Lambeth Council (202213073)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213073

Lambeth Council

31 May 2023

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 the resident’s reports of outstanding repair issues – including a leak, damp and mould, and issues with her handrail.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

3. The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord. The property is a four bed second floor flat in a three storey building.
4. Between September 2021 and October 2021, the landlord raised work orders with its contractor to renew the resident’s hand rail brackets and fix a leak in her roof.
5. On 6 January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to make a complaint about outstanding repairs at the property. These included the leaking roof, mould and damp in her child’s bedroom, and the issue with her handrail.
6. The landlord issued its stage one response to the resident’s complaint on 30 June 2022. It explained that its agreement with its contractor at the time had expired. Orders were re-raised with a new contractor on 28 February 2022 to investigate the leaking roof and 14 June 2022 for the associated damp issue. It confirmed that a roof repair would take place on 5 July 2022 and it would pursue an urgent appointment for the handrail. An award of £310 was made as a goodwill gesture for repair delays, missed appointment times and trouble caused to the resident.
7. On 19 July 2022, the resident advised the landlord that she wished to escalate her complaint. She rejected the compensation offer noting that works remained outstanding and that rather than replacing the hand rail, a “cheap fix”  was completed. She noted that her complaint was originally raised in January 2022 yet she had only just received a response.
8. The landlord issued its stage two response on 30 August 2022. It apologised that the resident was disappointed with its service but was satisfied that the compensation offered at stage one covered the period in question. It confirmed a senior surveyor would arrange a post inspection of the handrail and advised it would be in touch with the resident directly to arrange this.
9. The resident subsequently brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. As of 20 April 2023, she has told the Ombudsman that the works remain outstanding, and that she remains unhappy with the compensation amount offered by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repair issues – including a leak, damp and mould, and issues with her handrail

10. Where a repair is raised, landlords are expected to inspect the issue to determine if it is responsible to repair. Where the landlord is responsible, it must conduct a repair within a reasonable time. What is a reasonable time will depend on all the facts, including the type of repair. In most cases, landlords have repairs policies which set out when repairs ought to be completed. In this case, the repairs policy states that non urgent repairs will be responded to within seven working days, unless otherwise stated. Routine repairs will be responded to within 28 working days, unless otherwise stated. Planned repairs will be responded to within 90 working days, unless otherwise stated.
11. A work order to renew brackets for the handrail was raised by the landlord on 1 September 2021. According to the landlord’s repairs log, the contractor made an appointment to attend the property on 8 September, but this had to be rescheduled by the resident to 14 September. When the contractor attended on 14 September, it discovered that additional parts were needed to complete the work. The contractor placed an order for these but reported to the landlord that it did not know when they would arrive. The repairs log states that this work order was then completed on 28 January 2022. This was around 100 working days after the contractor first attended. This is outside of the landlord’s repairs policy, and there is no evidence that the delay was unavoidable or that the resident was informed there would be a delay.
12. A work order to complete further work on the handrail, including removing it from the wall, smoothing sharp edges down, and reinstalling it, was raised by the landlord on 28 February 2022. According to the landlord’s repairs log, this was completed on 16 June 2022. This was over 70 working days after the work order was raised. This too is outside of the landlord’s repairs policy and there is no evidence that the delay was unavoidable or that the resident was informed there would be a delay.
13. Another work order to renew the handrail was raised by the landlord on 10 October 2022. There is a further note on the repairs log dated 5 December 2022. It states that the contractor was unable to source material to complete the works. There is no confirmation that the job is completed.
14. Turning to the leak reported, according to the landlord’s repairs log, the tenant had raised concerns about a leak from the roof around 5 October 2021. It is noted on the repairs log that the works to complete a felt roof repair had been ongoing for over 12 months. The repairs log goes on to confirm that the works were completed on 17 February 2022. However, according to the landlord’s stage one complaint response to the resident, a further work order was raised with a new contractor on 28 February 2022 to again revisit the leaking roof, and the landlord confirmed a roof repair would take place on 5 July 2022. While it is unclear whether the reoccurring issue was the result of poor workmanship, according to both the repairs log and the stage one response, it still took over 100 working days to resolve the issue after the issue was logged in October 2021. There is no evidence that the delay was unavoidable or that the resident was informed there would be a delay. This was unreasonable.
15. On 14 June 2022, a work order was raised for problems with damp at the property. The contractor attended and works were completed to rectify the problem on 5 July 2022. This was in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
16. On 8 September 2022, a work order was raised to decorate patch repairs related to the leak. This was completed on 24 October 2022, in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
17. In summary, the landlord failed to meet its own timescales for repairs within its own complaints policy on several occasions. Additionally, the landlord has since confirmed to the Ombudsman that as of May 2023, works on the handrail bracket remain outstanding, and a further mould wash needs to be carried out. It is unclear if this relates to the repair log entry about damp set out in paragraph 15 of this report. The landlord has confirmed that a provisional date of 4 May 2023 was booked in with the resident to complete these works. This is outside of the landlords repairs policy, and so the Ombudsman has determined there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the residents outstanding repair issues. This warrants an increase in the compensation it originally offered the resident in June 2022.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

18. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states it will aim to send a full response within 20 working days. It states that sometimes it can take longer, and if this is the case it will let the resident know the reason for the delay, and when they can expect a full response.
19. In June 2020, the Ombudsman published the Complaint Handling Code, which landlords were required to self-assess against by January 2021. The Code required the landlord to provide a response within ten working days of the date of the complaint acknowledgment.
20. With this in mind, upon receiving the resident’s formal complaint on 6 January 2022, the landlord should have provided a prompt response. Evidence shows, however, that a stage one reply was not issued until 30 June 2022, five months later. There is no information on file that shows a reason for the delay was given to the resident, or that the landlord advised her when she could expect a response. As such, the Ombudsman has been unable to see that the landlord took any steps to manage the resident’s expectations or to act in line with its prescribed approach or the Code.
21. The policy also states that if a resident disagrees with the first response, they have the right to a review. It will acknowledge the request in two working days, and aim to send a full response in 25 working days. Again, it states that sometimes it can take longer, and if this is the case it will let the resident know the reason for the delay, and when they can expect a full response.
22. The resident requested a review on 19 July 2022. There is nothing on file to show that the landlord acknowledged this within two working days. It sent its stage two response to the resident on 30 August 2022, which was outside of its own timescales. There is no information on file that shows a reason for the delay was given to the resident.
23. While the landlord has acknowledged its failings in regards to service delays, and offered compensation for delays, missed appointments and distress and inconvenience to the resident, it has not addressed the failings in its complaint handling.
24. Further, the landlord did not demonstrate that it would take any steps to learn from the outcome of this complaint, or how it would prevent a recurrence of the failings. This is contrary to the dispute resolution principles. As such, the Ombudsman has determined that there was a service failure.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repair issues – including a leak, damp and mould, and issues with her handrail.
26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

27. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Pay the resident £600 compensation for delayed repairs. This award includes the £310 previously offered by the landlord.
    2. Pay the resident £100 for distress and inconvenience caused by poor complaint handling.
28. All payments must be made to the resident within 28 calendar days of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

29. The Ombudsman has previously investigated other complaints and issued a special report about the landlord which identified similar failings with its repairs service, communication, complaint handling, and record keeping. A number of orders were made in these cases to address this, and the landlord has complied with these orders, demonstrating learning from outcomes. Therefore no further recommendations or orders about these issues are made here as the actions that the landlord has now taken should mitigate the risk of these failings recurring.
30. However, the landlord should:
    1. Complete any outstanding repair work within a reasonable time frame if it has not already done so, and keep the resident updated accordingly.