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

Lambeth Council (202229208)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229208

Lambeth Council

22 April 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s decision to repair the windows in the resident’s property instead of upgrading them.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since 2017. The property is a 2-bedroom, ground floor flat in a 3-storey block.
  2. The landlord’s contractor serviced and adjusted the locks, handles and hinges on the windows in the resident’s property between 10 June 2022 and 28 July 2022.
  3. On 22 July 2022, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord in relation to a safety breach. She said:
    1. An unknown telephone number had called her and sent a text about a survey that was to be conducted at her property. She contacted the service centre who said there were no visits scheduled for her property.
    2. The landlord had upgraded the kitchen, bathroom and wiring in the property. The only outstanding upgrade were the windows. Unless the survey was to install double glazing that the landlord had committed to several years ago, she did not see the purpose of the survey.
    3. The communication had not made sense to her. She asked if the survey was legitimate and what her rights were in relation to it. She felt the text was an invasion of her privacy and was not warranted.
  4. The landlord sent a complaint acknowledgement email to the resident the same day.
  5. The landlord raised the complaint as a service request, it forwarded it to its housing management team to ensure it raised it as an early resolution. It then closed the complaint on 25 July 2022.
  6. The landlord emailed the resident on 28 July 2022. It told her there was an appointment booked for 29 July 2022 for the windows in the property. The resident responded to this email on 18 August 2022 and asked, “is this to be the response for my complaint at stage 1?” She asked for her complaint to be raised to stage 2.
  7. The landlord escalated the complaint internally on 23 August 2022. In response to the escalation, it sent a stage 1 acknowledgement to the resident on 25 August 2022.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 1 September 2022. It said it understood the resident’s complaint to be about metal windows and listed the following points:
    1. It confirmed it had raised a work order to repair the windows. The work had been completed by 2 August 2022.
    2. It apologised for the delays she had experienced trying to get through to the service centre, it had fed back her experience to the service centre management team for review.
    3. The landlord recognised it could have provided a better level of communication on the progress of the works. It upheld her complaint because of the delays experienced by the resident.
  9. The resident emailed the landlord on 4 September 2022, she said the complaint response was months overdue and wanted it escalated. She said her complaint was in relation to the upgrade and overhaul of the metal windows, stating:
    1. The single glazed windows did not offer any heat retention, which resulted in her having to spend more money on gas in the winter months.
    2. The landlord had a responsibility to upgrade the windows to double glazing.
    3. Replacing the windows would help reduce noise levels in the property, provide heat insulation and reduce her energy costs.
  10. The resident emailed the landlord on 30 September 2022 advising she had not received an acknowledgement of her escalation request.
  11. The landlord sent its stage 2 acknowledgement on 4 October 2022, it said it would provide the stage 2 response by 4 November 2022.
  12. The landlord spoke to the resident on 11 October 2022. She advised she had received a text message requesting access to her property for a survey. She was concerned because she had not reported any issues relating to the property and the gas safety check had been completed. An engineer had left her a card, when she called, the person no longer worked there. The landlord had spoken to its teams and confirmed they were unaware of any survey.
  13. On 21 October 2022, the landlord issued a stage 1 response. It thanked the resident for her complaint raised on 30 September 2022. It said:
    1. The response was in relation to the text message the resident had received in July 2022 that had requested access for a survey and referred to the telephone conversation they had on 11 October 2022.
    2. It had spoken to the capital works team who undertake planned programmed works to its properties. It confirmed there were no outstanding works scheduled for her property and no current plans or surveys scheduled for the windows.
    3. It did not know who sent the text to the resident. It asked her to contact the customer service centre if she received any more texts. The landlord did not uphold the complaint.
  14. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 4 November 2022, which was a follow on from its 1 September 2022 stage 1 response and the resident’s escalation on 4 September 2022. It said:
    1. It had overlooked the resident’s request to escalate her complaint, which it had not logged until 30 September 2022. It recognised this fell short of its own expectations. It apologised for the delay and any uncertainty it had caused.
    2. The windows in her property were not due to be replaced.
    3. Its contractor had visited her property where it serviced and adjusted the hinges, locks and handles on 11 windows. The windows were tested and left in good working order.
    4. It acknowledged she felt the windows should have been replaced instead of repaired.
    5. In the professional opinion of the responsive repairs team and contractor, the windows could be suitably repaired. As there was no mandatory requirement to replace the windows it did not deem replacement necessary.
    6. It was aware this was not the response the resident wanted. It apologised for any distress caused and for the delay in escalating her complaint to stage 2.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s decision to repair the windows instead of upgrading them.

  1. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, landlords are required to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. The landlord has acknowledged this obligation in the resident’s tenancy agreement. Its repairs page on its website states that it is responsible for windowsills, catches, cords and frames.
  2. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. When determining if an excess cold hazard is present, the building should be assessed as a whole. The factors to be considered include the age of the dwelling, type of construction, condition and thermal efficiency of the building and its elements as well as the type and design of the heating system. The principle underlying the HHSRS is that any residential premises should provide a safe healthy environment for any potential occupier or visitor. To satisfy this principle, a dwelling should be free from both unnecessary and avoidable hazards.
  3. Landlords are expected to make every effort to ensure their properties meet the government’s decent home guidance. One of the criteria in the guidance is that windows are considered to be ‘old’ once they have been in place for 30 years. This does not mean the landlord must replace the windows when they reach this age. It is more an indication that landlords should include such components in their planned renewal works.  A home could be considered ‘decent,’ even if it has not had its windows replaced in the previous 30 years. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if a property meets the criteria in the guidance. We have included reference to the guidance as an indicator of what might be reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint.
  4. It is reasonable for landlords to schedule major works such as replacing multiple windows in a property to manage their budgets. The landlord’s website indicates it had an ongoing programme of internal and external works on its homes, estates and streets to bring them up to its own housing standard. The works were based on stock condition surveys which then form part of its capital works programme. However, the most recent capital works programme listed on its website was for 2020-2021. It would be appropriate for the landlord to include its upcoming capital works programme on its website.
  5. In line with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the windows at the property. The landlord has not provided any formal inspection/condition report in relation to the condition of the windows that concluded they were suitable for repair. However, in its stage 2 response it said that its responsive repairs team and the contractor decided that the windows could be suitably repaired, which was the basis of its decision. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to repair the windows.
  6. The Ombudsman understands that the resident wants the windows replaced as a resolution to her complaint. However, social landlords have limited resources, they are expected to manage these resources responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents. In view of this, and the paragraphs above, landlords are entitled to opt to service or repair items such as windows rather than replacing them.
  7. On its website the landlord has acknowledged that single glazed windows do not retain as much heat as double-glazed windows. This fact and the associated increase in energy costs, form the main basis for the resident’s request to have the windows replaced. As previously mentioned, landlords must assess their properties for category 1 hazards. Single glazed windows could contribute to the presence of an excess cold hazard. It would therefore have been reasonable for the landlord to have conducted a HHSRS assessment of the property. This would have allowed it to establish if a hazard was present and if so, what action may be necessary to remove it. This was a shortcoming on the part of the landlord. A recommendation has been made for it to conduct a HHSRS assessment of the resident’s property in relation to excess cold.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 2 working days and provide a response within 20 working days of acknowledgement. It will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 2 working days and respond within 20 working days.
  2. On 22 July 2022 the resident raised a complaint about a text message she had received regarding a survey. The landlord acknowledged the contact as a complaint the same day. It then changed it to a service request and closed the complaint on 25 July 2022. As a response to the service request the landlord emailed the resident on 28 July 2022 and said there was an appointment booked on 29 July 2022 for the windows in the property. The resident responded on 18 August 2022 and asked, “is this to be the response for my complaint at stage 1”.
  3. The landlord confused the resident’s complaint to be about the upgrade to the windows rather than her original complaint about the text message. On the 1 September 2022 it issued its stage 1 response in relation to the windows. It apologised and upheld her complaint due to the delays she had experienced contacting the customer service centre.
  4. It took the landlord 44 working days to provide its stage 2 response, which unreasonably exceeded the timescales in its complaints process and the requirements of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It apologised for the delay and any distress it had caused. It provided a comprehensive answer to resident’s requests regarding the upgrade of the windows. However, the response did not acknowledge that there had been errors in its complaints process or offer any redress for the delay, confusion and frustration caused to the resident, which was unreasonable.
  5. Closing the original complaint and changing its status to a service request without discussion with the resident caused confusion in the process and led to unnecessary delays. It is the Ombudsman’s decision that there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision to repair the windows instead of upgrading them.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with its complaint handling. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above order within the specified time.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should arrange for a HHSRS assessment of the resident’s property that focuses on excess cold.