complete planned repairs within 90 days, including for works to prevent problems arising in the future.
  2. The landlord was responsible for repairing or renewing the property’s windows and front door and frame under the resident’s lease. It was obliged to do so from when she reported to it that these works were still outstanding following COVID-19 pandemic restrictions on at least 31 January and 1 March 2022, respectively. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord then attended the property’s windows within its repairs manual’s 28-working-day routine repair timescale on 21 February 2022. It was also reasonable that it relied on its contractor’s supervisor’s expert assessment that there was no further action to take for these. This is because they explained that the windows already had draught excluders and there was no expert or other evidence to the contrary.
  3. However, it was not suitable that the landlord subsequently cancelled the appointments that it made to renew the property’s front door and frame within the above timescale on 23 and 24 March 2022. It did so due to the resident being a leaseholder but, as outlined above, her lease required it to repair or renew these when they were within non-structural walls and partitions. This is also because she explained that the landlord had previously accepted responsibility for and agreed to carry out works to the front door and frame.
  4. This meant that it was appropriate that the landlord then told the resident on 23 and 29 March 2022 that it would carry out works to the property’s reassessed windows, front door and frame. It was additionally reasonable that it informed her on the latter date that the cost of the works would need to be approved before these were raised. This is due to its homeowners guide confirming that this was necessary via a section 20 consultation for such large, one-off major works costing its leaseholders more than £250 each.
  5. However, the landlord was required to give the leaseholders of the property’s building at least 30 days to respond to its notice of the section 20 consultation for the window, front door and frame works. It also subsequently gave them 30 days’ notice of the section 20 consultation for the works on 18 October 2022. The landlord’s repairs manual additionally obliged it to complete such planned works to prevent problems arising in the future within 90 days. It nevertheless failed to do so after either 30 or 90 days following its agreement to carry out the works once their cost had been approved on 29 March 2022.
  6. The landlord instead then took 261 days to renew the property’s windows, front door and frame on 15 December 2022, which was not suitable. It would have been understandable if it had been delayed in doing so by the section 20 consultation process, including if other leaseholders had objected to these works. However, this did not occur and there is no evidence that the section 20 consultation otherwise delayed the works, apart from the obligatory 30-day consultation period, which ended after 35 days on 22 November 2022 to allow for postage.
  7. It additionally would have been understandable if the landlord’s works to the property were delayed by the need to manufacture new parts for this. This is because it would not have had control over the length of time taken to do so by third parties. The landlord nevertheless told the resident on 8 July 2022 that it would take 6 to 8 weeks, or 42 to 56 days, to manufacture a new front door and frame for the property. Following the section 20 consultation, it also told her that the property’s new windows should be manufactured and ready 20 days later by 12 December 2022. The maximum length of time that the landlord therefore took to carry out the section 20 consultation and manufacture parts for the works at the property was 111 days in total, and not the 261 days that it took to complete the works.
  8. Moreover, the landlord could have reduced the total length of time that it took to manufacture the property’s new windows, front door and frame if it had arranged these at the same time. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for it to have carried out the works to install these within its repair manual’s 90-day timescale for such planned works. This meant that it was unreasonable that the landlord did not do so but delayed the works from 29 March to 12 December 2022 by taking 171 days longer to complete these than the 90-day timescale to do so. It was also not suitable that it failed to explain its delays to the resident or regularly update her on its progress, so that she had to continue to chase it for this throughout her case.
  9. The resident contacted the landlord to chase updates on the progress of the works at the property on 15 April, 5, 12 and 23 May, 30 June, 2 and 8 July, 5 August, 5, 8 and 19 September, 29 October, 13, 14 and 30 November, and 2 December 2022. It was inappropriate that she felt the need to do so on 16 occasions, which suggested that its communications with her did not suitably explain or regularly update her on its delays in completing the works. This is particularly concerning because the resident informed the landlord from at least 12 May 2022 onwards that her tenants at the property were experiencing cold draughts from the outstanding works there. She subsequently added that this had caused them health and safety and other concerns, as well as extra heating costs, which she asked it for dehumidifiers for from 29 October 2022.
  10. However, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s reports about the effect of its delayed works at the property on her tenants. It also did not respond to her request for dehumidifiers, which was unreasonable, only later explaining to the Ombudsman that these were not provided for leaseholders. The landlord did inspect the property for the works on 11 August 2022, and it attempted to do so again on 30 August and 6 September 2022, before it was given access to estimate their total cost on 7 September 2022. However, there is no evidence that the 8 days that it took for it to be given access to inspect the property again either contributed to the at least 171-day delay in completing the works or prevented these from being completed within 90 days.
  11. It was therefore suitable that the landlord’s complaint responses apologised for the resident’s and her tenants’ frustration, inconvenience, upset and stress, and that she had to complain about the outstanding works and lack of start dates. These additionally identified areas of its service needing improvement, that its contractors needed further training on its repair responsibilities and leasehold properties, and that its communication could have been better, which was appropriate. The landlord nevertheless failed to either consider offering the resident any other remedies for these failings by it, or to outline the actions that it would take to prevent such failures in the future. This was contrary to the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles for it to put things right and learn from outcomes.
  12. The resident requested £500 compensation for herself for the landlord’s lack of professionalism, and for her work to get it to understand her rights and its obligations under her lease to carry out prompt works on notification. This is within the range of compensation recommended by the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures by landlords that have adversely affected residents, where there has been no attempt to put things right. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to pay the resident £400 compensation in recognition of its delays and lack of explanations and updates in replacing the property’s draughty windows, front door and frame. The remainder of the compensation that she requested for herself is addressed in the below complaint handling section of this investigation.
  13. The resident also requested £750 for her tenants for their discomfort and stress from the landlord’s above failings, which was understandable. As it did not have a direct landlord and tenant relationship with them, however, neither it nor the Ombudsman have the authority to compensate them directly for repair delays and related issues contrary to their tenancy agreement. It is nevertheless noted that the resident has explained that her tenants had extra heating costs as a result of the delays, which might have been passed on to her, together with other expenses as a result of the tenants being affected, such as a loss of rent.
  14. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to provide the resident with details to enable her to make a liability claim to it or its insurers for any additional costs that she incurred from the effect of its delayed works at the property on her tenants. It has also been recommended below to review its staff’s and contractors’ training needs in relation to their application of its leases, homeowners guide, and repairs manual. This is in order to prevent the landlord’s delayed works and lack of explanation and updates in the resident’s case from occurring again in the future.

Complaint Handling

  1. The landlord’s corporate complaints policy obliges it to respond to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days and to final stage complaints within 25 working days. It is required to explain the reason for its delay and advise when a response will be issued if it cannot respond to a complaint within these timescales. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) obliges the landlord to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to final stage complaints within 20 working days. It is only permitted to extend its timescales for responding complaints beyond 10 working days for a good reason and with the resident’s agreement.
  2. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 15 April 2022 on 14 September 2022, which was 103 working days later. It also responded to her final stage complaint of 14 September 2022 on 19 October 2022, which was 24 working days later. The landlord therefore took a total of 127 working days to respond to the resident’s complaints instead of doing so within the 45-working-day total permitted by its corporate complaints policy or within the 30 working days permitted by the Code. This was inappropriate and it was a further failing on its part that it did not explain the reason for its delays or advise her when a response would be issued, as required by the policy, or agree an extension with her for a good reason, as required by the Code.
  3. It is noted that the landlord accepted the stage 1 complaint from the resident on 13 May 2022. However, she attempted to submit this to it from 15 April 2022 and it was able to accept the complaint from that earlier date, so this has been taken as the start of the stage 1 complaint. It is also noted that the resident attempted to escalate her complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure from 5 May 2022. However, it was unable to do so until it responded to the stage 1 complaint on 14 September 2022, when it confirmed that it would escalate the complaint, and so this has been taken as the start of the final stage complaint.
  4. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord’s complaint responses apologised to the resident for its delays in responding to her complaints. However, it again failed to follow the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to put things right and learn from outcomes. This is because the landlord did not consider providing the resident with any other remedies in recognition of its delays and lack of explanations and updates in handling her complaints, which was not suitable. This is particularly because she also chased it on many of the 16 occasions outlined above in order get responses to her complaints. The landlord additionally failed to take steps to ensure that these failings did not occur again in the future, which was inappropriate.
  5. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance recommends compensation from £100 for delays in getting matters resolved, time, and trouble from failures in landlords’ service that were not appropriately acknowledged or put right. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to pay the resident £100 further compensation in recognition of its delays and lack of explanations and updates in handling her complaints. It has also been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its corporate complaints policy and the Code. This is in order to prevent its poor complaint handling in the resident’s case from occurring again in the future.
  6. It is noted that the landlord’s corporate complaints policy’s response and extension timescales exceed those in the Code. It is additionally noted that these differences are not addressed in the latest self-assessment of its compliance against the Code published on its website. The landlord has therefore been further recommended below to review, address, and publish its compliance against the Code’s timescales for responding to and extending complaints in its next self-assessment.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in:
    1. Its response to the resident’s requests for it replace her property’s draughty windows, front door and frame, and compensate her for this.
    2. Its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident compensation totalling £500 within 4 weeks, which is broken down into:
      1. £400 in recognition of its delays and lack of explanations and updates in replacing the property’s draughty windows, front door and frame.
      2. £100 in recognition of its delays and lack of explanations and updates in handling her complaints.
    2. Contact the resident within 4 weeks to provide her with details to enable her to make a liability claim to it or its insurers for any additional costs that she incurred from the effect of its delayed works at the property on her tenants.
    3. Contact the Ombudsman within 4 weeks to confirm that the above orders have been complied with and whether the below recommendations will be followed.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Review its staff’s and contractors’ training needs in relation to their application of its leases, homeowners guide, and repairs manual, in order to prevent its delayed works and lack of explanation and updates in the resident’s case from occurring again in the future.
    2. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its corporate complaints policy and the Code, in order to prevent its poor complaint handling in the resident’s case from occurring again in the future.
    3. Review, address, and publish its compliance against the Code’s timescales for responding to and extending complaints in its next self-assessment of its compliance against this.