Lambeth Council (202230659)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230659

Lambeth Council

17 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the side access walkway is overgrown and blocked.
This Service will also consider the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since 13 April 1981. The property is a 2-bedroom terraced house. There is a walkway that runs from the resident’s back garden gate round to a side street. The landlord has no specific vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
In February 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to advise that her walkway was blocked. She reported that she had not been able to use that entrance for years. She was concerned that it was a health and fire safety risk. She told the landlord that she had put many complaints in over the years, but it still remained unresolved. She said she was told that it would be cleared 6 months ago by a housing officer, but this had not been done.
On 15 March 2023 the landlord responded it apologised for the delayed response it said it had instructed its landscape team to clear the remaining foliage. The resident responded the same day and advised that this had not answered her query. The landlord had only cleared the beginning of the walkway but directly outside her gate still remained blocked.
On 15 May 2023 the resident contacted the landlord again stating she had emailed the complaints team weeks ago, but she had not received a response. On the same day this Service contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident and asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord sent a stage 2 response on 7 June 2023. It said it was sorry that it had not provided responses in the past few years. This fell below the standard it sets. It apologised for the distress and uncertainty as well as time and effort to make complaints. Its neighbourhood officer had cleared the area, but the resident has advised that it was the wrong area. A site inspection was done on 1 June 2023, but the matter would need to be referred to its estate team because the area was extensive. As soon as a decision had been made it would update the resident. it appreciated the resident’s frustration but hoped the above provided a resolution.

Post complaint.

The matter remained unresolved, so the resident contacted our Service.
This Service contacted the landlord in April 2024 to ascertain whether the walkway had now been cleared and if so when. The landlord advised that in response to the complaint it had visited with its contract manager to assess the situation and determine responsibility for the walkway and ground maintenance. It was committed to finding a resolution to ensure the residents safety and convenience. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and appreciated patience as it worked to address the issue effectively.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s estates and neighbourhood management policy states the landlord aims to keep its communal areas and neighbourhoods safe, clean, and maintained and to ensure the provision of services to a good standard.
The landlord’s fire safety in communal areas policy states that it will conduct monthly safety hazard assessments to check that communal areas are safe. It required residents to not cause or allow fire exits or routes from the property or any communal area to be blocked or obstructed or otherwise create a health and safety risk.
This service acknowledges the resident states the issue has been present for many years and how frustrating this would have been. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the resident to have raised her concerns sooner so that the issues could have been investigated by the landlord while they were ‘live'”.
However, the landlord has acknowledged that the resident reported the issue by way of a formal complaint in July 2022 and that it responded but cleared the wrong area. It is unknown what correspondence took place after that time until February 2023 when a new complaint was raised. Given the passage of time, and the gaps in reporting between July 2022 and February 2023 this service has only investigated the landlord’s response from February 2023 which led to the most recent complaint.
No evidence has been provided to this Service to show that the landlord had communicated with the resident about when it would clear the walkway. In the landlord’s first response it said that it had raised the works. The landlord did not set out how the delays had occurred or what had gone wrong and why the works still remained outstanding. This was inappropriate and did not show that it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously which was a failing.
The landlord then changed its position without any explanation in its stage 2 response. It stated that a decision was required, and it would have to update the resident further. It still failed to provide any explanation as to why the works remained outstanding and what had gone wrong in its handling of the matter. This was a further failing and another missed opportunity to try to put matters right and restore the landlord tenant relationship.
Furthermore, the landlord has failed to provide any records showing that it had completed monthly safety hazard assessments of its communal areas in accordance with its policy. Had it completed these then the hazards the resident reported should have been removed in accordance with its policy.
The resident had also expressed on several occasions her concerns about health and fire safety because the area was blocked, which meant that she could not get out of her gate.
The landlord’s internal emails state that in cases of emergency residents could still escape. It is unknown how it had concluded this or whether any risk assessments had been completed. Furthermore, the landlord failed to show that it had communicated this to the resident to alleviate her concerns. That it had not was an additional failing. This would have left the resident with uncertainty and distress about whether she was at risk for a prolonged period of time. This was unreasonable.
In summary this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the side access walkway is overgrown and blocked.
The landlord failed to show that it had listened to the resident’s concerns or advise her what action it proposed to take. It failed to provide any explanation of what went wrong. It then changed its position which caused confusion around whether it was going to take any action as it indicated a decision was required.
There was no evidence to show it had risk assessed the area and if it had that it had communicated its findings to the resident. This would have caused the resident distress, inconvenience, and uncertainty over a prolonged period of time. Furthermore, the resident had had to spend time and effort pursuing her complaint with this Service. The impact on the resident has been considered in the order and compensation below.
It is also concerning to note that the matter still remains unresolved, and the landlord is still unable to provide any definitive response as to when it will be. An order has also been made in respect of this below.

Complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaints policy states when it wants to resolve complaints straight away it will be passed to the officer who can resolve the issue which it calls “early resolution”. It will contact the resident and agree actions to resolve the issue and agree timescales. At this stage the resident would not receive a written response however should they wish for a written response then this will become a “local resolution stage”.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it operates a 2 stage complaints process. Stage 1, which it calls the ‘local resolution’ stage, and stage 2 which it calls the ‘final review’ stage. Timescales are not provided within the policy but this Service notes that the landlord’s website states it will respond to its first stage within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days.
The landlord provided this Service with a copy of an email that it sent to the resident on 15 March 2023 where it said it had raised the job. The landlord advised that this was its stage 1 response. It was not clear whether this was intended to be part of its early resolution. If it was it was 30 days after the resident had raised her complaint, so it had not provided an early resolution. Furthermore, it is unclear why then after this the landlord responded at stage 2 of its process rather than at stage 1 in accordance with its policy.
By not providing a stage 1 response and only issuing a stage 2 response, it removed a valuable step and deprived the resident of the right to respond, resulting effectively in a 1 stage internal complaints procedure. This was not appropriate. This was a failure to apply the principals set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code) and its own complaints procedure.
Furthermore, the resident had to wait 55 working days for a response from 15 March 2023 until it provided its stage 2 response on 7 June 2023. This Service also had to intervene to ensure a response was issued. This was inappropriate and a failing which would have caused the resident further frustration.
Its stage 2 complaint response did not show that the matter had been investigated or that it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously. It provided no resolution. The lack of meaningful assessment of its actions and offer of redress when admitting failings was unreasonable. The landlord failed to apply the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of learning from outcomes and putting things right in its complaint response.
The unreasonable delays and lack of any meaningful engagement with the resident throughout the complaint process are of particular concern. The landlord had not followed its own complaint procedure and the Code. The responses lacked any investigation and curiosity. The response also lacked clarity about resolution which was confusing. It failed to put things right and consider redress despite apologising for its failings. The landlord failed to learn from its mistakes. This Service considers the number of failings in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling amount to a finding of severe maladministration.
These failings meant that the complaint process was unnecessarily protracted. The resident has had to continue to live with the uncertainty about fire safety for several years. Furthermore, she has had to continue to chase up and pursue the landlord to try to get the matter resolved. She then had to spend further time and effort contacting our Service to try to get the issue resolved. In determining an appropriate order for compensation, consideration has been given to the detriment on the resident using the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

Wider complaint handling concerns.

In February 2022, the Ombudsman issued a special report about the landlord, highlighting concerns with its complaint handling. The report recommended the landlord review its complaint handling procedures to reduce the risk of similar failures in the future. We continued to identify problems with the landlord’s performance, reaching findings of maladministration and severe maladministration following investigations into 20 separate complaints from residents.
In June 2023 we told the landlord of our intention to carry out an inspection to find out the reasons for its ongoing failures in complaint handling. In December 2023 we issued a report setting out our findings with further recommendations for service improvement.
In this investigation we have identified failures similar to those that led to our special report in 2022 and subsequent inspection in 2023. We therefore order the landlord to consider the findings highlighted in this investigation against the recommendations in our inspection report of December 2023.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the side access walkway is overgrown and blocked.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Instruct a senior manager to apologise, in person, to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £950 in compensation, made up of:
  1. £600 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports that the side access walkway is overgrown and blocked.
  2. £350 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint.
Within 6 weeks the landlord is ordered to
1. Write to the resident to:
  1. Provide a date when the full clearance of the walkway (foliage, weeds, and rubbish) will commence. This commencement date must not be more than 6 weeks after the date of this report.
  2. Provide a date when the clearance will be completed by.
  3. Confirm how it will regularly monitor and maintain the walkway moving forwards.
  4. A copy of this letter should be sent to this Service also within 6 weeks.
As set out above, the landlord is also ordered to consider the findings highlighted in this investigation against the recommendations in our inspection report of December 2023.