Lambeth Council (202223296)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223296

Lambeth Council

20 October 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

The complaint is about:
1. The installation and suitability of the kitchen installed by the landlord.
2. The landlord’s installation of a toilet purchased by the resident.
3. The landlord’s painting of the water closet.
4. The behaviour of the landlord’s contractors.
5. The associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant whose tenancy started on 4 November 1991. The landlord noted the resident is vulnerable due to her age. The resident reports that she has arthritis and fibromyalgia.
The landlord started work to install a new kitchen and toilet on 7 April 2022. On 12 April 2022, the landlord’s contractors reported the resident was preventing its electricians from doing electrical work.
On 20 April 2022, the landlord’s contractor reported that the resident requested a new toilet upstairs. The resident complained that the toilet the landlord fitted was not fit for purpose. The landlord’s contractor agreed to do a referral to an occupational therapist to assess the toilet.
The resident reported issues with the landlord’s contractors regarding their behaviour and the contractors made counter-allegations against her. The landlord reported the resident had been uncooperative during the works and had also made unreasonable demands.
On 26 July 2022, the resident complained to her landlord that her kitchen was incomplete. She went on to make a formal complaint on 8 November 2022. The landlord informed the resident that it would visit her property by 16 November 2022 to correct any shortcomings. It did not specify what these were or what work it would do.
The resident requested an escalation of her complaint on 17 November 2022. The landlord stated its contractor had been unable to make contact. The landlord attended on 18 November 2022 and 21 November 2022 and installed a dishwasher, a toilet purchased by the resident, and it painted the water closet.
When the contractors attended, they fitted the toilet the resident purchased because the resident refused the toilet recommended by the occupational therapist. She also refused the vinyl flooring in the bathroom. The resident complained afterwards about the contractor’s behaviour and paintwork.
The resident informed the landlord that the toilet she purchased was loose. The landlord explained it was not responsible for this and suggested the resident speak with the company she purchased the toilet from. It also told the resident that it had completed the kitchen.
The landlord stated in its final response on 8 December 2022:
1. It was sorry for any stress and inconvenience caused by the delayed work.
2. It could not access the resident’s property in July 2022 which was the reason for the delays installing the kitchen.
The contractors attended her property on 18 November 2022 and 21 November 2022 and installed a dishwasher, painted her water closet, and installed the toilet she purchased.
The resident referred her complaint to this service as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s fitting of the toilet she purchased. She also said the kitchen units installed by her landlord were unsuitable given her disability. She also complained about how the landlord’s contractors treated her, and the length of time taken to install the kitchen.

Jurisdiction

There are some complaints that the Ombudsman cannot investigate under the Scheme it is set up under. These are said to be outside the service’s jurisdiction. Paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which have not gone through or exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint process.
Based on the evidence the resident raised the unsuitability of her kitchen after the landlord concluded its complaint process and the landlord was therefore not given the opportunity to address this. This aspect of the resident’s complaint is outside this service’s jurisdiction under paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme. This service can however consider the landlord’s installation of the kitchen.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s responsibilities and policies

The resident’s tenancy agreement requires the landlord to keep in proper working order fittings for toilets that it has provided or which the resident has provided with its permission. The resident is responsible for internal decorations unless decorations are needed because of the repair or improvement work the landlord is responsible for. The resident is required to obtain from the landlord written permission for any improvements or alterations to the structure of the property.
The landlord’s repair manual (2021) requires staff and contractors to carry ID cards which they can be requested to show.
The landlord’s vulnerable tenant’s guidance requires the landlord to identify any vulnerabilities residents may have and offer additional support to residents.
According to the landlord’s website, adult social care employs occupational therapists (OT) to conduct assessments. The OT assessments inform reports that can identify what adaptations are needed to allow residents to live safely and independently.
The landlord’s complaint policy operates a 2-stage process. The policy requires the landlord to respond to complaints in writing within 20 working days at the local resolution stage. The policy allows for an escalation of complaints at a second review stage.

Installation of the kitchen

The landlord started work on the resident’s kitchen in April 2022. The assessment of the kitchen installation has been affected because the landlord has not provided this service with any surveys, inspection reports, details of any contractor visits from repair records, an OT report, or a copy of a housing need assessment for the resident. The Ombudsman expects landlords and their contractors to keep records of repairs as an audit and in the interests of transparency. The lack of record-keeping is a service failure.
The landlord had noted that the resident was vulnerable. The resident informed the landlord on 12 May 2022 that she had fallen in the kitchen. The resident disputes her landlord offered an OT assessment for the kitchen. She told the landlord she thought this would have been done automatically because of her vulnerability. The schedule of work for the kitchen refers to an OT assessment but there is no evidence this was done. Additionally, the landlord should have conducted a vulnerability assessment with the resident in line with its vulnerable tenant’s guidance. There is no evidence it did this which is a service failure.
It is important that landlords consider arranging a referral to the OT service before any work starts where the resident has any physical disabilities that may require accommodating.
The resident complained about the length of time the kitchen installation took. However, the evidence shows that the resident contributed to the delay because she requested underfloor cables, prevented rewiring, and refused a fire door. The landlord reported that the resident also asked contractors to leave her property during work and this disrupted the work.
The Ombudsman considers that these were issues all outside the landlord’s control and contributed to the delays. The landlord also said in its stage 2 response that the delay to the kitchen installation was due to it being unable to access the resident’s property.
The resident asserts that there was no reason preventing the landlord from accessing her property. She said that she was only absent from her property while she was in hospital. The resident has said that her granddaughter was at home Monday to Thursday each week and could have provided access to the landlord. The landlord has not provided evidence of any attempts it made to contact the resident to gain access. Without this evidence, this service cannot be satisfied that reasonable attempts were made by the landlord to exercise its right of entry. This lack of record keeping is a service failure.
The resident complained on 26 July 2022 that the kitchen had not been completed. The evidence shows that the resident contributed to the delays by her actions, but the landlord did not respond to the resident until 14 November 2022. This was a delay of 111 days which was unreasonable.
This service has determined that the landlord failed to make a referral to the OT service for the design and installation of the kitchen. It has also failed to fully account for the long delays in installing the kitchen and the lack of attendance records.

Installation of the toilet

The resident complained about the toilet the landlord had fitted in her upstairs water closet (WC) on 20 April 2022. The landlord agreed to make a referral to the OT service. The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s response as reasonable in the circumstances. This is because it needed to establish whether a new toilet was required or if there were any adaptions the resident might benefit from.
The landlord’s communications from May 2022 show the resident was dissatisfied with the toilet pan the landlord provided. This is because it was 25 mm lower than the previous one. The landlord was responsible for the toilet pan under its repair manual. It explained that the manufacturer had changed the height of the pan. This was an issue outside the landlord’s control. The resident purchased a new toilet, herself.
The landlord said that it agreed to install the resident’s toilet but could accept no responsibility for it after its installation. The explanation for its position was that the toilet was a different size from the one it uses and not recommended by an OT. The evidence shows that the toilet the resident purchased which was fitted by the landlord was loose as it was the wrong size.
The landlord was not required, to purchase or install a toilet and cistern of the resident’s choice. It had offered a toilet that was recommended by an OT, but that was rejected by the resident. It agreed to install the toilet the resident wanted in November 2022 as a gesture of goodwill and without any future obligation, other than the duty to keep it in good working order and repair. The landlord not only fitted the toilet the resident purchased but it agreed to re-fit the toilet when it was found to be loose. The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s actions reasonable as it had acted beyond its legal responsibility to accommodate the resident’s wishes. The landlord’s approach to this part of the complaint was fair and reasonable.

Painting the water closet

The landlord attended the resident’s property on 18 & 21 November 2022 to paint the water closet after it installed the toilet. The resident complained that in doing so the landlord’s contractors damaged a lampshade and splattered paint on her toilet. The evidence shows that the landlord attended on 12 December 2022 to tidy up the paintwork. This was a reasonable action to take in response to the resident. This service has not seen any evidence of damage to a lampshade and so cannot determine this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

Behaviour of the landlord’s contractors

Both the resident and landlord’s contractors alleged each other were abusive. Although there was evidence to show that there were tensions between the 2, there is insufficient evidence for this service to decide on this aspect of the complaint. This is because there were no repair records given to this service by the landlord or substantive evidence given by the resident.
However, it was a failing on the part of the landlord not to require its contractors to document the alleged abuse experienced or the issues the resident alleged. Without proper documentation of the alleged abuse, the landlord could not assess whether it had satisfied its duties to protect its workforce and resident. This would be good practice to ensure the health and safety of its workforce, evidence accountability, and ensure safeguarding. This service expects landlords to thoroughly investigate any allegations of abuse against residents.
The resident was particularly concerned that contractors did not identify themselves using ID. The lack of records and evidence has impeded this Service’s investigation and ability to determine. However, the allegations raised safeguarding concerns and the landlord failed to demonstrate that it recorded any issues or took appropriate steps to respond.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process and aims to respond at the local resolution stage (stage 1) within 20 working days. It aims to respond at the review stage (stage 2) within 25 working days. This is at odds with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. This requires a response at stage 1 within 10 working days and a response at stage 2 within 20 working days.
The resident made a complaint on 8 November 2022, but there is no evidence the landlord responded in writing under its local resolution. The landlord was required to do this under its complaint policy within 20 working days. The landlord also failed to respond appropriately at stage 2 of its review process. This is because it failed to address the issues the resident raised about the conduct of its contractors which raised serious safeguarding concerns.
The response regarding the delays the resident experienced with the kitchen installation and toilet was insubstantial and incomplete and is maladministration. This would have likely left the resident feeling ignored and would have likely increased her distress. This service’s remedies guidance recommends awards of between £100 to £600 where there has been maladministration which has had a significant but non-permanent impact on a resident.
Issues with the landlord’s record keeping and complaint handling were highlighted in the Ombudsman’s February 2023 special report. Similar issues with record keeping and complaint handling have been noted in this case. Therefore, no repeat order has been made. However, the landlord should satisfy itself that it has appropriately considered the special report and implemented change to prevent a recurrence in future cases.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the kitchen installation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the toilet installation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of paintwork to the resident’s water closet.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the behaviour of its contractors.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident the sum of £500 compensation, comprising:
  1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failures related to the kitchen installation. This accounts for its poor communication and delayed completion of the installation.
  2. £50 for its failure to investigate the concerns raised by the resident in relation to the behaviour of its contractors.
  3. £150 for its poor complaint handling.
2. Make a referral to the council’s occupational therapy service to consider whether the kitchen needs any changes.
3. Complete a vulnerability assessment with the resident and inform her of the extra services she may be entitled to.
Within 56 days of the date of this determination the landlord must complete a case review to identify improvements in:
1. How it agrees access to resident’s properties with them.
2. How it records and investigates issues of alleged abuse by residents and contractors.
The landlord should provide a copy of the outcome of this review to this service within 56 days of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. Consider the resident’s complaint about the suitability of her kitchen.
2. Consider issuing further guidance on its website about how residents can access the OT service.
3. Communicate to all contractors the need to offer ID to all residents before requesting entry.