Lambeth Council (202229266)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229266

Lambeth Council

24 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 handling of a replacement door.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 22 June 2022 the landlord noted that a replacement front door was needed. The resident raised a complaint on 1 November 2022 as the door had not been replaced.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 response stated that it had ordered the door on 2 November 2022. It stated that it would take 8 – 12 weeks to manufacture and then it could be fitted. It is unknown what date the landlord issued the stage 1 response, although it is considered to be before 12 December 2022, when the resident escalated the complaint to stage 2.
  4. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 20 January 2023. It apologised for the delays. It reiterated that it would take 8 – 12 weeks to manufacture the door. It offered £320 for the delays.
  5. The resident spoke with the Housing Ombudsman on 22 February 2023 at which point the door had not replaced.  A note from the landlord on 21 April 2023 stated that the resident had refused the replacement door. The Ombudsman has not been able to speak to the resident since this time and is unaware of the current status of the repairs issue.

 

 

Assessment and findings

  1. When the landlord became aware that the door needed replacing it should have insured it placed an order for the new door. The landlord gave a timeframe of 8 – 12 weeks for manufacture, which is not unreasonable. However, there is no evidence that the landlord ordered the door at this time.
  2. The resident raised a complaint on 1 November 2022. The landlord advised the resident in its stage 1 response that the door had been ordered on 2 November 2022. This is also stated in an internal email on 20 January 2023. There is no evidence to explain why it took until November to order the replacement door. The resident should not need to raise a complaint for the landlord to complete a repair.
  3. The Ombudsman has seen a form for a quote for a replacement door, dated 20 January 2023. It is unclear why a further quote was needed. The order form was substantially after the landlord originally recognised that a replacement door was needed. As there is no explanation for the delay, the Ombudsman considers this to be an unreasonable delay.
  4. There are notes from the landlord stating that the resident refused a like for like replacement on 17 April 2023. A further note was added by the landlord on 21 April 2023, again stating that the resident had refused the replacement door. The Ombudsman recognises that the resident had been frustrated by lengthy delays. However, to replace the door, the resident would need to accept the repair.
  5. The delays to the door were unreasonable. There are some internal emails between the landlord, chasing up the repairs. However, there was no clear ownership or a sense of urgency from the landlord. Although the delays were unreasonable, and would have caused frustration to the resident, the Ombudsman has been unable to establish any major impact in the door not being replaced. It is recognised that the door was old and no longer suitable. However, we have not been provided evidence that the door was broken beyond day-to-day use.
  6. The landlord offered £320 in compensation, although it did not break down how it calculated this. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will offer £5 a week where it has not provided a service, and this has had a low impact on the resident. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord should have installed the door on or before 14 September 2022, 12 weeks after the landlord identified it as needing repairing. The Ombudsman has calculated 31 weeks between 14 September 2022 and 17 April 2023 when the landlord attempted to arrange for the door to be fitted. The Ombudsman considers that £155 would be appropriate in delays for the repair.
  7. In addition to the delays in repair, the Ombudsman recognises that this would have caused frustration to the resident, and an award should be made for time and trouble. The landlord offered £320 in total, which is £165 in addition to the compensation for delays. The Ombudsman considers this to be a reasonable amount for time and trouble. As such there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of a replacement door.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the replacement door.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident and arrange for the door to be replaced if it has not already done so.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord re-offer the £320 compensation to the resident.
  3. It is recommended that the landlord review the complaint and consider how it can ensure that staff are aware who has ownership for a repair, and what steps it should take when repairs are delayed.

 

 

 

Chat to us