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

Lambeth Council (202320751)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320751

Lambeth Council

14 May 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 window repairs/replacement.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a council. The property is a 3 bedroom ground floor flat within a grade 2 listed building.
  2. The exact date is unclear, but the resident reported to the landlord that the windows were in disrepair and unsafe.
  3. The landlord’s contractor attended on 20 May 2022 but there was no access so it left a card saying it would re-attend on 24 May 2022. It did return, and initially asked for the work order to be cancelled due to no access for a second time. It said the work order could be re-raised if the resident called back. However, as it was about to leave, the resident arrived and provided access. The contractor found the bathroom window frame to be “rotten beyond repair” and confirmed that follow on work was required.
  4. There is no evidence of any further contact until 17 November 2022 when the landlord raised a work order to overhaul all the windows. The resident reported that she had been unable to close them and it was very cold in the property. It is not clear what happened with this work order, as the landlord’s repair records said it was either completed or cancelled on 29 December 2022.
  5. The landlord’s repair records show the resident chased an update on 16 January 2023. The landlord raised and sent a new repair to its contractor to repair the wooden window frames and window catches.
  6. The resident emailed the landlord on 7 February 2023 and said its contractor had attended that day, but the windows were not able to be repaired. She said its contractor had attended in May 2022 and measured the windows, but the work order had been cancelled for no reason so no follow on work had taken place. She said most of the windows did not fully open and were rotten beyond repair, which put her family at risk in the event of a fire. Following the visit, the contractor submitted a report to the landlord that recommended all the windows be replaced. He said the window (frames) were rotten and in disrepair (no copy provided to this Service).
  7. The following week, on 14 February 2023, the landlord raised a work order to renew all the windows and noted: it was follow on work from repairs raised in November 2022 and January 2023, the windows had already been measured, and a Section 20 notice was required.
  8. It is not clear why, but a second order was raised and sent to its contractor on 8 March 2023 to renew the windows. The work order said the resident had 4 windows and 1 bay window that could not be repaired and were rotten.
  9. The resident requested updates from the landlord on 5 and 6 April 2023. The landlord attempted to call its contractor 3 times on 6 April 2023 but was unsuccessful. It updated the resident and said it would try again the following week.
  10. The landlord emailed its contractor on 11 April 2023 for an update and called on 12 and 13 April 2023 to chase a response. The resident requested updates from the landlord on the same days, but there is no evidence an update was provided.
  11. The contractor replied to the landlord by email on 20 April 2023 and said it would install the bedroom and bathroom windows the following day. However the work order reference it provided to repair the bedroom and bathroom windows did not match either reference for the jobs raised in February or March 2023. It said the resident had told it all windows should be replaced, and it queried this with the landlord. The landlord replied and said an order for the remaining windows had not been sent, but it would do so. The contractor replied and said it would arrange the quote for the outstanding windows once it received the order.
  12. It is not clear when the landlord sent the order for the remaining windows to its contractor. However, the resident requested an update on 8 June 2023 which prompted the landlord to chase the quote the same day. The quote was sent 6 days later.
  13. The resident requested an update on 27 June 2023. The landlord called its contractor, who said once it had approved the quote, it would take approximately 10 weeks (to manufacture and install the windows).
  14. The resident chased the contractor directly on 24 July 2023. An internal contractor email chased whether the quote had been reviewed so it could update the resident. The resident chased the contractor again on 27 July 2023 and requested to speak to the surveyor. The contractor emailed the surveyor the same day and asked for him to review the quote, however there is no evidence of a response.
  15. The resident chased for an update the following day and was told she would be contacted once the work had been approved. However, she raised a complaint the same day and said she had initially been told to wait 10 weeks as the windows needed to be made, and she had called to get updates for 3 months. She said the initial repair was for 7 windows to be replaced, but a mistake had been made that meant only 2 had been replaced so far, and she had been told the remaining windows needed to be approved and signed off.
  16. The landlord served a Section 20 notice on 3 August 2023 as there were leasehold properties within the block.
  17. The resident called the landlord for an update on 8 August 2023. Internal landlord emails show the quote had been approved, but the work was on hold (due to the Section 20 notice).
  18. The resident emailed the landlord on 22 August 2023, saying she had chased for updates multiple times over the previous months and been told the quote needed to be approved. However, she had called the previous day and was told leaseholders in the block needed to be informed of the work and grant permission for the work to be completed. She said it was unacceptable that her safety should be decided by other residents of the block, the original window work had been cancelled, and when it was re-raised only 2 windows were requested to be replaced rather than 7.
  19. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 24 August 2023, in which it said:
    1. The original work order to inspect the windows was raised on 17 November 2022, and following contact from the resident on 16 January 2023 a second order was raised to repair the windows. However when the contractor attended, it recommended the windows be replaced.
    2. A work order to replace the windows was raised on 8 March 2023 which was sent to its contractor, and it had requested updates on 12 occasions.
    3. A Section 20 notice had been served to leasehold properties and if there were no observations submitted work should commence from 18 September 2023.
    4. It apologised for the frustration and upset and awarded £370 for delays in service, inconvenience and time and trouble chasing the work.
  20. The resident emailed the landlord on 20 September 2023 after she had not received any update and the work had not commenced. She asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 and said having to chase the work caused stress and wasted her time.
  21. The contractor emailed the landlord on 28 September 2023 and said the Section 20 observation period had passed, and asked whether it could commence work, but there is no evidence of a response.
  22. The resident emailed the landlord on 6 October 2023 for an update. She said she had called on 29 September 2023 and been promised a call back which she had not received.
  23. The resident emailed again on 26 October 2023 and said she had not had any contact in relation to the windows. She submits she had been told the landlord had given leaseholders permission for independent window companies to measure her windows, which she found unacceptable, intrusive and frightening (although no evidence of this has been provided). The landlord acknowledged the complaint escalation and issued its stage 2 the same day, in which it said:
    1. The window replacement had been placed on hold due to a Section 20 notice, and it had to wait for confirmation that the notice period had passed without any objections or queries raised by leaseholders, and it can take between 4 and 6 weeks.
    2. If the resident remained unhappy, she could refer the complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. The contractor chased the surveyor to query whether the Section 20 notice period had elapsed on 3 November 2023.
  2. The resident emailed the landlord on 18 December 2023 regarding unrelated repairs. She said the windows were still unsafe, and she had not received any update.
  3. The resident sent a further email on 8 January 2024 which asked when the windows would be replaced as her son’s window was not weatherproof. After no response, the resident emailed again on 15 January 2024, saying she was appalled by the landlord’s communication and asking for an update. The landlord responded 2 days later and said it had chased its contractor for an update.
  4. The resident sent emails to the landlord on 26 and 30 January 2024, 12 and 14 February 2024, and 6, 18 and 26 March 2024, broadly repeating the same issues. However in her email of 26 March 2024, the resident said she had dealt with the issue for 2 years.
  5. The landlord has told this Service the remaining windows will be installed in mid-May 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident has experienced further issues at the property after a leak caused by the resident above, and issues that have stemmed from that. However, no evidence has been provided of these matters being raised as part of the complaint under investigation here. As a result, these matters are not considered further (reflected at paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme). Instead, this investigation is focused solely on the issues raised in the formal complaint, detailed at paragraph 1 above, which the landlord has had an opportunity to investigate and resolve in the first instance.

The landlord’s handling of window repairs/replacement

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says it is responsible to repair windows including frames and cills, and work carried out as a planned repair should be completed within 90 days. However, the policy says if it needs to replace (a window), rather than repair, this may take longer than the usual timescale.
  2. The evidence suggests a communication breakdown after the landlord’s contractor initially attended in May 2022, as follow on work was identified but not arranged, which was a failing. There was then subsequently no further evidence of contact between the parties until November 2022. It is not possible to say with any certainty why this was the case, but it does suggest the resident did not consider the windows to be a pressing issue during that period.
  3. Landlords are expected to respond to repair requests in a timely manner, which it initially did, but residents are also expected to use reasonable efforts to pursue such matters and maintain ownership where they consider there to be undue delays. In terms of best practice, the landlord should have taken a more proactive approach to follow up with the resident after its contractor attended, rather than leaving the onus on the resident to chase the outstanding works, which was a failing.
  4. Following the resident’s call on 16 January 2023, the landlord raised a new work order, attended within a reasonable timeframe, and raised a follow-on order to renew the windows. It noted a Section 20 notice was required. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident felt strongly that her safety should not be decided by other leaseholders in the block, but the landlord has a legal obligation to issue notice to leaseholders and provide an opportunity to source quotes for the work.
  5. However, there is no evidence the notice was issued until August 2023, 7 months later, which delayed the consultation period and led to delays installing the windows, and this was a failing. Further to this, it does not appear the Section 20 process was clearly explained to the resident, which caused distress and alarm as other residents measured her windows to source quotes without informing her.
  6. The evidence shows a key factor in the window delays were multiple communication failures by the landlord, including with the surveyor and contractors, and no one taking responsibility for the repair. It is not clear why only 2 windows were initially replaced, and there were delays in the landlord ordering the additional 5 windows. There were also delays in the landlord approving the contractor’s quote (from 14 June to 8 August 2023) and no explanation has been provided as to why this took 39 working days.
  7. The landlord (as the body in a contractual agreement with the resident) is ultimately responsible for the window replacement, regardless of whether it outsources the work to a contractor. With that in mind, it should have done more to follow up with both the resident and its contractors rather than leaving it to the resident to chase for updates, which was a failing. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord communicated effectively with the resident or its contractor, and it failed to keep the resident updated on developments which caused her to chase for updates. 
  8. Instead, the records indicate a fair degree of confusion on the part of the landlord as to the up to date position, as different work orders relating to the windows were cancelled on a number of occasions, and different references sent to its contractor. The confusion and lack of communication over a prolonged period of time exacerbated the resident’s frustration and disappointment.
  9. The Ombudsman acknowledges that there were external factors beyond the landlord’s control which contributed to the overall delay, such as the manufacture time of the windows and the obligation to issue a Section 20 notice. However, its lack of urgency or proactive involvement in the repairs process, coupled with contractor failings and poor communication, ultimately left the resident with windows in a poor condition for an unreasonable length of time. This caused her significant distress and inconvenience, affected her enjoyment of the property, and ultimately could have led to a breakdown in the landlord/resident relationship, which was a failing.
  10. The landlord was on notice that the windows were not in a fit condition in May 2022, and while 2 windows were replaced in April 2023, 5 windows remained outstanding in April 2024. This Service notes that they are due to be replaced in May 2024, approximately 2 years after its contractor first attended. Although the landlord’s policy says replacing an item may take longer than the 90 day timescale, this was a significant period of time for the resident and her family to live with windows in need of repair. During this time, the resident was living with the ongoing expectation of the repairs being done imminently, the disappointment of repeatedly cancelled work, and the uncertainty caused by a lack of communication and updates. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord.
  11. Accordingly, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord, in the course of its complaint response, to have more fully considered and recognised the extent of its delay and the impact of this on the resident, which was a failing. When there are such failings by a landlord, this Service considers whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation, or offer to complete repairs) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.
  12. In considering this, the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles, to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged the resident’s frustration and upset, and awarded £370 for delays in service, inconvenience and time and trouble chasing the work, which was credited to the resident’s rent account. However, its stage 2 response did not offer additional compensation for a further 2 months of delay, poor communication, or distress, inconvenience and time and trouble incurred by the resident, which was not reasonable.
  13. Whilst the landlord did acknowledge some failings and made some attempt to put things right, it failed to fully address the detriment to the resident and the offer it made was not proportionate to the failings identified. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests that an award of £500 for distress and inconvenience may remedy cases where maladministration has been found and the impact on the resident is not considered to have been permanent. Therefore, in addition to the £370 already paid to the resident, an order for an additional £130 compensation has been made. This must be paid directly to the resident rather than credited to her rent account.

Complaint Handling

  1. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its policy says it will issue a written response within 10 working days of acknowledging the stage 1 complaint, and any complaint escalated to stage 2 will be acknowledged within 5 working days and a written response sent within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
  2. The resident complained on 28 July 2023, and it is not clear whether the complaint was acknowledged by the landlord. However she did not receive a stage 1 response until 24 August 2023, 19 working days later, which was outside of the 10 working day response time, and this was a failing.
  3. The resident asked to escalate the complaint on 20 September 2023, and this was not acknowledged until the stage 2 response was sent on 26 October 2023, 26 working days later, which was another failing.
  4. Further, the stage 2 response lacked any real detail, failed to accept responsibility or take ownership of the further delays, and provided the incorrect Ombudsman details if the resident remained unhappy with the response. As a result, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and an order is made for the landlord to pay £200 compensation to recognise the impact of these failings on the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of window repairs/replacement.
    2. Complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Review its repair records and ensure it is made clear going forward, whether a repair has been completed or cancelled.
    3. Pay directly to the resident a further £330 compensation made up of:
      1. £130 for the inconvenience, distress, time and trouble caused by its failings in its handling of window repairs/replacement.
      2. £200 for its complaint handling.
    4. Review the learning on this case in respect of its repairs and communication and provide a report to determine what action it needs to take to prevent a reoccurrence of the failings identified. The report should include consideration of:
      1. What can be done to improve oversight of repairs which involve third party contractors.
      2. Whether its repairs policy should contain a clear escalation pathway if repairs are delayed beyond agreed or expected dates.
    5. Provide an update to the resident as to the date the windows will be replaced, if it has not already done so.