Lambeth Council (202302647)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302647

Lambeth Council

30 August 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 response to the resident’s concerns about an outstanding roof repair.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. She lives in the 1-bedroom flat in a converted house with her partner.
3. On 21 December 2022, the resident complained via a representative that roof repairs on her building had been outstanding for nearly 3 years and there was some damp and mould in her flat. She also complained that responses to requests for updates had not been forthcoming.
4. In the landlord’s stage 1 response dated 14 March 2023, it acknowledged and apologised for its poor communication. It advised that a surveyor was due to inspect the property and would respond separately to the concerns about outstanding repairs. It offered the resident and her representative a payment of £200 each for the time and trouble caused by the failings in communication.
5. Unhappy that the landlord had not offered any compensation for delays relating to the roof repair, the resident escalated her complaint in late March 2023. She also questioned the landlord’s response to her concerns about the communication issues she experienced, and that the complaints process had not been followed.
6. The landlord said in the stage 2 response of 31 May 2023 that there had been clear failings in the level of communication provided. It also apologised that the stage 2 was delayed. The landlord said a roofing contractor had been appointed but that repairs were on hold because access was needed via another flat, and this was proving difficult to obtain. It did not address the request for further compensation.
7. After the complaints process ended, the landlord agreed in June 2023 to the representative’s request to temporarily rehouse the resident whilst the internal and external works were undertaken. It recently advised this Service that there were problems with the temporary accommodation and that, at the time of issuing this report, the repairs were unresolved, and the resident was still living in the property. The resident advised that she had instructed a solicitor on a possible disrepair claim and was in negotiations with the landlord about compensation.
8. The resident referred her complaint to this Service because she was unhappy that the landlord had not offered any compensation for the delays in completing the roof repairs. She advised that she has been caused considerable distress and worry, and her health had been affected. As an outcome, the resident is seeking for the repairs to be completed and for compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. The resident advised that the roof repair has been outstanding since 2016. However, this was not evident from the available repair logs. Rather, records indicate the landlord appointed a roofer to inspect and repair the reported damage to the resident’s pitched roof in September 2020. It is apparent that there were some delays with completing this work, because the resident contacted the landlord for updates in 2021 and subsequently complained. The landlord’s final response dated 21 October 2021 signposted her to the Ombudsman, and while the resident did refer her complaint, she did not respond to requests for further information.
10. Paragraph 42.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) states that the Ombudsman may not consider matters that were not brought to its attention more than 12 months after a resident exhausted the complaints procedure. This investigation will therefore largely be focused on the events that occurred after October 2021 and any reference to matters predating this are for context only.
11. The resident also referred to being unhappy with how the landlord has handled her reports of antisocial behaviour from a neighbour. She further explained that she is dissatisfied with the time it is taking to decant her to temporary accommodation and that the landlord has no policy for this. As these matters did not form part of the original complaint, the resident would need to make a new, separate complaint first. If she remains dissatisfied, she may then refer it to the Ombudsman for investigation. This decision is in line with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman will not usually consider complaints which are made prior to exhausting a landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
12. In early August 2024, the resident advised this Service that she had instructed a solicitor on a possible disrepair claim. She said that, as a result of her solicitor’s involvement, the landlord made an offer of compensation which she was considering. It is this Service’s remit to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint which had been considered through its internal complaint’s procedure. The purpose is to ensure that any impacts arising from service failings on the part of the landlord are appropriately remedied. Therefore, the subsequent offer of compensation that the landlord has made as part of the negotiations over the possible disrepair claim is outside of the scope of this investigation.
13. The resident has explained to this Service that her mental and physical wellbeing has been impacted by the circumstances of the complaint. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether there is a direct link between the actions or inaction of the landlord and the effect on her family’s health. Matters of liability for personal injury are better suited to a court or liability insurer to determine. However, consideration has been given in our investigation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns and to any distress and inconvenience arising from any service failings on the part of the landlord.

Response to roof repairs

14. After the initial job was raised for a roofing contractor to inspect the roof in late 2020, follow on works were raised in April 2021 relating to unblocking gutters and renewing tiles. An update on the repair log stated that this work involved a joint wall between a flat the landlord owned and with a private owner. According to the landlord’s final response to the resident’s first complaint in 2021, some of the repairs had been completed but the rest had been put on hold because of the need to serve a party wall notice to the freeholder of the adjoining flat. It indicated that a notice would be served in the next few days following its response. If there was any further communication between the landlord and the resident about the matter, prior to the representative’s involvement from November 2022, it has not been provided.
15. When the representative complained in mid-December 2022, more than a month had passed since she had contacted the landlord asking for an update on the roof repair. She advised that the resident was seeking an investigation into why the repairs were outstanding and scaffolding still in situ for almost 3 years. Further, the representative complained about the lack of response to her emails, at which time she had sent several.
16. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response of mid-March 2023 that there had been failings in its communications. It was appropriate for the landlord to take accountability for not responding to the representative’s queries and for not acknowledging the complaint without her needing to chase them up. This included sending an email to the chief executive on 9 March 2023 about the ongoing situation, which at that time had not progressed since the representative’s initial contact 4 months earlier.
17. In terms of the roof repair, the landlord said its surveyor had arranged to inspect the property and would be in touch separately to respond to the issues raised. This response was not satisfactory given the time that had elapsed. The landlord had also surpassed its 20-working day timescale that its complaints policy committed to respond to stage 1 complaints, exceeding the timescale by 35-working days.
18. Section 6.1 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2022 (the Code) sets out how a landlord should approach remedying its mistakes: “Where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right.” Suggested remedies can include acknowledging errors, providing an explanation, apologising, changing policies or procedures, or compensation.
19. While the landlord did not provide an outcome to the resident’s concerns about the repairs, as it should have done, it did appropriately acknowledge failings in its communication. It also offered the resident and her representative £200 each for the time and trouble caused, which is at the high end of the scale its compensation policy states it will award for distress and inconvenience arising from service failure. The Ombudsman considers this as more than adequate compensation for cases, such as this, where there have been delays and poor communication in the complaints process. While the landlord took some appropriate actions, in line with its policies and the Code, the stage 1 was not sufficient to remedy the resident’s complaint.
20. The resident escalated her complaint in late March 2023because she said the landlord had not offered any compensation for the delay in completing the roof repair. The landlord did not, however, address this in itsstage 2 response from late May 2023. Nor had there been any further, separate response addressing the resident’s concerns about the repairs, as stated in the first response. Therefore, the landlord left a major aspect of the resident’s complaint unaddressed and unresolved. This is not in line with the requirements of the Code, which states in section 5.6 that landlords “must” address all of a resident’s complaints and explain their decisions.
21. Based on the available records, the landlord raised repair jobs for the outstanding roof repairs following the stage 1 response in March 2023. This appears likely due to the fact that the 2 historic roof repairs from 2020/21 were closed as completed. Largely there is no evidence that has been provided to this Service that explains what was happening with these repairs. There was no evidence, for example, of the action taken in relation to the party wall notice, apparently served at the end of 2021. It is not unreasonable to assume that this is likely because the landlord was not doing anything to progress the works until the resident’s complaint a year later. Even after the complaint, it took the landlord a further 4 months to take any discernible action.
22. The landlord took some appropriate action to put things right for its poor communication and delays in the complaints process with its apology and compensation. This Service has also seen that the landlord reasonably undertook to resolve the outstanding external repairs. It also inspected inside the resident’s property, which was appropriate in view of her reports that it was being affected by damp and mould. The records suggest that mould treatment was applied to 2 affected rooms, and there was no evidence that it continued to be a problem after this. However, the landlord did not take accountability for the delays in the repairs. It did not also offer any redress during the complaints process to put things right for the impact on the resident. Therefore, the Ombudsman has made a determination of maladministration.
23. Some of the failings in this case, regarding poor complaint handling and poor repairs management, are consistent with those identified in other investigations into the landlord conducted by this Service. These were initially highlighted in the Ombudsman’s February 2022 special report. However, more recently, in January 2024 this Service published a review of the landlord’s improvement plans and made recommendations for further areas to work on. This included a review of how it records completed repairs, to ensure they are clear and involve the resident’s agreement. It also included a recommendation for better complaint governance and to embed a learning culture. The landlord responded positively to these and has formulated an action plan setting out how and when it will deliver on these recommendations. Therefore, this report has not made further orders around these aspects of service but expects the landlord to take all relevant learning points from this case into account in the ongoing work it is doing to transform its service.

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about an outstanding roof repair.

Orders

25. The landlord is to:
    1. Write to the resident apologising for its failure to address her complaint about the delays in repairs.
    2. Pay compensation of £500 to the resident, inclusive of the £200 originally offered if not already paid.
26. The landlord is to provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of this report.