Lambeth Council (202318322)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318322

Lambeth Council

31 October 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:
   1. report of a rat infestation at the property.
   2. request for annual reviews of the suitability and accessibility of the property.
   3. report of outstanding repairs to the property.
   4. request for adaptations to the property.
   5. report of verbal discrimination by a telephone operative.
2. The Ombudsman has also decided to investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

3. The resident has a secured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom first–floor flat. The landlord advised the property has adaptations which include rails, a toilet riser, and a fridge riser. The landlord listed the resident’s vulnerabilities as mental health problems and physical disabilities in relation to his back.
4. The resident made a disrepair claim on 9 September 2021 which was settled out of court by a settlement agreement on 8 March 2022. The settlement agreement was for £2,850 in damages, legal costs and repair works to be completed. The resident made a breach claim against the settlement agreement in October 2022 as the repairs had not been completed. He was awarded £350 compensation, and the repair work was scheduled to be completed by 23 January 2023. The resident made another breach claim when the repairs remained incomplete. This claim was settled for £300 on 10 July 2023.
5. On 24 July 2023 the resident made a complaint to the landlord about the condition of the property and outstanding repairs. The property condition and repair issues referenced were a hole in the ceiling, damp which had caused door frames, doors and skirting boards to become rotten, tiles that needed to be replaced, the need for insulation for outside walls, and electrical safety concerns. The resident requested adaptations to the property. He wanted storage and a charging port for his mobility scooter and stated an occupational therapist had recommended a wet room be installed. The resident raised issues about the suitability and accessibility of the property. He said there was an ongoing rat infestation and while the landlord had attempted to seal the holes deemed to be the access points, the problem remained. The resident said the issues affected his health and wellbeing.
6. On 14 November 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. The landlord stated the local council’s Home Improvement Agency (HIA) confirmed the resident’s request for adaptations had been acknowledged on 22 March 2023. It said the resident was on a waiting list due to a backlog. The landlord stated a housing officer attended the property on 2 August 2023 and there was no sight or smell of damp and mould. Therefore, a referral for an inspection was not made. The landlord said a work order to repair slabs on the balcony was raised but then cancelled. It said this happened as the work was part of the disrepair claim. The landlord said the resident was advised by his housing officer to complete another medical assessment for a housing transfer if his conditions had deteriorated. The housing officer had completed a referral to a support project for the resident to get some further support.
7. The landlord said there was an active disrepair claim and the disrepair team had been asked to provide a response as the case was managed outside of the complaints process. The resident was also advised he could contact his legal representatives, the disrepair team directly or the service centre regarding his disrepair case. The landlord was concerned that the resident had told the Ombudsman he had been verbally discriminated against and requested information so it could investigate. It said the pest control team coordinate their own appointments and provided the team’s contact details so the resident could book an appointment. The complaint was not upheld.
8. On 29 January 2024 the landlord issued a revised stage 1 response. It apologised for conflicting information that the resident had received and for any upset caused. The landlord provided details of the settlement agreement, the breaches and the compensation awarded. It listed the work orders that had been raised for the property and stated that 4 work orders were outstanding. The landlord said it was only responsible for flooring in the bathroom and kitchen. It advised the resident he could consider claiming for damage to some flooring on his contents insurance or the landlord’s liability insurance, if relevant. The landlord said an inspection of the property took place on 23 November 2023 and the disrepair case was closed. The landlord said a property inspection with an independent surveyor was booked for 6 February 2024. This was to inspect the works carried out in relation to the disrepair claim and the resident’s complaint. The complaint was upheld due to the confusion caused and the delays in service.
9. The resident escalated his complaint on 2 February 2024. He appreciated the landlord’s commitment to address the repairs through an independent surveyor’s visit but said there were several matters that remained unaddressed. The resident wanted the “conflicting information”, “operational inefficiencies”, “inadequate compensation” and “continued disrepair” addressed. He provided details of a call that occurred on 7 May 2022 which he stated was discriminatory and emotionally distressing. The resident also wanted the inadequate space in his property addressed. He also felt “heights and communal areas” were safety hazards and affecting his mental health.
10. On 8 March 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It apologised for the conflicting information the resident received. The landlord provided details of the settlement agreement and breach claims. It apologised if unrelated repairs had been reported and not addressed, and for any distress this had caused the resident. The landlord said repairs may have been mistaken for being part of the disrepair case. It apologised for this and said the responsive repairs team had been advised to carefully examine the history of reported repairs going forward. The landlord asked the resident to advise if there were repairs outside of the disrepair claim that remained outstanding so it could address them. It said the disrepair inspection on 6 February 2024 had identified outstanding work. The landlord stated £3,150 had already been awarded in compensation and impact on his wellbeing should have been considered in the disrepair case. It said the resident should contact his legal representative if he wanted to contest the amount or thought additional compensation was due.
11. The landlord said it was sorry the resident found communication with the call centre in May 2022 distressing. It stated that recordings were only held for 6 months so it was unable to listen to the call to investigate the allegation. The landlord advised that the call centre was unable to arrange emergency accommodation and a request for his housing officer to contact him should have been advised. It said there was a stage 1 response issued about this matter under a different complaint reference. The landlord said the resident could escalate that complaint if he remained dissatisfied. It advised that a surveyor’s report had stated that it was not deemed necessary for the resident to vacate the property while works were completed. The landlord said it had contacted the occupational therapy team about his concerns regarding inadequate space and safety hazards at the property. The occupational therapy team advised he was 48th on their waiting list and his case was due to be allocated shortly. It said the resident was in band B on the housing register, therefore he was able to bid for another property.
12. On 22 March 2024 the resident contacted this Service as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. The resident said a recent survey of the property had found repair work remained outstanding. As a result, the resident said he was using facilities in public gyms to wash. The resident wanted to be temporarily rehoused as his health was being affected.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

13. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is set out in the Housing Ombudsman 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, or part of a complaint will not be investigated.
14. Under paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”. This Service is unable to consider the report of a rat infestation at the property as the resident did not ask to escalate this matter. Therefore, this issue was not addressed at stage two of the landlord’s complaints process and did not exhaust the landlord’s complaint procedure.
15. The resident’s landlord is a local council. Where a council is concerned, the Ombudsman can only investigate complaints that relate to its management and provision of social housing. Complaints about other functions and services councils provide, fall under the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). Paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme states “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
16. This Service is unable to consider the resident’s request for annual reviews of the suitability and accessibility of his property. This is because these reviews are for social services to conduct. The resident has raised this matter with social services so the LGSCO would be the relevant Ombudsman to contact. Social services are provided as part of the local council’s wider obligations and not undertaken as part of the local council’s role as a landlord.

Scope of investigation

17. A settlement agreement for the resident’s disrepair claim was reached between the landlord’s and resident’s solicitors in March 2022. The resident advised this Service that the landlord did not complete the disrepair work in line with the timescale agreed in the settlement agreement. Therefore, the resident made breach claims. This Service does not have the authority to enforce legal settlements. Paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme states, “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”. Therefore, if the resident wishes to address breaches of the settlement agreement or anything relating to his disrepair claim, he should pursue this through the courts. This investigation focuses on outstanding repairs that are not related to the resident’s disrepair claim, up to the date of the landlord’s final response on 8 March 2024.
18. Section 114 (1) of the Equality Act 2010, states the county court has the jurisdiction to decide if there has been discrimination or other prohibited conduct. The Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, under paragraph 52 of the Scheme, is to determine whether there has been maladministration. The Housing Ombudsman does not seek to determine whether discrimination has taken place. Paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme states, “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”. Therefore, this Service is unable to consider the resident’s allegation of verbal discrimination but can consider whether the landlord acted fairly in responding to his allegation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of outstanding repairs to the property.

19. The landlord’s repairs manual says it is responsible for maintaining the structure of the property. It states the landlord’s responsibilities include repairs to roofs, guttering, walls, skirting boards, frames, sills, ceilings and baths. The landlord also has repair obligations under section 11 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 which places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
20. The evidence showed the resident experienced delays in getting repairs that were not related to his disrepair claim carried out. In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised “if unrelated repairs were reported and not addressed”. It said, “reported repairs may have been mistaken for being handled under your disrepair cases”. The landlord stated in its stage 2 response that the responsive repairs team had been advised to carefully examine the history of reported repairs going forward to ensure this did not occur again. This was an appropriate and reasonable approach when the errors were identified.
21. This Service was able to identify from the evidence that the resident experienced a delay in getting repairs to his balcony carried out. The landlord’s complaint responses imply that there were other repairs that were mistakenly included in the resident’s disrepair case. However, from the evidence provided, this Service was unable to establish what these other repairs may have been.
22. A housing officer visited the resident in August 2023 and a work order was raised on 16 August 2023 for some balcony slabs to be repaired. However, this work order was cancelled, and the works were reissued to a disrepair work order. This was inappropriate as this repair was not related to the resident’s disrepair claim and should have been managed in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
23. An operative attended the property on 30 August 2023 to carry out the balcony repair but instead reported a multi trade operative was needed for this work. However, no further action was taken when the operative made this request. The landlord stated in its stage 1 follow up response dated 29 January 2024 that it was unclear why a multi trade operative had been requested and confirmed the work was outstanding. This was 166 calendar days after the original work order was raised on 16 August 2023. This delay was inappropriate and not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy that states routine repairs of this nature will be fixed “within 28 days”. It is unclear from the evidence provided when, or if, the balcony was repaired.
24. The landlord had appropriately recorded the resident’s vulnerabilities. However, the landlord did not appear to have considered how the resident was being affected by the delays and confusion regarding his repairs. The resident expressed the distress he was experiencing throughout his communication.
25. Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of outstanding repairs to the property. In the Ombudsman’s view, the resident’s repairs were mismanaged by the landlord. This meant repairs unrelated to the resident’s disrepair case were not managed appropriately in line with the landlord’s repairs policy, resulting in delays and causing the resident distress.
26. To reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of this matter, the landlord should award the resident £100 in compensation. This is because of the distress and inconvenience likely caused to the resident and the length of time it took for the landlord to address the repairs. This amount is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is the maximum compensation for service failure. The landlord is ordered to review the resident’s repair reports to check if there are any outstanding work orders and to carry out any outstanding repairs identified. If not already done so, the landlord must carry out the repair to the balcony slabs.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptations to the property.

27. The resident’s request for adaptations was handled by the occupational therapy department and the Home Improvement Agency (HIA). These services are provided as part of the local council’s wider obligations and not undertaken as part of the local council’s role as a landlord. Therefore, the landlord was not responsible for processing adaptations. However, when the resident raised concerns about his request for adaptations during the complaints process, the landlord contacted the HIA and occupational therapy department to get updates on the resident’s referral. This was reasonable and a customer-focused approach.
28. In the stage 1 response the landlord stated it had contacted the HIA. The HIA advised the landlord that the resident’s referral for adaptations was received in March 2023 and acknowledged on 22 March 2023. The landlord was informed that the resident was on a waiting list. This was because there was a backlog in processing referrals for adaptations. The landlord advised the resident of this information.
29. In the stage 2 response the landlord stated it had contacted the occupational therapy department for an update. The occupational therapy department advised the landlord that the resident was due to have a wet floor shower and scooter housing installed. The landlord was informed that the resident was currently 48th on the waiting list and his case was anticipated to be allocated shortly. The landlord advised the resident of this information.
30. Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptations to the property. This is because the landlord contacted the relevant departments to get updated on the progress of the resident’s referral for adaptations. It then updated the resident accordingly in its complaint responses which was appropriate.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of verbal discrimination by a telephone operative.

31. In its stage 1 response the landlord expressed concern about the resident’s report of verbal discrimination regarding disability. The landlord requested information from the resident about this incident so it could investigate. This was appropriate.
32. The resident provided the landlord with the requested information in his escalation email on 2 February 2024. He said the incident took place whilst he was on the telephone to the out of hours call centre on 7 May 2022. The resident reported the response he got from the call centre operative was “discriminatory and emotionally distressing”. The resident said he wanted the incident thoroughly investigated.
33. In the stage 2 response the landlord said it was sorry the resident found communication with the call centre distressing in May 2022. The landlord said that the call recordings are only held for 6 months so it was unable to listen to the call to investigate the allegation. As the landlord was unable to listen to the call recording it was reasonable and fair for the landlord to conclude it was unable to investigate the resident’s allegation. The Ombudsman expects residents to bring complaints to the attention of their landlord as a formal complaint within 12 months of the matters arising.
34. Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of verbal discrimination by a telephone operative. This is because the matter was brought as a formal complaint more than 12 months from the incident and the call recording was no longer available for the landlord to listen to. Therefore, it was reasonable and fair that the landlord was unable to investigate the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

35. The landlord operates a two-stage complaint process. At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord allowed 20 working days for stage one responses and 25 working days for stage two responses. These timescales were from its corporate complaints policy, which was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code).
36. The resident raised his complaint on 24 July 2023. The landlord’s complaints department acknowledged the complaint on the same date. It advised that the resident’s complaint would be referred to the relevant department and a further acknowledgement would be received within 2 working days. There was no evidence of the resident receiving a stage 1 response to this complaint, which was a breach of the Code. Not receiving a stage 1 response delayed the resident being able to progress his complaint through the landlord’s complaints process. It also delayed the resident being able to bring his complaint to this Service.
37. As the resident did not get a response from his landlord, he contacted the Ombudsman. When this Service requested the landlord issue a response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord stated the resident had not complained to it about these issues. However, as referenced above, the evidence showed the resident had contacted the landlord about these matters on 24 July 2023. The landlord had acknowledged the resident’s complaint on the same date.
38. The resident experienced delays in getting the disrepair elements of his complaint addressed. The landlord did not address the disrepair in its stage 1 response. The Ombudsman requested the landlord issue a revised stage 1 response. This was because the Code states that the landlord must address all points raised in complaints. The Ombudsman appreciates why the landlord mistakenly thought it did not need to address the disrepair in its response. However, when the Ombudsman advised the landlord of the reasons why it needed to respond and requested the revised response be issued within 10 working days, the landlord did not adhere to this deadline. This further delayed the resident being able to progress his complaint through the landlord’s complaints process and to bring his complaint to this Service.
39. The revised stage 1 response should have been issued by 14 December 2023. When the resident did not receive this, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord again regarding this matter. On 24 January 2024, which was 26 working days after the revised stage 1 was due to be issued, the landlord contacted this Service requesting an extension until 30 January 2024. This was a further delay for the resident. The landlord issued its revised stage 1 response on 29 January 2024.
40.  Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because the landlord did not issue a stage 1 response after acknowledging the resident’s complaint dated 24 July 2023. This was not in line with the Code. This prevented the resident from progressing his complaint through the landlord’s complaint process and being able to bring his complaint to this Service. These opportunities were further delayed for the resident when the landlord took until 29 January 2024 to reissue its revised stage 1 response. The landlord also did not make a request for an extension to the deadline for issuing the response until after the deadline had elapsed. Therefore, the landlord did not appropriately manage the resident’s expectations.
41. To reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling failures, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to award £150 compensation to the resident. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

42. In accordance with paragraph 42a of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of a rat infestation at the property is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
43. In accordance with paragraph 42j of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of his request for annual reviews of the suitability and accessibility of the property is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
44. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s report of outstanding repairs to the property.
45. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for adaptations to the property.
46. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s report of verbal discrimination.
47. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

48. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £250. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not applied to his rent account. The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with this order within 4 weeks of the date of this report by submitting a copy of the remittance advice, or equivalent document, to this Service. The compensation is comprised of:
    1. £100 in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of outstanding repairs to the property.
    2. £150 for the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
49. The landlord is ordered to review the resident’s repair reports to check if there are any outstanding work orders and to carry out any outstanding repairs identified. This review and any outstanding repairs must be completed within 12 weeks of the date of this report. Compliance with this order must be evidenced by sending this Service a list of the work orders for the resident’s property detailing the repair listed and the status of the work order, from 23 July 2022, which is 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint, up to and including 8 March 2024, which was the date of the landlord’s stage 2 response.
50. The landlord is ordered to carry out the repair to the resident’s balcony, if not already done so. This repair must be completed within 12 weeks of the date of this report and evidenced by sending this Service a copy of the completed work order detailing the work carried out. If the landlord has already completed this repair, the landlord must send this Service a copy of the historical completed work order within 12 weeks of the date of this order.

Recommendations

51. It is recommended the landlord use an independent surveyor to carry out an inspection of the resident’s property to identify any outstanding repairs.
52. It is recommended that the landlord conduct a review of its record-keeping practices to ensure complaints are appropriately logged and responded to. The landlord should consider, if it has not done so already, implementing a knowledge and information management strategy, in line with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management.
53. It is recommended that the landlord carries out complaint handling refresher training with its staff to include the Ombudsman’s guidance on pre-action protocol for housing conditions claims and service complaints.