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

Lambeth Council (202217300)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217300

Lambeth Council

27 February 2024


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 repairs to the bathroom.
  2. The Ombudsman has decided to investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord since 2019. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The property was let to the resident with a wet room in place. (The landlord fitted this for the previous resident). The resident occupies the property with her son who has special needs. The estate is managed by a RMO (Resident Management Organisation). The landlord is a local authority.
  2. Between 2019 and October 2022, the resident reported breakdowns of the shower and issues with water in the wet room not draining away effectively.
  3. In July 2022, the resident complained that she had spent 3 years reporting and dealing with the issues and described the adverse impact on her over the time.
  4. The landlord upheld the resident’s stage 1 complaint and offered £360 in compensation.
  5. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s compensation offer and escalated the complaint to stage 2. She asked the landlord to reconsider the level of compensation.
  6. At stage 2, the landlord increased its compensation offer by £100 and offered £460.
  7. As part of its complaint response, it also decided to remove the wet room and replace it with a standard bathroom. It did this in October 2022.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the £460 compensation offer and in November 2022, the resident escalated her complaint to this service for consideration.
  9. The resident’s position is the compensation offered by the landlord does not reflect the landlord’s delays, inconvenience, and distress experienced since 2019 up to the time the landlord decided to remove the wet room. To resolve the issue the resident considers the compensation should be increased to reflect the duration of the issues.

Scope

  1. The landlord has limited their investigation to the 9 months leading up to the resident’s formal complaint in July 2022.
  2. In this case, the resident reported recurring shower breakdowns and ineffective water drainage in the wet room since the start of the tenancy in 2019. While the formal complaint was only made in 2022, the resident has provided evidence of expressing dissatisfaction to the landlord about the issues since 2020.
  3. The Ombudsman considers that although the first formal complaint was made in July 2022, there is evidence the resident has been raising the issues and expressing dissatisfaction since November 2020. It is important for landlords to consider earlier expressions of dissatisfaction whenever a related complaint is raised.
  4. Additionally, The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states, ‘Where the problem is a recurring issue, the landlord should consider any older reports as part of the background to the complaint if this will help to resolve the issue for the resident.’
  5. The Ombudsman’s view is the landlord should have considered the matter as arising in 2020, therefore this investigation will consider the landlords handling of repairs to the bathroom and its complaint handling since November 2020.

Assessment and findings

The landlords handling of repairs to the bathroom.

  1. The records show the resident reported issues with the wet room since 2019.These were shower breakdowns and ineffective drainage of water. The resident reported that the shower had stopped working on 5 occasions between 2019 and 2022 and reported the wet-floor drainage issue on 6 occasions during the same period. The recurring nature of the issues was frustrating and caused inconvenience to the resident.
  2. In October 2020, the resident reported a shower breakdown. The landlord sent its electrician to investigate. The resident stated the electrician shared a concern with her about the wiring to the shower, specifically, that it could ‘blow up.’ They informed her a report would be sent to the landlord.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord to inform it of the electrician’s findings and that she felt unsafe using the shower. The landlord raised a further inspection of the shower, but no evidence has been provided that it contacted the electrician to find out what the resident had been told. Given the seriousness of the information shared by the resident this unreasonable.
  4. In the circumstances, this Service considers it would have been appropriate to have contacted the electrician to find out whether there was any risk to the resident in using the shower. It would have then been able to put an appropriate plan in place to support the resident or provide reassurances that the shower was safe to use.
  5. On 10 November 2020, the resident emailed the landlord. She wrote ‘I do not know what to do anymore’ and ‘I have been calling every day seeking an update, explaining the situation over and over again,’ and wrote the situation was ‘frustrating and unbearable’. No evidence has been provided that the landlord responded to the resident’s distress, or that it logged a complaint. The Ombudsman considers the landlord should have logged a stage 1 complaint at this stage. (The landlord’s complaint handling has been investigated later in this report).
  6. The situation of uncertainty about the safety of the shower was distressing for the resident and had an adverse impact on her and her household. Due to the fact of it being a wet room, the household had no alternative bathing facilities. The resident informed this service that at times, she and her 4-year-old child had to travel to a family member to take a shower as repeatedly using the handwash basin was unmanageable. This service does not know if the landlord was aware of this.
  7. The Ombudsman understands in some situations using the hand wash basin would be reasonable as a short–term emergency measure but in this case the situation went on for over 3 weeks. This was an unreasonable length of time. The landlord has provided no evidence that it acknowledged the resident’s situation or provided any support to the resident.
  8. On 20 November 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to say she had not received any communication about the issue. The landlord telephoned its contractor who said the job ticket had ‘not been looked at yet.’ It said when it had been looked at it, it would contact the resident. The Ombudsman finds the landlord lacked urgency and empathy. This was unfair and unreasonable because 4 weeks after the resident informed the landlord about the potential safety issue, she did not have any information about whether the shower was safe to use. The landlord’s approach caused frustration and distress to the resident. Additionally, the records provided do not make clear when the landlord provided reassurances to the resident about the safety of the shower. The Ombudsman considers the time the resident did not use the shower due to being informed the shower was unsafe meets the threshold to be considered as a ‘loss of amenity.’ No records have been provided to show the date the situation was resolved for the resident.
  9. In October 2021, the resident emailed a member of staff expressing dissatisfaction about an issue with the shower and other repair issues. She referred to the 4-week period in 2020 when she was not able to use the shower. The Ombudsman considers the landlord failed to recognise the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction should be treated as a complaint. This means it missed an opportunity to understand the issues and put things right.
  10. As a result of the resident’s email, the landlord raised another inspection of the shower. This inspection took place on 26 November 2021. The outcome of the inspection was that a works order was raised to a contractor to replace the wet room floor. The records show the landlord assigned a priority of ‘R1’ to the repair. The landlord’s repairs guide states it will complete R1 routine repairs within 7 days. This meant the work should have been completed by 8 December 2021.
  11. The repair records provided show the contractor was due to attend on 11 April 2022. This was almost 18 weeks after the work was due to be completed. The reasons for this delay are not clear and no evidence has been provided that the reasons for the delay were explained to the resident. The contractor failed to attend the appointment on 11 April 2022. This was not good customer service and resulted in disappointment to the resident who was expecting works to take place on that day. The resident contacted the contractor to find out why they did not attend. The contractor then informed her they did not attend because of internal issues at the landlord. For the resident to have heard this from the landlord’s contractor would have been confusing for the resident. Additionally, the Ombudsman considers it a failing that the landlord was not aware the contractor did not attend until the resident investigated and informed it. The situation caused inconvenience, distress and caused delay in resolving the issue.
  12. On the same day, the resident emailed the landlord stating her patience had been exhausted and asked for the procedure on how to make a complaint. She asked the landlord to treat her email as a formal complaint, but the landlord did not do this. Instead, it asked a different contractor to attend to the repair with the wet floor room. The landlord advised the resident the contractor would attend on 18 May 2022.
  13. After this, the documents show there were internal discussions within the landlord about whether the repairs should be treated as day-to-day repairs or an aids and adaptations repair. There were additional debates about whether the repairs were the landlord’s retained responsibility or the responsibility of the Resident Management Organisation. The landlord’s internal discussions and lack of clarity about areas of responsibility caused an unreasonable delay in making a decision on the issue. The landlord’s delays caused distress to the resident.
  14. On 18 May 2022, the contractor attended as planned but due to lack of clarity on the specification provided by the landlord, the contractor left the property without carrying out any works. The caused frustration, inconvenience and distress to the resident and undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord.
  15. On 6 June 2022, the resident emailed the neighbourhood office stating she intended to start legal proceedings for its failure to carry out the repairs. In response to this the neighbourhood office informed internal colleagues that the resident was ‘tired of being pushed from pillar to post’ and was about to instigate legal proceedings as the bathroom had been malfunctioning since 2020. The officer asked internal colleagues to update the resident urgently.
  16. Between March and July 2022, the landlord engaged in internal communications about  who would be responsible for the repairs. During this time, no works took place. The resident was not provided with any solution to the repair issues and had no information about when repairs would happen. The landlord’s approach was unreasonable, disorganised and failed to put the customer at the centre of its decision making.
  17. On 19 July 2022, the resident made a stage 1 complaint about the landlords handling of the issues since 2019, stating she ‘could not take it any longer’. On 21 July 2022, it decided to remove the wet room and install a standard bathroom. On 26 July 2022 it informed the resident of its decision.
  18. The works started on 4 October 2022 and were completed on 10 October 2022. This was 11 months since the landlord raised the works order to ‘trace and remedy leak in wet room’.
  19. The Ombudsman finds that the issue with the wet room floor that was raised in November 2021 was not resolved until October 2022. Between November 2021 and July 2022 (when the landlord decided it would remove the wet room), the landlord unreasonably delayed in carrying out the works. This caused distress, inconvenience, and uncertainty to the resident.
  20. The landlord’s prolonged internal discussions about whether it should be a day-to-day repair, or an aids and adaptations repair and about which department would be responsible for carrying out the work was unfair, and unreasonable to the resident. When it organised contractors to attend, on one occasion the contractor failed to attend. On another occasion a contractor attended but left without carrying out any works due to lack of clarity about the specification. This was unfair and unreasonable and caused the resident inconvenience, distress, and frustration.
  21. The Ombudsman finds that while the landlord decided to limit its complaint investigation to its handling of matters since November 2021, it is clear from the evidence that the same issues have been ongoing for the resident since 2020. During 2020 and 2021, the Ombudsman finds the resident expressed dissatisfaction and reported the issues with the shower and the floor. The Ombudsman acknowledges the landlord carried out repairs to the shower, shower electrics, and wet floor during 2020 and 2021, however, these do not appear to have been effective or lasting solutions and led to the landlord’s decision in July 2022 to remove the wet room.
  22. The Ombudsman also finds that since November 2020 the resident had to spend an unreasonable amount of time and effort engaged in correspondence with the landlord over the repairs. The resident was left for periods when the shower was unusable and had to find workarounds for herself and her son.
  23. The cumulative impact of the issues had an adverse impact on the resident and her household. The Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in the landlords handling of repairs to the bathroom.
  24. The landlord acknowledged the delays and upheld the resident’s complaint. At stage 1 it offered £360  for its delays since November 2021. The resident asked the landlord to reconsider the compensation amount in view of the duration and frequency of the issues. At stage 2, the landlord increased the compensation offer by £100 in recognition of the fact the resident had to take cold showers, but this did not consider the vulnerabilities of the household. This was unreasonable because the landlord was aware from the resident’s stage 1complaint and her stage 2 escalation request that the resident’s special needs son had also been affected by the issues.
  25. The Ombudsman considers the compensation amount of £460 offered at stage 2 was not proportionate to the impact on the resident and her child between November 2021 and July 2022. This is because it did not consider the disappointment, distress, and inconvenience caused on two occasions. On 11 April 2022 when the contractor failed to attend a repair appointment citing unresolved issues within the landlord and the resident’s time and trouble in investigating the contractor’s non-attendance. On 18 May 2022 when the contractor attended but was unable to carry out works the resident was expecting due to specification issues.
  26. Having regard to the remedies guidance where maladministration exists, the landlord the Ombudsman considers an additional amount of £100 would be appropriate.
  27. Turning to the period November 2020. The Ombudsman considers compensation for loss of amenity for 4 weeks and for distress and inconvenience would be appropriate. An order for compensation has been made below. The compensation amount has been calculated as 25% refund of rent for 4 weeks, based on a weekly rent of £209.45.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states it defines a complaint as ‘any expression of dissatisfaction whether justified or not.’ In this case, the Ombudsman has identified 4 occasions between November 2020 and June 2022 when the resident has expressed dissatisfaction about the landlords handling of issues relating to the wet room. The landlord did not log a complaint on any of these occasions. This was unfair to the resident and does not align with its policy or the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
  2. On 10 November 2020, the resident emailed the landlord stating she had not been contacted by the landlord about the safety of the shower and ‘did not know what to do anymore’ and the situation was ‘frustrating and unbearable’. There is evidence the landlord raised an inspection, but no records have been provided that show the landlord responded to the resident’s distress or that it logged a complaint. This was unfair and unreasonable.
  3. On 12 October 2021, the resident emailed the landlord expressing dissatisfaction that she had not been contacted as she had requested, she had been ‘reasonable and patient thus far’, and complained she had to chase matters ‘over and over’. The landlord did not log a complaint. This was unreasonable and meant the service failure the resident complained about, (not being called back) was not investigated.
  4. On 19 April 2022, the resident emailed the landlord stating her patience was exhausted and requested information on the complaint’s procedure. No evidence has been provided that the landlord provided this information to the resident. In the same email the resident asked the landlord to treat her email as a formal complaint, but the landlord did not do this. This was a failing and meant the landlord missed an opportunity to identify any potential service failures and resolve the issues for the resident.
  5. On 11 May 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again stating she felt her official complaint was ‘not going anywhere’ and asked for the complaints policy and procedure for a second time. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence that the landlord responded to the request. The situation was frustrating and upsetting for the resident. She had previously asked for her communication to be treated as a formal complaint and had a reasonable expectation that the landlord would initiate its complaint process.
  6. On 9 June 2022, the resident emailed the landlord asking for reassurances that her communication would be treated as a formal complaint and asked for details on how to escalate the matter further. She informed the landlord that she felt it was not taking matters seriously. There is no evidence the landlord logged a complaint or supplied the resident with the complaints policy as requested.
  7. The landlord’s approach to handling the resident’s expressions of dissatisfaction and emailed complaints was a failing. It caused distress and inconvenience and caused a delay in escalation of the matters that were important to her.
  8. The landlord’s policy states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 15 working days and stage 2 complaints within 15 working days. It also states, ‘if the complaint cannot be responded to within 15 working days an interim response should be sent to the customer explaining the reason for delay and advising them of when they can expect to receive a response’. These timescales were not in line with the complaint handling code in place at the time.
  9. The landlord logged a stage 1 complaint for the resident on 20 July 2022. This means the landlord should have provided its complaint response by 9 August 2022 to be in line with its procedure.
  10. The landlord did not provide its stage 1 response until 22 September 2022. This was 6 weeks past the due date. No evidence has been provided that the landlord sent an interim response explaining the reason for the delay or agreed this timescale with the resident. The landlord’s delay disappointed the resident’s expectations and caused inconvenience and frustration.
  11. Looking at everything together:
    1. The landlord’s failure to log a complaint when it received 4 expressions of dissatisfaction from the resident.
    2. Failure to provide the complaints policy and procedure when it was requested.
    3. The 6-week delay in providing its stage 1 complaint response.
    4. The landlord’s decision not to look at earlier matters related to the complaint.
  12. The Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  13. In February 2022, the Ombudsman issued a special report about the landlord highlighting concerns with its complaint handling. The report recommended the landlord review its complaint handling procedures to reduce the risk of similar failures in the future. We continued to identify problems with the landlord’s performance, reaching findings of maladministration and sever maladministration following investigations into 20 separate complaints from residents.
  14. In June 2023 we told the landlord of our intention to carry out an inspection to find out the reasons for its ongoing failures in complaint handling. In December 2023 we issued a report setting out our findings with further recommendations for service improvement.
  15. In this investigation we have identified failures similar to those that led to our special report in 2022 and subsequent inspection in 2023. We therefore order the landlord to consider the findings highlighted in this investigation against the recommendations in our inspection report of December 2023.

 

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 there was maladministration in the landlords handling of repairs to the bathroom.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of the report the landlord should apologise to the resident for its handling of repairs to the bathroom and its complaint handling.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must pay the resident  £1544.45 in compensation. This comprises:
    1. £209.45 for loss of amenity for 4 weeks in October and November 2020.
    2. £300 for distress and inconvenience caused by the loss of amenity in October and November 2020.
    3. £560 (this includes the £460 compensation offered at stage 2) for the landlord’s delays, contractor service failures and distress and inconvenience to the resident and her child between November 2021 and July 2022.
    4. £375 for service failures x 5 ( 4 occasions when it did not log a complaint and 1 occasion when it failed to provide the complaints policy and procedure to resident).
    5. £100 for the time and trouble spent pursuing the complaint.
  3. The landlord should carry out a case review with the teams involved in this case to identify where lessons can be learned. It should provide evidence to this service that action has been taken to reduce the likelihood of similar failings.