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

Lambeth Council (202300919)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300919

Lambeth Council

31 July 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 the resident’s reports of multiple repair issues, including leaks, damp and mould.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority, since 1982. The landlord said the resident is noted as being vulnerable due to her age. She is in her eighties. In December 2021 the resident told the landlord she was a cancer patient.
  2. On 21 June 2022 the resident complained to the landlord about its failure to attend the property to repair rainwater pipes from the roof. She said they were blocked and water poured down the walls when it rained. She complained that the problem had persisted for years, but the landlord had not dealt with it, and it was now causing damp within the property. She was informed her complaint would be addressed as an early resolution complaint, but the landlord did not log it on its systems until 4 October 2022.
  3. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 8 November 2022, which partly upheld the complaint, and said it had arranged for the works to be approved and completed. The next day the resident responded, saying that she felt she had waited long enough and planned to take the case further.
  4. On 11 November 2022 the resident complained about a leak in a cupboard. She asked the landlord to respond regarding this issue, the guttering and a heating issue.
  5. On 14 November 2022 the resident called the landlord. The landlord registered the content of the call as a new complaint about her boiler, heating and general repairs. On 16 January 2023 the landlord provided a stage 1 response. It upheld the complaint and offered £905 compensation for the frustration and upset caused to the resident.
  6. The landlord’s operatives attended the property on 24 January 2023, but did not complete the work. The resident asked to escalate the complaint. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 23 February 2023, when it accepted that the works raised in June 2022 had not been completed but said that contractors had difficulty getting in contact with the resident. It therefore asked her to get in contact to progress the works.
  7. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman in June 2023, saying that repairs were still outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The records show that the resident raised concerns about repairs with the landlord prior to June 2022. However, this investigation focuses on those issues raised in the resident’s stage 1, June 2022, complaint, the further complaints made after that and the landlord’s final response in February 2023. This is because as matters become historic, 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 (reflected at paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme).
  2. Further, since bringing this complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident has raised other concerns about the landlord’s approach to repairs. As these have not gone through the complaints process nor were part of the original complaint raised with the Ombudsman, these matters do not form part of this investigation (reflected at paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme). If the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s response to those more recent issues, she can raise a new complaint and return to the Ombudsman.

Reports of multiple repair issues, including leaks, damp and mould.

  1. The landlord’s repairs manual sets out a number of general customer service standards. These include resolving queries at first point of contact and keeping a resident informed if a repair will take longer than expected. It says it will apologise when it gets things wrong and put them right quickly. It says it will address urgent repairs within 2 hours and routine repairs within either 7 or 28 working days, depending on the category of repair. Planned repairs, it says, will be completed within 90 days. Clearing gutters, which it says is its responsibility, falls under the planned repairs category. It says that a leak from a water pipe, tank or cistern should be responded to within 1 working day, with a leaking roof being responded to within 7 working days.
  2. The resident made a number of complaints about the guttering, heating and other issues. The landlord’s handling of the formal complaints themselves is considered further below, but this section focuses on its response to the substantive issues.
  3. Between 2 June and 8 November 2022, when the landlord issued its stage 1 response, the resident complained about damp and mould or potentially related issues (including a damp cupboard), caused by either a leak or the guttering or some other source, at least 7 times. On 2 June 2022 she stated that the blocked guttering was causing damp walls to both the back and front of the property.
  4. During this period the resident’s correspondence became more urgent. She explained on 20 September 2022 that the water board had told her there must be a leak at the property as there were “…at least 4 gallons of water running through the house every hour”. On 27 September 2022 she asked the landlord to “…imagine how cold the house is with the guttering” issue and the heating. She stressed that, as a cancer sufferer, she needed to have a warm environment.
  5. The landlord’s stage 1 response of 8 November 2022 did little to address the resident’s ongoing concerns or move the matter forward, only stating that it had now raised a request for the necessary repairs.
  6. The landlord has a Damp Charter, which it set up in 2022. It stresses that it is committed to working with residents in a sympathetic way and will make a quick diagnosis of damp and mould, arranging inspections within 28 days or sooner. It says it has a rapid response mould removal and treatment service that it can quickly deploy to remove mould ahead of any preventative or remedial work/action. This did not happen, which was inappropriate. It was not until a gas engineer attended in December 2022 and noted that there was an issue that the landlord arranged a damp inspection. When it inspected, on 20 December 2022, it arranged for a damp and mould wash on 13 January 2023, noting on its systems that the resident was vulnerable.
  7. At this time the resident was also concerned about what she thought might be a leaking roof and understandably did not think a damp and mould wash would be sensible until the landlord resolved that. It appears from the records that this leak may have been caused by the issue with the gutters. In the landlord’s response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries, it said that the required works to the gutters have now been carried out. It said the gutters had been blocked, which caused damp to enter the property. The records show these works were carried out on 25 October 2023 but the resident had been raising concerns about the gutters since June 2022. It was inappropriate that an issue causing damp was not remedied much sooner and certainly before 17 months had elapsed.
  8. After the resident wrote again on 11 November 2022 saying “…the damp smell is increasing” and then called on 14 November 2022, the landlord registered a new complaint for her. It said it had already responded to the issue she had raised about her heating. It said that, when operatives visited on 20 July 2022 and noted that further works were required with respect to the guttering, it had raised a new order on 10 October 2022. It said a new appointment had therefore been made to erect scaffolding on 24 January 2023. It did not explain why there had been a delay from July to October 2022 and then a further delay until January 2023 before it erected scaffolding. It apologised for any frustration or upset caused by the delays but again, demonstrated no understanding or sympathy for the circumstances of the resident. We also know from the records that the visit in January 2023 was unsuccessful and that the issue was not resolved until October 2023.
  9. The landlord offered the resident £905 compensation at this point. The resident remained unhappy and the landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2, saying it had done so because she had reported that several outstanding jobs had not been completed.
  10. On 8 February 2023 the landlord raised a job to complete a mould wash to the top and second floor of the property. It noted that the resident was vulnerable and elderly. However, the reports about damp and mould had been ongoing for almost a year. Again, it was inappropriate that the landlord did not respond in a reasonable time to these reports or within its own policy guidelines, particularly for a vulnerable elderly resident.
  11. The landlord reported that, when its operatives attended to complete the mould wash, the resident did not want it to go ahead as she felt the issue with the leak should be attended to first. This was an understandable and reasonable position for the resident to take given her ongoing concerns about the source of the problems.
  12. It appears from the records that a mould wash was completed after the stage 2 response, at some time in August 2023 and in another room in December 2023. It is not clear if the problem has been fully resolved or whether the landlord specifically addressed the resident’s reports of a leak in her basement. As a result, an order is made for a survey to be conducted to ensure that any outstanding repairs are identified, logged and addressed in a reasonable time.
  13. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 23 February 2023, when it accepted that the roof inspection, roof repairs, overhauling of windows, repointing and other repairs had still not been completed. These jobs had first been raised in June 2022. This delay was in breach of the landlord’s duties under its own policies and was, therefore, inappropriate.
  14. The landlord said that its repairs team had been trying to contact the resident since February 2023 but had been unable to do so. It said that its contractors had tried the telephone number they had on file for the resident, but it did not work and there was no response to their emails. This was an unreasonable response because, firstly, the landlord had known of the issues since at least June 2022. Leaving the resident in that situation until February 2023 and then seeking to apportion blame to the resident for not being available, was not a fair approach to resolving her complaint.
  15. In an email on 2 March 2023 the resident said that the landlord had not addressed its previous gesture of goodwill, which she said was “a little low”. In relation to the accusation that the resident had not made herself available, she said, “As an elderly tenant who suffers from Cancer and arthritis, and has been chasing repairs, speaking and emailing various members of [the landlord], I find it unacceptable that your response suggests that I am at fault.” She also said that contractors had been able to contact her on her number and the landlord had her daughter’s number and could have contacted her.
  16. On 7 April 2023 the resident again contacted the landlord, saying the scaffolding was still up, and the mould wash and other repairs had still not been completed. This Service has seen no evidence to contradict this statement.
  17. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s handling of the reports of damp and mould and other potentially related issues was so poor as to warrant a finding of severe maladministration. This finding reflects the cumulative effect of the various failings identified throughout this assessment, the prolonged delays to the repairs (some of which may still be outstanding), and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, which was exacerbated by her age and ill-health.
  18. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it should consider compensation if it finds that a service failure has had an adverse effect on a resident. It lists a number of service failures, including unjustified delays, failure to follow policies or to provide a service to a published standard. It says it should consider the vulnerability of the affected household when calculating the level of compensation.
  19. The landlord did not explain how it reached the sum of £905 offered in January 2024 or demonstrate whether it had taken the resident’s vulnerabilities into account when calculating it. The resident considered that it was low, but the landlord did not make any comment on that. The Ombudsman has therefore considered, with reference to our own remedies guidance, what level of compensation was appropriate in the circumstances.
  20. Given the identified failings, the severe maladministration finding, and the resident’s particular needs and vulnerabilities, the landlord’s award of compensation is considered insufficient. There were serious failings by the landlord that likely had a seriously detrimental impact on this elderly resident, who had to continuously ask it to address potentially serious issues. Further, the correspondence demonstrates that the landlord’s handling of this case has seriously undermined the landlord/tenant relationship.
  21. The landlord repeatedly failed the resident from June 2022 to October 2023, demonstrating a failure to provide a service and it repeatedly failed to acknowledge the resident’s vulnerabilities in its communications or demonstrate sympathy for her predicament by providing an urgent response to her reports. On that basis, an order is made for the landlord to pay the resident £2,000 compensation (inclusive of the £905 already offered) in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused by its actions.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code, (the Code), issued in July 2020, sets out requirements for landlords who are members of the Scheme. Compliance with the Code forms part of the membership’s obligations. Of relevance to this investigation, the Code says, among other things:
    1. Landlords should use a 2-stage process, with stage 1 taking 10 working days and stage 2 taking 20 working days. Exceptionally, landlords can provide an explanation if they need an extension to those timeframes. (section 3.11)
    2. Where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these should be incorporated into the stage 1 response if they are relevant, and the stage 1 response has not been issued. Where the stage 1 response has been issued, or it would unreasonably delay the response, the complaint should be logged as a new complaint. (section 5.7)
  2. The resident raised a complaint about serious issues involving damp and mould on 22 June 2022 and the landlord did not issue a stage 1 response until 8 November 2022. Given the resident’s repeat contacts in the intervening months, it was inappropriate that her complaint took so long to be logged.
  3. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 8 November 2022, it incorrectly said it had received the complaint on 5 October 2022 (when it was ultimately logged), despite having acknowledged it on 26 June 2022. The landlord said it was sorry for its delay, but this was not a full acknowledgment of a delay that was 98 working days longer than it should have been.
  4. Further, the stage 1 response only ‘partly upheld’ the complaint and did not explain why it was not fully upheld. It said a works order had been raised for the required repairs, which suggested it was treating the complaint as a request for repairs, rather than an expression of dissatisfaction about its failure to complete them already. It failed to acknowledge where it had gone wrong or to make proper amends and was, therefore, inappropriate. The response also failed to acknowledge the difficulties the landlord’s almost 6-month failure to respond appropriately to the problems at the property might have caused an elderly person suffering with cancer.
  5. On 9 November 2022 the resident explained that as “…the entire wall of the property is saturated where the water is coming down”, she wanted to take her complaint further. The landlord should have treated this as an escalation, but it did not, which was inappropriate.
  6. Instead, on 14 November 2022, after the resident called to express her dissatisfaction, the landlord logged this as a new complaint. However, the issues the landlord recorded as being part of a new complaint included the general repairs that the resident had already complained about, specifically the guttering. It also included her concerns about her boiler, which was not specifically included in the 22 June 2022 complaint but which she had repeatedly reported as being faulty since that date. For instance, she referred to both the heating and the guttering issues in her 27 September 2022 chasing email, while waiting for a response to her initial complaint.
  7. Paragraph 5.2 of the Code states that, where a stage 1 response has not been issued, additional complaints should be incorporated into the stage 1 response. If a stage 1 response has been issued, fresh issues should be treated as a new complaint. This did not happen in this case as the stage 1 response only focused on the guttering repairs. It would have been appropriate, and in line with the Code, to bring all the problems raised by the resident into focus, before the stage 1 response was issued.
  8. If the landlord had set out all the complaints the resident had made since June 2022 and before the stage 1 response, it may then have been able to manage the complaint more effectively. Instead, it issued a second stage 1 response on 16 January 2023, which included the issues the resident had been dissatisfied with in the first stage 1 response.
  9. The resident escalated her complaint on 24 January 2023 after scaffolders attended and did not, in her view, complete the work. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 23 February 2023, which was only just over the 20 working days allowed in the Code and within the 25 working days allowed by the landlord’s own complaints policy. However, this Service considers that the escalation about the guttering issues occurred on 9 November 2022. Therefore, it took 73 working days for the landlord to respond at stage 2, which is 48 working days longer than it should have, and this, together with the other identified failings, amounts to maladministration.
  10. An order is therefore made for the landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused by its approach. As above, there is limited evidence of the landlord recognising the particular impact of its failings on this elderly and vulnerable resident, and this is reflected in the proposed remedy. It should be noted that the Ombudsman has made practical orders to address serious failings in the landlord’s complaint handling in other cases recently so, while relevant to the findings in this case, they are not repeated here.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
    1. Severe maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould at the property.
    2. Maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide an apology to the resident from its Chief Executive Officer. The apology should acknowledge the maladministration, accept responsibility for it, explain clearly why it happened, and express sincere regret.
    2. Pay the resident £2,300 compensation, comprising:
      1. £2,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to complete repairs at the property over 17 months. (If the landlord has already paid the resident £905, this sum should be deducted from the amount due).
      2. £300 for its complaint handling failures.
    3. Complete a survey of the property, noting any outstanding issues or repairs, preparing, if necessary, a schedule of works with a timeframe setting out when it expects to be able to complete any works required. It should provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a copy of that report.