Lambeth Council (202002795)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002795

Lambeth Council

17 July 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s concerns regarding her move to temporary accommodation after a fire.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a three-bedroom terraced house. The tenancy agreement started on 18 March 2013. The landlord is a local authority.
The landlord told this Service it had no vulnerabilities recorded on its system for the resident. The resident said she has several health issues, including cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, and respiratory problems. She has provided medical evidence to this Service.

Scope of investigation

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (“the Scheme”). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident complained about parking fines and vehicle clamping. Under paragraph 41d of the Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters in respect of Local Housing Authorities in England, which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence to indicate that the landlord, in its capacity as a social housing provider, issued parking fines or clamped cars owned by the resident and/or her family. As such, it is beyond the remit of this Service to consider this.
Within the resident’s complaint, she referred to historical repair issues and concerns about how the landlord managed reports of anti-social behaviour within the property where the fire took place. At the time of making the complaint, the resident had been decanted from her property for over a year. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live,’ and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion. As the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. This is reflected in the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints that were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. As such, this investigation does not consider the resident’s reports of historical repair issues or anti-social behaviour.
The resident raised several concerns about how her return to the property was managed, dissatisfaction with the repairs, and gas and electricity charges while she was not living in the property. As these are separate issues to the complaint initially raised with the landlord, this is not something that this Service can consider within this investigation. The landlord needs to have an opportunity to investigate and formally respond to these aspects of her complaint. It is open for the resident to contact the landlord directly and raise a separate complaint about any new issues.
The resident said the landlord’s actions impacted her health. The Ombudsman empathises with the resident. However, as this Service is an informal alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman has considered the distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.

Landlord’s policies and procedures

The landlord’s temporary accommodation policy states that transfers between temporary accommodation may be required, and it will move people to cheaper accommodation when it becomes available. If the landlord has written to a resident to give advance notice of a potential move, it will give 24 hours’ notice of when a move is required. The maximum notice period within the policy is 1 week.
The landlord’s complaints policy describes a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction by a resident, where an initial response to their problem has not proven satisfactory. It goes on to explain that a complaint is not a request for information or an explanation of policies, procedures, practices or service standards, or an initial request for a service. It has a three-stage complaint process:
1. Early resolution, where the landlord would try and resolve the issue straight away, without a written response, and the complaint would be closed unless the landlord received further communications.
2. Local resolution stage, where a more senior member of staff would take a fresh look at the problem and provide a response within 20 working days.
3. The final review stage, undertaken by an Improvement & Review Officer and a member of the Senior Leadership Group.

Summary of events

The landlord has submitted little in the way of records on this case, and therefore it has been challenging to understand the full chronology of events.
There was a fire in the resident’s property on 20 July 2020, which was attended by the fire service. A report from the fire service dated 21 July 2020 said the suspected cause of the fire was a faulty appliance.
The landlord arranged for temporary accommodation starting on 21 July 2020.
This Service has seen copies of emails between September and December 2020 between the resident and landlord regarding arranging access to collect post. The landlord asked for the resident to arrange for future post to be redirected to her temporary accommodation.
On 19 July 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to make a formal complaint. She said:
1. A couple of months ago she received a phone call from the landlord saying she would need to move to another temporary accommodation because the landlord could not afford to continue to pay for the current property.
2. The resident said this was due to be discussed with a senior housing officer and the enforcement team. However, she had heard nothing since apart from receiving a text message.
3. Since 2021, she had not been updated regularly regarding the progress of repairs following the fire in 2020. She was recently told that no repairs had started due to insurance issues. She was unhappy the repairs had not progressed when she was paying full rent for the property.
4. She has several medical issues and the local authority litigation team had copies of her medical records.
5. She refused to move on medical grounds. She felt that 14 days’ notice was not enough.
This Service has not seen a copy of the text message or the correspondence giving 14 days’ notice as referred to above.
The landlord issued a response on 20 July 2021. While its email does not confirm this was a formal complaint response, the landlord later refers to it within its final response. It said the fire incident was not the responsibility of the landlord. Nonetheless it had:
1. Provided temporary accommodation for the resident and paid for it.
2. Arranged and paid for storage of the resident’s personal belongings.
3. Waited for the resident’s insurers to inspect and conduct their investigations.
4. Drawn up a repair specification.
5. Confirmed it was now able to arrange repair works, which were due to take around 3 months.
Further to this, the landlord explained the financial implications on the local authority and said it was moving families in private temporary accommodation into some of its empty properties on regeneration estates. It had invited the resident to view a local authority owned property, which the resident declined.
The landlord said it could not be expected to continue to sustain the current private temporary accommodation. The resident was given until 28 July 2021 to accept the move that had been prepared for her. It acknowledged that she preferred to remain where she was until her home was ready and explained it must take steps to ensure it had the resources to help other families when they need its assistance. It confirmed it would no longer pay for the private accommodation beyond the stipulated date.
It confirmed the resident was not currently paying for her temporary accommodation, rather she was paying the rent for her permanent property as per her tenancy agreement. It explained the resident had to right to submit her complaint to the Ombudsman if she remained unhappy.
The resident responded to the landlord the following day. She said:
1. She was troubled by the attempt to forcibly move her to another temporary accommodation. She felt she should have the freedom to choose, and she was also concerned about moving during the pandemic.
2. She felt the landlord’s response on 20 July 2021 was insensitive, considering it was issued on the 1-year anniversary of the fire.
3. She asked to see the relevant policy and legislation regarding the proposed move, in addition to the housing law that states she must pay rent for a property that is uninhabitable and void.
4. She was concerned the landlord had not considered her medical history when deciding to change her alternative accommodation and her GP advised her against lifting heavy objects. She also said her daughter has chronic medical conditions.
5. She had not been kept continually updated about the repairs to the property damaged by the fire.
6. She was unhappy to move to another estate unless a brand-new house was available.
7. She had not been given any official documents about the proposed move, just a phone call and an email.
8. It was inconvenient to change addresses for her post.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 29 December 2021. Within its letter, it confirmed the complaint was received on 19 July 2021 and responded to on 20 July 2021. It also referenced a complaint made by the resident dated 23 November 2021.
The landlord confirmed works were ongoing to the property affected by the fire and it recognised the resident wanted to move back as soon as possible. It confirmed she was registered for rehousing in the highest bidding category and was also authorised to bid on properties of her own choice. It suggested she bid on suitable properties if she wanted to move out of temporary accommodation.
Within the landlord’s submission to this Service, it said the resident entered temporary accommodation on 21 July 2020 and left the same accommodation on 23 September 2022.

Actions after the complaint process

On 26 August 2022, the landlord informed the resident the repairs had been completed following the fire and the temporary accommodation would end on 7 September 2022.
It confirmed a free removal would be carried out on 6 September 2022. It said a senior surveyor would review the property with the resident once she had moved back in to discuss any concerns.
The resident was unhappy with the proposed date to return to the property.
The landlord informed this Service that the resident left the temporary accommodation on 23 September 2022.
Following the resident’s return to the property, the landlord said it would arrange for the vegetation and rubbish to be cleared from the back garden and for the garden fence to be repaired. It also provided a copy of its insurance claim form as the resident referred to missing items and damage within the property.
As per paragraph 7, the resident’s concerns following her return to the property have not been considered within this report.

Assessment and findings

The Housing Ombudsman provides an informal dispute resolution service which is an alternative to the courts. Our approach is framed by three principles – be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in the Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding her move to temporary accommodation after a fire.

Based on a booking letter dated 21 July 2020, this Service finds the landlord acted fairly by assisting the resident and swiftly arranging temporary accommodation following a fire.
Under the landlord’s temporary accommodation policy, it had the right to move the resident to cheaper temporary accommodation when it became available. The maximum notice period under the policy is 1 week. The resident said she received a phone call from the landlord around 2 months before she was asked to move, in addition to 14 days’ notice. As such, the landlord acted reasonably by giving the resident more notice than was required, as well as giving her an opportunity to view the other property. Furthermore, the landlord explained the reason for the move (within its initial complaint response), which the Ombudsman would expect in the circumstances.
This Service has not been provided with records of communication between the landlord and resident around the time she was asked to move or copies of its internal records. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot determine whether the landlord assessed if the property offered to the resident was appropriate considering its size, location, and any medical requirements. There is no evidence to show if the landlord told the resident that she could ask for a review by a manager when she disagreed with the suitability of the property offered.
Furthermore, the resident was concerned about moving during the pandemic. There is no evidence to demonstrate the landlord recognised or addressed her concerns. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord should have provided detailed records to evidence its actions, communications and decision making at this time. Without this information, this Service cannot conclude that the landlord treated the resident fairly or in line with its policy.
The landlord told this Service the resident entered temporary accommodation on 21 July 2020, and left the same accommodation on 23 September 2022. This indicates she did not move into the cheaper accommodation proposed by the landlord. While the resident was informed that the landlord would no longer pay the costs of the more expensive accommodation from 28 July 2021 onwards, there is no evidence to show if the resident was charged from 28 July 2021 to 23 September 2022, or whether the landlord changed its position. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence to show what was communicated to the resident about these costs. This is another failure on the landlord’s part.
The resident was dissatisfied with the lack of communication regarding the repairs to her permanent property while she was in temporary accommodation. This Service expects landlords to keep a record of communication between residents and staff. The lack of communication records within this case is concerning. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a housing service. Not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its obligations to a resident and understanding the background of a complaint. In this case, there is no evidence to show the resident was regularly updated with the progression of repairs following the fire. This meant she was further inconvenienced by chasing various people for updates to find out when she would be able to return to her home. The communication failings exacerbated an already stressful situation and worsened the impact on the resident. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations regarding the works required to her home and arrange an update at least every other month from a fixed point of contact.
Overall, the landlord’s temporary accommodation policy allowed it to move residents to cheaper temporary accommodation and there is no evidence to support that the resident moved to another property. However, the Ombudsman finds there were several communication and record keeping failures by the landlord as outlined above which contributed to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident. When considered cumulatively, this amounts to maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The resident initially raised a complaint on 19 July 2021. The landlord issued its response the following day and within the 20-day timescale within its complaint policy. However, the complaint response does not make it clear that it is a local resolution response, nor does it inform the resident about the option of escalating the complaint to the final review stage. This was not appropriate. The landlord’s response here meant the resident was not given a fair opportunity to challenge the landlord’s position or complete the landlord’s internal complaint procedure.
The resident felt it was insensitive for the landlord to issue a complaint response on the 1-year anniversary of the fire. While this Service appreciates the resident’s strength of feeling here, the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) expects all member landlords to give residents a complaint response within a specific timeframe and as soon as an answer to a complaint is known. As such, the landlord did not act unreasonably here.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response in an email dated 21 July 2021. At this point, the landlord should have escalated the resident’s complaint to the final stage of its process. The final response letter was issued on 29 December 2021, some 23 weeks later. While the landlord’s complaint policy at the time had no timescale for a final response, the Code states member landlords should issue a final response within 20 working days. The landlord did not acknowledge this delay or offer compensation to reflect it. The delay experienced here is a complaint handling failure and it delayed the resident from being able to refer her complaint to this Service. It also caused confusion to the resident as she was unclear what points were being considered under this complaint reference.
The landlord, in its communication with the resident, was unresponsive within its final response and at times, dismissive. The landlord did not treat the matter with an appropriate level of regard. Within both complaint responses, the landlord has not demonstrated that it investigated the resident’s complaint points or explained what evidence it considered. It did not refer to its own investigation or policies. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to thoroughly investigate and respond to the individual points raised and consider the impact on the resident. Furthermore, the landlord provided no evidence to this Service to demonstrate how it investigated the resident’s complaint or that it learnt from the resident’s experience.
Overall, the failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint meant that the complaints procedure was not used as an effective tool to resolve the dispute. The complaint handling failures identified above constitutes maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns regarding her move to temporary accommodation after a fire.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did not provide full records of its communications with the resident, nor evidence of its decision making. Therefore, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that it acted fairly or that it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities.
There were delays issuing a stage two response which the landlord failed to acknowledge. The landlord failed to provide clear reasons for its decisions and did not reference its policies or the evidence it relied on within its investigation. It also failed to provide a full record of its complaint investigation to this Service.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £250 compensation. This is comprised of:
  1. £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused as a result of its communication failings which exacerbated an already stressful situation and worsened the impact on the resident.
  2. £100 for the complaint handling failures.
  3. £75 for the record keeping failures.
2. Contact the resident to discuss any vulnerabilities within her household and then ensure its internal records reflects those vulnerabilities.
3. Review its complaint handling procedures to ensure the failings identified within this report do not happen again.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.

Recommendations

Considering the record keeping failures identified within this investigation, the landlord should review the Ombudsman’s recommendations within the Knowledge and Information Management Spotlight report. The landlord should write to this Service with the outcome of its review and confirm what steps it has put in place to ensure that similar failings do not happen in the future.