Lambeth Council (202208047)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208047

Lambeth Council

5 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. A vulnerability assessment of the resident and their property.
2. Repairing and replacing the resident’s front door.
3. Requests for adaptations at the resident’s property (handrails and a wet room).
4. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident in this case is represented by a relative, who was involved throughout the landlord’s complaint process. To remain clear, this investigation report will refer to “the resident” and “the representative”.
The resident has a secure tenancy agreement with the landlord.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 6 June 2022 to complete a vulnerability assessment. The landlord had not agreed an appointed date or time with the resident prior to attending the property. The resident allowed the vulnerability assessment to be completed.
The representative contacted the landlord on 14 June 2022 to explain that the resident had been “stuck in their bath for approximately 16 hours” on 12 and 13 June 2022. This incident required police to force entry to the property, due to the front door requiring locking/unlocking from inside. The resident was admitted to hospital following the incident. The representative questioned the type of door being used at the resident’s property and the suitability of the bath and requested the landlord to fit an appropriate replacement door.
The representative contacted the landlord again on 1 July 2022 as it had not responded to their email of 14 June 2022. The representative said they were left “stressed” and “infuriated” at the landlord’s handling of the situation. They also referred to the landlord’s unannounced visit to the resident’s property on 6 June 2022, saying this should not have happened. The representative reminded the landlord of an incident which had occurred in 2021. The incident had involved people unknown to the resident posing as tradesmen gaining entry to the property and resulted in a distraction burglary. This had been brought to the attention of the landlord by the police shortly after the event had occurred. In view of this, the representative did not consider it appropriate for the landlord to attend the property without prior notice.
The landlord raised a subsequent work order to replace the damaged door, which had a target date of 27 July 2022. On 6 July 2022 the landlord requested the contractor to expedite the replacing of the door due to the resident being “very vulnerable” and potentially living in an insecure property. The landlord confirmed that the resident could not be discharged from hospital until the property was made secure. The landlord also requested an assessment to determine whether there should be suitable adaptations to the bathroom and toilet.
The landlord provided a stage one complaint response on 11 July 2022. It provided a direct response from the staff member who had attended the resident’s property on 6 June 2022. The staff member said the landlord had offered adult social care, but the representative had said the hospital were arranging this. The staff member also said it had arranged for a surveyor to assess replacing the door and contact the representative, and for a temporary door to be fitted in the meantime. The landlord explained that it had gone ahead with a request for adult social care and apologised to the representative for any perceived offence it had caused.
The representative remained dissatisfied with the response and contacted the landlord on 25 July 2022. They said the landlord had not adequately covered their concerns. The representative also said:
1. The landlord should have given prior notice of its intention to attend the resident’s property.
2. It should provide a copy of the vulnerability assessment and what action the landlord has taken as a result.
3. The landlord had “increased [the resident’s] vulnerability” by attending without an appointment.
4. They had experienced delays in communication when enquiring about the replacement door.
5. The landlord has a duty of care to the resident.
The hospital in which the resident had been admitted following the incident contacted the landlord on 17 August 2022. The resident’s allocated social worker set out the extensive level of care the resident required, due to their age and the incident involving the bath. The social worker referred the “lack of aids” at the property and the door requiring locking/unlocking from the inside, which had prevented access. The social worker also mentioned:
1. The recommended installation of bath aids, although a risk hazard will remain after installation.
2. The recommended installation of a walk-in wet room.
3. The impact of the incident meant the resident continued to require therapy for their mental health.
4. The resident’s door was in a state of disrepair with parts having broken off and/or fragile.
During internal communication between departments on 15 September 2022, the landlord confirmed the representative’s complaint points and the action taken/required. These actions were:
1. Referral to occupational health (OH) for an assessment of the need for a wet room and handrails.
2. Referral to fire safety to arrange for the installation of a new door.
3. Changes to the landlord’s vulnerability assessment policy, which had been changed to require it to make appointments with residents.
4. An assessment of whether the property remained suitable for the resident.
5. The landlord had identified there was no fire alarm fitted at the property.
The landlord provided its stage two complaint response on 16 September 2022. It apologised to the resident and representative, and set out the actions it had discussed internally on 15 September 2022. It confirmed that the appropriate referrals had been made.
The landlord contacted the representative on 3 and 11 November 2022 to discuss the installation of handrails. The representative told the landlord this was not required as the resident had adequate carer support at the time. The representative also said they felt the installation of a wet room would be more appropriate.
The landlord has confirmed the door was fixed on 8 December 2022. However, it had been fitted with the incorrect lock at the time, which it said was fixed on 11 December 2022.
The representative contacted the Ombudsman as they remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues. They confirmed that the installation of a wet room remained outstanding, as did the replacing of the front door.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman understands the distressing time the resident and their family went through during and after the events of June 2022. And while we have remained impartial throughout the investigation of this case, we hope this decision is able to bring closure to those involved.

The landlord’s conduct during a vulnerability assessment

The landlord’s vulnerable tenants policy provides information about the residents it would consider to be “vulnerable” and the service it provides for those residents. The policy states, “people over 75” and “people with long-term illness” are considered vulnerable and entitled to an “enhanced service offer”. The policy also states a “neighbourhood housing officers will visit every tenant over 75 years old in line with the service offer”.
The representative has confirmed the resident was 85 at the time of the visit in June 2022, and that visit had been the first time the landlord had attempted to complete a vulnerability assessment. While the resident in this case met the criteria for a visit 10 years before one took place, the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether the same vulnerable tenants policy would have been in place from the date the resident turned 75. The Ombudsman acknowledges a vulnerability assessment should have been done sooner, but it is unable to determine what impact an earlier assessment would have had and impossible to predict whether an assessment would have prevented the bath incident from happening. Therefore, it would not be fair to hold the landlord accountable for the incident that occurred in June 2022. However, the Ombudsman has considered whether the landlord’s actions when attending the property unannounced were appropriate.
The evidence available to the Ombudsman has shown the landlord was aware of the burglary incident that occurred in January 2021. The resident’s vulnerabilities were also made clear at the time, via an email to the landlord from the police. This should have prompted the landlord to consider its approach whenever it was required to attend the resident’s property – for example, when repairs were required, or it needed to complete assessments of any kind.
The landlord has confirmed the process at the time of visiting the resident to have been “to visit properties randomly” to conduct a vulnerability assessment. While this may have been the process at the time, the Ombudsman still expects the landlord to have given due consideration to the vulnerabilities of all its residents. The landlord’s prior knowledge of the incident in January 2021 meant it should have been reasonably aware of the considerable distress it could cause the resident by attending unannounced. However, the landlord made no prior contact with the resident or representative to inform them it planned to attend. This demonstrated a substantial failure to consider its own recordkeeping and take into account the needs and vulnerabilities of its residents.
The Ombudsman has acknowledged the landlord’s willingness to put things right for the resident. It has since reviewed the approach to vulnerability assessments and confirmed the policy now requires the landlord to make prior contact with residents before attending, and to read any system notes relating to the resident/property. However, while the willingness to amend the policy demonstrates positive action by the landlord, the Ombudsman is not satisfied it appropriately compensated the resident for the substantial distress and inconvenience it caused by attending unannounced.
The Ombudsman’s approach to compensation is set out in our Remedies Guidance, published on our website. The guidance suggests that awards of £100 to £600 may be appropriate for cases where the landlord has made an error which adversely affected the resident, and the landlord has acknowledged those failings. However, the compensation or remedy it offered falls short of what the Ombudsman would recommend. Therefore, this service has determined an offer of £300 to be fair and proportionate in view of this error.

Repairing and replacing the resident’s front door

The landlord’s repairs policy details the repairs it is responsible for and the timescales it should aim to complete those repairs. The repairs policy states “We [the landlord] are responsible for maintaining the structure of your home. This includes outside walls and doors; walls, skirting boards, and door frames.” This shows the landlord was responsible for the repairing and/or replacing of the resident’s front door, after it had been damaged because of the police forcing entry.
As the repairing/replacing of the front door was the responsibility of the landlord it had to follow the appropriate timescales, suitable for the type of repair. The repairs policy states “We [the landlord] will attend to make a repair safe within two hours and fix the repair within 24 hours when you [the resident] report an emergency repair that: is a risk to residents’ and visitors’ health and safety; may damage the building or security to your home. These repairs could include making safe and repairing damage to your front door that makes your home insecure.”
The repairs policy timescales mean it would have been reasonable for the resident to expect the initial repair to make the door safe to have been completed within 24 hours. However, the representative reported the issue with the door on 14 June 2022 and the landlord did not respond until 5 July and did not repair the door on 8 December 2022. This meant the resident had been left with a damaged front door for a total of 177 days. The representative informed the Ombudsman that the door was fragile and broken in places during this time. They also explained the hospital would not agree to discharge the resident, following admission after the bath incident, until the front door had been secured. This meant the resident was in hospital for longer than required and was eventually discharged (without the door having been repaired) at the request of the representative. During the 177 days, the representative has said the door was difficult to use (to open/close/lock) and the resident had called the representative to assist with the door on multiple occasions, sometimes with visitors such as carers and healthcare providers who had become locked inside the property.
The Ombudsman also notes the landlord said its “fire safety team” was in the process of “installing new doors for all vulnerable residents” in the stage two complaint response. It also mentions a referral being made for the resident in this case. Having discussed the status of this referral and the door with the resident and landlord, the Ombudsman understands the door has not been replaced and no referral is currently being considered.
The landlord’s failure to provide a timely response and repair the broken door within the repairs policy timescales demonstrated a substantial failure in providing an appropriate level of service for a vulnerable resident. The available information suggests the use of door would have been challenging for an able-bodied resident, let alone one which had been recently discharged from hospital and 85 years of age. While the Ombudsman acknowledges the landlord’s actions to ensure the communal door to the building was secure, its failure to repair the resident’s broken front door meant it did not provide them with an appropriate level of security, particularly given the knowledge the landlord had of the burglary which occurred in January 2021. Therefore, the Ombudsman has determined the landlord must act to put things right for the resident.
The Remedies Guidance mentioned earlier in this report suggests compensation of £100 to £600 for cases where the landlord made an error which adversely affected the resident. Given the substantial failings identified in this investigation when handling the repair of the resident’s front door, the Ombudsman has determined a compensation amount of £600 to be fair and proportionate. It should also provide the resident/representative a schedule of work for replacing the front door. The front door should be replaced as soon as possible in line with the landlord’s repairs policy and the landlord should not wait for a wider programme of door replacements before carrying out this work for the resident.

The landlord’s handling of requests for adaptations

Following the landlord’s vulnerability assessment of the resident and their property, and the bath incident in June 2022, the landlord said it identified a number of adjustments that could be made to assist the resident. These were the installation of handrails and/or a wet room to replace the existing bathroom/toilet. The letter sent to the landlord by the hospital which the resident had been admitted to also provided recommendations for adjustments at the property. The letter explained “the bath requires aids”, but even after installation there would still be a risk due to the resident’s mobility issues. The letter also suggested the installation of a “walk-in wet room”, as the resident was unable to take a bath following the incident due to the trauma she experienced.
The landlord confirmed that a referral had been made or was in the process of being made to Occupational Health (OH) in an internal email on 15 September 2022. The representative has said a survey of the bathroom was done in March 2023, after the complaint process had been exhausted, but no action has been taken to install the wet room since. The landlord has confirmed that “staff resources” has further delayed the installation of a wet room, with no action having been taken since the survey. However, the landlord should ensure it has enough resources to fulfil its obligations to its tenants, as per the appropriate policies. This delay means the resident has lived without the appropriate facilities to allow them to wash and/or clean themselves unassisted since the landlord identified the need for adjustments in June 2022. This demonstrates a significant failure in implementing required adjustments within a reasonable amount of time. While the Ombudsman understands it can take time to plan and install a wet room, having to wait over 14 months is unreasonable and is likely to have had a significant impact on the resident as well as affecting the support provided by their carers.
The Ombudsman acknowledges the landlord’s willingness to install handrails in the bathroom, which the representative declined at the time, as they considered a wet room would be more suitable. However, the length of time the resident has been expected to live without the appropriate adaptations has been excessive. The failure to provide adaptations within a reasonable amount of time requires the landlord to act to put things right for the resident. It should provide a schedule of work to the resident/representative for the completion of installing a wet room. The schedule of works should include expected timescales for the completion of this work and the landlord should progress this work in a timely manner, keeping the resident and representative updated throughout the process. The Ombudsman has also determined the landlord must compensate the resident for the substantial impact the delay has had on them.
The Remedies Guidance mentioned earlier in this report suggests compensation of £100 to £600 for cases where the landlord made an error which adversely affected the resident. Given the failings identified in this investigation when handling the installation of a wet room, the Ombudsman has determined a compensation amount of £600 to be fair and proportionate for the delays in fitting a wet room.

The associated complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint handling policy provides information about handling complaints, including the timescales it aims to respond. The complaint process is made up of 2 stages, these are:
1. Local resolution: which has a response time of 20 workings days.
2. Final review: which has a response time of 2 days for an acknowledgment and 25 days to respond.
The timescales set out in the landlord’s complaint handling policy are not compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (published on our website) which sets out our service’s expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices. The code requires a response for stage one of the landlord’s complaints process within 10 working days and stage two within 20 working days (from escalation). The timescales set out in the code are what the Ombudsman considers reasonable for complaints and are what we expect landlords to adhere to. The Ombudsman has therefore assessed any delays in the handling of this complaint against the timescales within the code rather than the timescales in the landlord’s complaints policy.
The representative expressed their dissatisfaction with the landlord’s lack of response to their email on 1 July 2022. The landlord provided its stage one complaint response within the appropriate timescales, on 11 July 2022. However, the representative said the stage one response did not “adequately answer” their concerns in an email to the landlord on 25 July 2022. The landlord then provided its final complaint review 39 working days later, on 16 September 2022 and outside the required timescales.
The landlord’s failure to provide a response within the appropriate timescales meant the landlord missed the opportunity to resolve things sooner for the resident. This would have been at a particularly challenging time – emotionally and physically – for the resident and representative, given the events of June 2022, and having the complaint unresolved for longer than the complaint policy suggests will have added to the distress of the situation.
While a landlord is required to provide timely responses, it is also expected to provide responses which are appropriate and address the substantive issues. The code states “landlords shall address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate”. In this case, the landlord showed an understanding of the substantive issues in an internal email of 5 July 2022. It confirmed the complaint as being about the unannounced visit and the front door repair. The landlord’s stage one complaint response included a detailed account of the visit to the resident’s property on 6 June 2022 and did not address the concerns about the front door or the fact the visit had been unannounced. It was not until the landlord provided its final review that those issues were addressed, however the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord provided an adequate response to the substantive issues at the final review stage.
Given the delay in providing a response at the review stage of the landlord’s complaint process, the Ombudsman has determined it failed to follow the appropriate complaint policy timescales and must act to put things right for the resident.
The Remedies Guidance mentioned earlier in this report suggests compensation of £50 to £100 for cases where there has been failure in the service provided by the landlord but the failure may not have gone on for a long time and/or it may not have affected the overall outcome of the complaint. Given the distress and inconvenience the delayed response will have caused the resident the Ombudsman has determined a compensation amount of £100 to be fair and proportionate for the landlord’s failings in complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service has found maladministration by the landlord in its conduct during a vulnerability assessment of the resident and their property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service has found severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairing and replacing the resident’s front door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service has found severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of requests for adaptations at the resident’s property (wet room).
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service has found service failure by the landlord in its associated complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to the resident compensation of £1600, made up of:
1. £300 for findings associated with the vulnerability assessment.
2. £600 for findings associated with the repair/replacing of the resident’s front door.
3. £600 for findings associated with the installation of adaptations at the resident’s property (wet room).
4. £100 for findings associated with the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord is ordered to provide the resident with a written apology for the failings identified in this investigation.
The landlord is ordered to provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a schedule of works for both the front door replacement and the wet room installation. The schedule of works should include timescales for the completion of the wet room and door replacement.
The landlord is ordered to provide the resident and representative with a copy of the vulnerability assessment it completed in June 2022 and information about any subsequent action it took in response to this assessment.
The landlord must confirm compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord must complete a case review of this complaint. The review should be carried out by a senior member of staff at director level. It should consider what lessons it can learn, with a view to improving its handling of vulnerable residents and adaptation requests, where the seriousness of the matter and potential impact on a resident make timeliness of paramount importance. The landlord must complete this review and share its findings with the resident, representative and Ombudsman within 8 weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord is ordered to complete the replacing of the front door and the installation of the wet room within 12 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should run refresher training with all relevant staff on complaint handling, particularly on providing responses within complaint policy timescales.
The landlord should assess its complaint handling practices to bring these in line with the code with particular reference to the timescales for complaint responses.