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

Lambeth Council (202202730)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202730

Lambeth Council

19 June 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that their telephone number had been blocked from contacting the landlord’s concierge services;
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. On 13 March 2022 the resident complained to the landlord, stating that their telephone number had been blocked by the landlord’s concierge service for approximately two years. The resident requested an investigation and subsequent explanation of how this happened. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 22 March 2022.
  2. On 27 March 2022, the resident asked the landlord to provide a timescale of when a response could be expected. On 18 April 2022, the resident sent an email to the landlord chasing the complaint.
  3. On 8 June 2022, the resident approached this Service. This Service instructed the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint on 20 June 2022. On 24 June 2022, the landlord issued its stage one response. The response stated that the resident’s phone number had been blocked, but the landlord could not establish why this had happened. The landlord explained that it had already apologised to the resident and therefore considered the matter to be closed. The resident escalated the complaint on the same day, citing that they wanted a thorough investigation to take place and that an apology was not an appropriate remedy in the circumstances.
  4. The landlord issued its final, stage two response on 1 August 2022. It stated that it had investigated and had not changed its position. It apologised and explained that it had reminded the relevant staff members of their customer service responsibilities.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. The Ombudsman will assess the landlord’s actions following the resident’s initial complaint on 13 March 2022. Events prior to this date will be referenced in order to provide important context, however no assessment will be drawn from them, as they have been the subject of a previous Ombudsman investigation. This is in line with paragraph 42(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider matters which seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that their telephone number had been blocked from contacting the landlord’s concierge service

  1. In its complaint response of 6 June 2022, the landlord explained that it had already apologised and now considered the matter closed. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had made any contact with the resident as promised or had issued an apology. There is no evidence that the landlord conducted an investigation into the matter beyond that which confirmed the resident’s report that their number had been blocked by the concierge team. The resident explained that their number had been blocked on both the concierge’s mobile and landline numbers. The landlord had also accepted it had blocked the resident’s number previously in 2020. For these reasons, the resident believed this act to be “intentional and malicious”.
  2. This Service cannot determine the cause of the number being blocked. However, the resident is right to point out that the evidence available suggests that a thorough investigation and explanation would have been an appropriate action for the landlord to take.
  3. Evidence suggests that this issue had impacted a number of residents, not just the complainant. The concierge service is a key point of contact for residents looking to raise issues with the landlord. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord sought to establish why the residents on that list specifically had been affected. There is no evidence that the landlord took steps to identify whether any other causes, such as a technical issue, could have been to blame.
  4. In the stage two response, the landlord explained that it has “reminded staff members of their customer service responsibilities”. This implies that the landlord may have concluded that staff conduct was the cause of the resident’s number being blocked, although there is no other evidence to confirm this. If the landlord did have reason to believe that this may have been the case, it should have identified the seriousness of the issue. It is vital that residents are able to contact their landlord to report repairs and other issues they may be experiencing. The resident had given examples to the landlord of a number of instances where they had needed to contact the landlord and detailed the impact that not being able to do so had had on them. This included not being able to report repairs except in person, leading to delays and additional time and trouble. On one occasion, the resident said they were unable to get in touch with the landlord when the property flooded following a leak from a neighbouring property. Unable to contact the landlord, the resident said they had to contact emergency services to deal with the leak, and report the repair the following day in person, when the concierge office had reopened.
  5. The landlord should have taken more robust action to prevent the issue from reoccurring, such as by:
    1. Ensuring additional staff training was provided;
    2. Ruling out a technical fault as the cause of the issues;
    3. Otherwise conducting a more thorough investigation and taking any other such appropriate action based on the findings.
  6. The landlord, in its communication with the resident, was unresponsive and at times, dismissive. The landlord did not treat the matter with an appropriate level of regard and did not provide a remedy which resolved the issue for the resident. The landlord could not provide assurances that the issue would not reoccur which the resident could have confidence in. The landlord made no attempts to assess the impact of the issue on the resident. Therefore, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that their telephone number had been blocked from contacting the landlord’s concierge services.

Complaint Handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states that the landlord must acknowledge a stage one complaint within two working days, and provide a full response within 20 working days. The resident wrote to the landlord on 13 March 2022, making a clear expression of dissatisfaction and requesting it be dealt with as a formal complaint. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint until it responded on 22 March 2022. The response was not a formal complaint response, but explained instead that a local member of staff would contact the resident. There is no evidence that this contact ever took place.
  2. The resident sent further emails to the landlord chasing the complaint on 27 March 2022 and 18 April 2022. There is no evidence that it responded to either of these emails. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident at any point until this Service instructed it to do so on 20 June 2022.
  3. The landlord is required to issue all complaints in compliance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has committed itself to providing an excellent customer service, to provide a fair and transparent investigation into complaints and that it aims to show that lessons have been learned from mistakes. It also states that when the landlord is at fault, it needs to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong and what the landlord will do to prevent the same mistake happening again.
  4. This Service asked the landlord to provide a response to the resident’s complaint on 20 June 2022, as agreed with the resident. The landlord was clearly instructed to ensure it included a complaint reference number and a clear indication of what stage the complaint was being considered at, in order to ensure it was compliant with the Code. The landlord failed to comply with these instructions.
  5. The landlord responded on 24 June 2022, explaining that it considered the matter to be resolved, as it had already apologised. The resident explained that they had not received this apology. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had made any contact with the resident in the time period which the landlord claimed to have apologised.
  6. The Code requires the landlord to set out the actions it has taken, or intends to take, to put things right. It states that any remedy offered must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result. There is no evidence that the landlord sought to establish the level of detriment caused to the resident or offered any remedy in respect of the complaint.
  7. The resident escalated their complaint on 24 June 2022, because they did not consider an apology to be an appropriate remedy. They explained that the desired remedy was a thorough investigation and explanation of what happened, in line with the resident’s original complaint.
  8. The landlord’s complaint policy states that the landlord should issue a stage two complaint response within 20 working days. The landlord instead explained that it would issue its response later than this, on 29 July 2022. On 29 July 2022, the landlord had still not sent its response. The resident sent a chaser to the landlord.
  9. On 1 August 2022, the landlord issued its final, stage two response. The landlord maintained its stage one position, that it believed it had investigated and found the cause of the issue to be inconclusive. It added that it had reminded staff of their customer service responsibilities. The landlord has provided this Service with no evidence that it had spoken to staff members. The landlord again failed to investigate the level of detriment caused to the resident, or to offer any other remedies to resolve the complaint.
  10. As a result of these failings, this Service has seen evidence that the resident had to go to excessive lengths to get the landlord to put things right. The resident had to send multiple emails to the landlord to request updates and was obliged to repeat themselves on a number of occasions. The resident ultimately had to contact this Service in order to compel the landlord to respond.
  11. In conclusion, the landlord repeatedly failed to respond to the resident. The landlord failed to issue complaint responses in line with its own policies or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, by which it is bound. The landlord failed to issue responses in the required timescales and was unable to demonstrate that it had explained why things went wrong or take effective action to prevent the mistake from happening again. The evidence shows instances of the landlord treating the resident in an unsympathetic and inappropriate manner. Therefore, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.
  12. The Ombudsman previously investigated a complaint from the resident about both the concierge service and associated complaint handling, and determined that there were failings by the landlord. While the landlord complied with the orders made on that case, which included steps to improve complaint handling, the findings in this investigation indicate that issues persist. Therefore, the Ombudsman has made additional orders below to put things right, and will take further steps as necessary to ensure the issues highlighted in this report are reflected upon and resolved.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that their telephone number had been blocked from contacting the landlord’s concierge services.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Pay to the resident £500 compensation. This is to be made up of:
      1. £250 in respect of the time and trouble the resident went to;
      2. £250 in respect of the complaint handling failures experienced.
  2. To cooperate with the Ombudsman as it takes additional steps to address the failings highlighted in this report.