Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Lambeth Council (202122594)

Back to Top

 

A picture containing font, text, graphics, logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122594

Lambeth Council

7 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an ongoing leak caused by outstanding roof repairs.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property, and the landlord is the freeholder.
  2. On 17 January 2014, the resident reported a leaking roof to the landlord.
  3. Between January 2014 and December 2020, the landlord carried out various works on the roof of the property due to leaks.
  4. On 19 March 2021, the resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord. In the complaint the resident stated that she had been raising the issue of ongoing leaks from the roof at the property with the landlord for over eight years. She also raised concerns about scaffolding being in place for too long, and having to chase the landlord for responses. To resolve the complaint, the resident asked for the leaks to be fixed and the scaffolding removed.
  5. On 19 April 2021, the landlord sent its stage one letter to the resident. It explained that it had contacted its repairs team as part of its investigation, and provided responses from the repairs team manager to the resident’s complaint points:
    1. Roof/Chimney leaks – The landlord explained that the roof had been renewed seven years previously, and that contractors had been requested to carry out investigation and repairs on a new roof. Numerous remedial works had been done on the roof over the last two years following complaints of water ingress from other residents, and there had been six leaks in different locations during that time.
    2. Scaffolding – The landlord explained that scaffolding at the rear of the property had been standing since 1 May 2019. Scaffolding at the front had been up since 1 August 2019. It accepted that this had been up longer than expected, and that this was due to the various ongoing reports of water ingress.
    3. Fixing the leaks – the landlord explained that it understood remedial works to the roof had been completed, but the contractors were unsure of their effectiveness until there was heavy rainfall on the property.  The landlord stated that once the effectiveness was determined and the roof tested, the scaffolding would be removed.
  6. On 5 August 2021, the resident responded. She explained that four months on from the stage one response the roof was still leaking, and the scaffolding was still in place. She stated the roofing company had visited the property several times and advised her they were waiting for the landlord to approve the works. The resident asked the landlord to confirm when the works would be done.
  7. On 13 September 2021, the landlord sent its stage two letter. It explained that during its investigation into the resident’s complaint it had spoken to its repairs team and it had advised it was dealing with the issues. It advised a new contractor had visited the resident on 9 September 2021 to arrange remedial work. The landlord offered £275 compensation to the resident for the delayed repairs and £120 for the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the matter.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response, and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman in January 2022.
  9. On 2 May 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident and offered her £900 compensation in relation to roof leaks that it noted have been affecting her over a number of years. The landlord stated that the payment was to reflect the two years that have passed since the issues were first reported, and for the inconvenience caused to the resident by not being able to use some rooms in her property. Additionally, the landlord confirmed it had discussed the case with its repairs team who confirmed a plasterer will be proceeding with works and redecorating once they are completed. It also confirmed that repairs to the pointing on external brickwork around the kitchen window had been arranged. As of May 2023, works remained outstanding.

 

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes; Put things right; and Learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
  3. The landlord has already acknowledged failings on its part in regards to delayed repairs, and inconvenience caused to the resident. This investigation has subsequently considered whether the landlord did enough to ‘put things right’ for the resident.

Scope of Investigation

  1. Although the resident has stated in her complaint to the landlord in March 2021 that she had been raising the issues related to the roof for a number of years, the Ombudsman is unable to investigate as far back as this. This is because as events become historic, it becomes increasingly difficult for the Ombudsman to establish the events that took place.
  2. Additionally, the Ombudsman would expect a resident to raise any dissatisfaction with the landlord’s service as a complaint within six months of the issue arising. The information on file suggests that it was in March 2021 that the resident did this and took steps to exhaust the landlord’s complaint process before bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman. As such, while the Ombudsman will consider the overall impact that the recurring issue with the roof has had on the resident, and will note for context that the matter dates back to 2014, this investigation will not consider the landlord’s management of the repair prior to March 2021.

Repairs to the roof and associated leaks

  1. The tenancy agreement is a legally binding document that both the resident and the landlord are bound by. Under paragraph 3.2.1 of the terms, the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property. There is a further duty on the landlord under section 11(1)(a) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  2. Additionally, the landlord’s own repairs policy states it is responsible for carrying out repairs and maintenance to the external fabric of the housing block, including the roof.
  3. Where a repair is raised, the law states that a landlord must inspect 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 routine repairs will be completed within 28 working days, and planned repairs within 90 working days. The policy further states that under right to repair, the response times for a leaking roof are seven working days.
  4. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord about the leaks on 19 March 2021. In the complaint it was also stated that she had been raising the issue in previous years. Once the resident reported the issues with the roof, the landlord was then required to inspect and determine the cause of the problem, and repair within a reasonable time, under the express and implied terms of both its own repairs policy and the tenancy agreement. In its stage two response to the resident’s complaint on 13 September 2021, the landlord stated that leaks at the property appeared to have been fixed on occasion, but the original cause had not been addressed, resulting in the leak persisting. It apologised for this.
  5. On 14 September 2021, a work order was raised for a roof inspection to remedy the leak affecting the property. On 8 March 2022, the same work order was raised. It is unclear what the result of these inspections were. Nevertheless, it can be inferred that the works undertaken by the landlord were insufficient in resolving the issue as the resident continued to experience leaks.
  6. In terms of communication about the repairs, the landlord was obligated to keep the resident updated on the scope of works required. In her stage two complaint to the landlord in August 2021, the resident asked the landlord when works would be done. In September 2021, the landlord’s new contractor visited the resident to discuss arranging the remedial work needed. However, in October 2021 the resident contacted the landlord for an update on the repair work. She explained that she’d had no update on what works would be taking place, or who was responsible for them. The resident also stated that she had no insight on what was being done to fix the leaks, and that she’d had a letter from one contractor stating their work had been completed, but was unclear what these works were. In November 2021, the resident contacted the landlord twice requesting a timeline for the repairs in writing. She also asked for a breakdown of the work that would be done, and asked how she would be kept updated.
  7. From the information available, it appears the contractor provided this information to the landlord in November 2021. It was unfortunate that the resident had to chase this to get something in writing, as a scope of works should have been provided to her at the start of the repairs process, and she would not have had to repeatedly contact the landlord for details.
  8. Due to persistent issues with the roof, the resident has not been able to fully enjoy her home for a significant period of time. This Service has not sought to investigate the leak which dated back to 2014, but must recognise that the resident had been experiencing issues of this nature for many years. Despite bringing this to the landlord’s attention, and the landlord recognising these ongoing issues itself, the matter remains ongoing. While the Ombudsman is unable to determine why the issues have persisted, the resident was adversely impacted throughout the period she has complained about. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have completed a full, effective and lasting repair as per its obligations, and its own timeframe for repairs. Additionally, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to keep the resident updated with the scope of works required. These obligations were not adhered to, and so the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration here.
  9. In its stage two response to the resident, the landlord offered her £275 for delayed repairs, and an additional £120 for the time and trouble taken by the resident to pursue the matter. As per paragraph 11 of this report, the landlord sent a further letter to the resident in May 2023 offering £900 to recognise these issues.
  10. The Ombudsman expects the landlord to undertake a sufficient investigation and review all circumstances of the case at stage two. Had this been done, the landlord would have identified its failings at an earlier time and had the opportunity to put things right at an earlier stage. It appears to the Ombudsman that the landlord only undertook a further review after the issue had been brought to the Ombudsman for investigation. Had the landlord made an award of this proportion during the complaints process it may have been satisfactory in putting things right.
  11. As it did not, however, the Ombudsman has determined that there was a service failure. The Ombudsman recognises it is not inappropriate for a landlord to wait for issues to be resolved before offering compensation. However, given that repair works are still outstanding, and the offer of further compensation was made two years after the final response, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord’s approach here was unreasonable and inappropriate. Given the impact the ongoing leaks have had on the resident,  and the lack of clear information on when they will be repaired, several further orders have been made below.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy is a two-stage process. It says that the landlord will respond to complaints within 20 working days of the date the complaint was received. It also says that if the landlord needs longer to respond, it will explain this to the resident.
  2. According to the landlord’s notes, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord by email on 19 March 2021. The landlord provided its stage one response on 19 April 2021.
  3. The stage one response failed to fully answer all points raised by the resident, and the landlord acknowledged that in the response. Additionally, it did not address the resident’s concerns about poor response times to her queries. Instead, the landlord stated that while this was regrettable, it was worth noting that complaints about responsive repairs are handled by another individual on the landlords team. The resident did not know who this individual was, and the landlord gave no further contact details. The landlord should have provided more information to the resident if her complaint should have been directed elsewhere. It should also have taken forward the resident’s dissatisfaction with the response times and shared it internally with the relevant department.
  4. On 5 August 2021, the resident escalated the complaint. She stated that the roof was still leaking, and the contractor had told her they were waiting for permission from the landlord before carrying out repair work. The landlord’s complaints policy does not give a response time for stage two responses. Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, however, this Service would have expected the landlord to have responded within 20 working days – by 1 September 2021.
  5. The Ombudsman notes that it was not until 13 September 2021 that the landlord gave its stage two response to the resident. This was nine working days after the deadline. No explanation was given to the resident for the delay. While this delay did not have much of an impact on the complaint as a whole, some recognition of the slight delay by the landlord would have been reasonable.
  6. In summary, while the complaint handling could have been better, the landlord did provide its responses within a reasonable time frame. There was no significant delay on the resident in escalating her complaint, and bringing it to the Ombudsman.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in response to reports of a leaking roof.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. pay the resident £1,600, including the £900 previously offered, to recognise the delayed repairs, lack of clear communication or updates, and the inconvenience caused to the resident by leaks into the property.
    2. Complete any outstanding repairs within eight weeks of receiving this determination, and write to this service and the resident to confirm that this has been done and no issues are outstanding.
  2. Provide evidence of compliance to this service within eight weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

  1. Since the resident brought the complaint to this service, the Ombudsman has 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 have been made in these cases to address this, and the landlord has complied with these orders, demonstrating its desire to learn from outcomes. Subsequently, no further recommendations or orders relating to these matters have been made here as the actions that the landlord has now taken should mitigate the risk of these failings recurring.