Lambeth Council (202344169)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202344169
Lambeth Council
28 February 2025
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
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs following a car hitting the property.
- The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
Background
- The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord which began on 16 August 2018. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a 3-bedroom semi-detached house. The resident has been undergoing treatment for health conditions, the landlord is aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
- On 7 January 2024 the resident informed the landlord that a car had driven into her property. The landlord attended on this same date to make safe the front door, which had come off the hinges.
- On 8 February 2024 the landlord cleared the rubble outside the house from the brick wall, as it was a safety concern. On 23 February 2024 a contractor carried out an inspection of the property. The resident raised issues with the brick wall, the garden fence, the front door, the canopy over the door, a loose drainpipe, and internal and external cracks around the front door.
- On 4 March 2024 the Ombudsman contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident. The resident said:
a. she wanted to raise a complaint.
b. she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of multiple repairs following a car hitting the property. This included potential severe structural damage, which she said was a health and safety risk.
c. there was water ingress in the property during rainfall, due to the damage caused by the car.
d. she wanted the landlord to investigate the damage and complete the repairs.
e. she wanted compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the handling of the repairs.
f. she had poor health. She also said she was struggling to heat the property, and this was affecting her finances.
- The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 5 March 2024 and agreed to respond by 20 March 2024. On 5 April 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. The response:
a. upheld the resident’s complaint.
b. acknowledged that the repairs had not been carried out.
c. apologised for the delay in responding to the resident, the delay in the repairs being addressed, and its poor communication about the issues.
d. set out an action plan to complete the repairs. It agreed to complete repairs to the cracks around the door, the drainpipe and the fence by 14 May 2024. It agreed to replace the door and the canopy by 09 August 2024.
e. offered £160 in compensation due to the delay, and the time and trouble it took to resolve the matter.
f. assigned a member of the landlord’s repairs team to telephone the resident on a weekly basis to check on progress and provide information until the repairs had been completed.
- On 8 April 2024 the resident telephoned the landlord to escalate the complaint. She told the landlord that she had been receiving treatment for her health condition, which made it difficult to use email. She said it had been 3 months since the incident and that she was receiving texts saying that the work was completed. She said she had phoned the repairs team, and they had sent someone out to take photographs, but the contractors had not done any of the repair works.
- On 14 May 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord:
a. apologised that the resident was told by its call centre that works had been completed when they had not been.
b. said it would feedback this failing to its customer service manager to make improvements.
c. provided a breakdown of the outstanding repairs and the new timescales for completion.
d. said that the service the resident received fell below their usual standards.
e. advised the resident of her right to escalate the complaint.
- On 21 May 2024 the resident contacted us to investigate the complaint. She said the repairs were taking too long and this was affecting her health and energy costs. She said she was losing heat in the property due to cracks around the door and that there was water ingress when it rained. She said the repairs remained outstanding. The resident wanted compensation, and for the landlord to complete repairs.
Assessment and findings
Scope of the investigation
- The resident said the landlord’s handling of the repairs caused her distress and made her health conditions worse. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact the disrepair has had on her health. Unlike a court we cannot establish what caused the health decline or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim. The resident may wish to obtain independent legal advice on this issue. However, where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
The landlord’s handling of the residents reports of repairs following a car hitting the property
- The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs says that landlords should:
a. agree actions and timescales for responding in line with their policies and obligations and confirm these in writing.
b. inform the resident of any delays and explain why these are necessary.
c. monitor progress and have accessible records of appointments, inspection reports, work orders and completion dates for their own repairs service and for any contractors.
- The landlord’s repairs and damp policy says that it aims to investigate disrepair claims promptly and establish liability, and resolve disrepair claims quickly and effectively to improve customer satisfaction.
- The landlord’s repairs and damp policy outlines 6 different repair category timescales. Emergency repairs are defined as “when the problem could cause serious health and safety problems or severe damage if not fixed or made safe. The policy states:
a. urgent emergency repairs – fix within 24 hours.
b. emergency repairs – fix within 1 working day.
c. routine 1 – fix within 3 days, for example repairing a front door lock.
d. routine 1 – fix within 7 days, for example repairing estate lighting.
e. routine 2 – fix within 28 days, for example repairing a ceiling.
f. routine 3 (planned repair) – fix within 90 days, for example non-urgent work to prevent problems arising in the future.
The front door, including internal cracks around the door
- On 7 January 2024 the resident reported that her front door was hanging off of the hinges due to the collision. On this same date the landlord attended to make safe the door – this was a temporary fix which enabled the resident to use and lock the door. This was a reasonable response from the landlord and in line with its repairs policy.
- On 10 April 2024, contractors measured the space for a replacement front door. On 25 June 2024 a new door was fitted. The landlord informed the resident of the delay in the stage 1 complaint response and replaced the door within the new target set in the response. Though the landlord took steps to mitigate the negative impact on the resident with a temporary fix, it still took the landlord 171 days for the landlord to fit a replacement door. This was not in line with the timescales outlined in its policy. In the stage 1 complaint response, the landlord explains that the door wasn’t ordered until April 2024. This was not a reasonable excuse for the delay, nor was a reason the delay communicated to the resident before she complained.
- On 18 January 2023, the resident requested a structural surveyor inspection to assess the integrity of the building due to feeling unsafe from the force of the collision. The surveyor inspection took place on 23 February 2024, 48 days after the collision, 27 days after the resident’s request. The landlord’s policy states that a repair is an emergency when the problem could cause serious health and safety problems. The landlord should have inspected the property within 24 hours of the collision to satisfy itself that the structure of the property was safe.
- In the absence of an inspection within 24 hours from the collision, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have undertaken an inspection within 24 hours of the resident’s explicit request on 18 January 2024. The delay in undertaking this inspection was unreasonable and not in line with its repairs policy. Additionally, the landlord did not explain to the resident how her repairs were categorised or provide timescales until the complaint responses. This was a missed opportunity to manage her expectations.
- The landlord has not provided a copy of the inspection report, so it is not clear on exactly what works were agreed. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord agreed to complete repairs to the external and internal cracks around the front door by 14 May 2024. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord set a new completion date of 17 May 2024 to repair both cracks. The landlord apologised to the resident for the delay in undertaking an inspection and completing the repairs. It said that all the repairs fell within its planned works category, with a 90-day completion target.
- According to the landlord’s repair records, the repairs to the internal cracks around the door were completed on 17 May 2024, 132 days after the service request. This delay was outside the policy timeframe, which was a failing.
- In her initial complaint to the landlord on 04 March 2024, the resident said there was water ingress, and the cracks around the front door were preventing her from heating the property efficiently. She said this was affecting her health and finances.
- In her complaint to us on 21 May 2024, the resident reports the water ingress as an ongoing issue. Although the landlord had logged the internal cracks around the door as repaired, there is no evidence that the landlord then assessed whether the repair to the internal cracks had addressed the water ingress reported by the resident. The failure to investigate the reports of water ingress is not compliant with the landlord’s repairs policy or the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to put things right.
The drainpipe
- On 6 February 2024 the resident telephoned the landlord and reported that a drainpipe had come off of the wall due to the impact of the collision. An inspection took place on 23 February 2024. On 3 April 2024 the landlord raised a works order. The repair records indicate that the drainpipe repair was completed on 24 April 2024, though the stage 2 complaint response said it was completed on 16 April 2024. It took 79 days for the landlord to repair the drainpipe from the date the resident reported it. This is inside the timescales for a routine repair, which is reasonable. However, had the landlord carried out an inspection on 7 January 2024, when it was notified about the collision, the repair would likely have been carried out sooner.
- The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on repairs states that it is good practice for landlords to agree actions and timescales for responding in line with their policies and obligations and confirm these in writing to the resident. There is no evidence that the landlord communicated to the resident whether it considered the drainpipe repair to be emergency or routine before the stage 1 response, which is unreasonable. Additionally, the target date of 14 May 2024 for completion of the drainpipe repair set in the stage 1 complaint response was outside the 90-day timescale for routine repairs outlined in the policy. Though the drainpipe was repaired within 90-days of the landlord being on notice, the target was out of line with policy, which is confusing and unreasonable.
The remaining repairs
- Between 7 January 2024 and the stage 2 complaint response on 14 May 2024, the landlord raised works orders in relation to:
a. a wooden fence.
b. the wooden gate.
c. an external crack in the wall of the building.
d. the canopy over the front door.
- The resident has also said in their complaint escalation to this Service that repairs to the brick boundary wall in the garden are outstanding.
- On 23 April 2024 a contractor emailed the landlord about repairs to the boundary brick wall. They had spoken to the resident, who said the brick wall would need renewing. She wanted the brick wall to be replaced ‘like for like’ instead of a fence put in.
- There is no guidance in the landlord’s repairs policy on ‘like for like’ repairs. Without obligations to provide these repairs, it is at the discretion of the landlord to provide a boundary. In this case, based on the evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord has decided to replace the brick boundary with fencing. While this is a reasonable decision, the landlord failed to communicate the reasons for its decision to the resident. The lack of transparency in the landlord’s decision making is unreasonable.
- The landlord’s records show that contractors attended the property on at least 4 occasions between 7 January 2024 and 3 July 2024. The resident reported to this Service and the landlord that the contractors would attend, take photographs of the issues and on occasion take measurements of the garden gate.
- The resident has informed us that the repairs outlined in paragraph 25 remain outstanding. The landlord was put on notice of these repairs on 7 January 2024. The delays fall significantly outside the 90-day completion date outlined in the policy, and the additional timescales outlined in the stage 2 complaint response. In failing to complete the repairs, the landlord has fallen short of the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to put things right.
Conclusion
- The Ombudsman notes that the landlord attempted to put things right in response to the resident’s concerns about its communication and the progress of the repairs. For example, the landlord assigned a point of contact for the resident and said that she would be phoned weekly until all works were completed. This response was appropriate.
- There are no records of these telephone calls on the landlord’s case file. The resident told this Service that it was helpful to have a point of contact, even though the progress on repairs was slow. The resident told us that the point of contact telephoned her on 4 occasions, the final telephone call was on 15 May 2024. The landlord has provided no explanation to the resident as to why the telephone calls stopped, despite the fact the works remained incomplete. The landlord failed to adhere to the agreement set out in the stage 1 complaint. This was not reasonable. Had the point of contact continued to phone the resident weekly, the landlord would have been better able to manage her expectations around the repairs and provided reasons for the delays.
- The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord acknowledged the delays in its complaint responses. It offered compensation to the resident in an attempt to ‘put things right’. However, we have found maladministration because:
a. the repairs to the outside of the house are outstanding. The landlord has not communicated the reasons for the delay to the resident, nor has it provided updated timescales for the remaining repairs.
b. there was a delay in carrying out an inspection.
c. the landlord failed to address the water ingress.
d. there were delays completing the repairs.
e. The landlord has not discussed replacing the brick wall with the resident.
- The resident reported to us and to the landlord that the delays in getting the repairs completed worsened her health, cost her financially and caused her distress and inconvenience. She reports that the outstanding repairs to the outside area have impacted her ability to sleep for fear of another collision. Though the landlord has recorded that the resident has health issues, there is no evidence that the landlord has considered the households vulnerabilities in its handling of the repairs.
- The Ombudsman is unable to assess whether the landlord has completed all the repairs to a good standard, and whether the repairs have resolved the issues the resident has complained of. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered the landlord to complete a survey of the property to inspect the repair works it has completed and the outstanding issues the resident has complained of, providing all parties with copies of the report.
- The landlord offered the resident £160 compensation. While the landlord attempted to ‘put things right’ with its offer of compensation, the offer was not quite proportionate to the failures identified in this investigation. With consideration of our remedies guidance, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £400 to recognise the delays in the landlord addressing the repairs and the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The landlord’s complaint handling
- The Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states that landlords must issue a full response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged. If all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2. Landlords must issue a final response to the stage 2 escalation within 20 working days of the complaint being acknowledged. The Code states that landlords must:
a. respond to complaints and complaint escalations within a reasonable time.
b. respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint.
c. offer appropriate remedies to resolve the complaint.
d. offer appropriate advice about residents’ ability to escalate their complaint to this Service.
- The landlord’s complaint policy is compliant with the Code.
- The resident raised a complaint via this Service on 4 March 2024. The landlord provided it stage 1 complaint response on 5 April 2024, which was 24 working days later. There is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude this delay was reasonable or unavoidable, or that the landlord informed the resident about this delay. This was not appropriate, as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy or the Code.
- In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord outlined the key aspects of the complaint and offered several appropriate remedies with timescales. The landlord apologised for the delay and upheld the resident’s complaint. The landlord provided the resident with point of contact who would telephone the resident weekly to keep her informed of progress. This is complaint with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle put things right.
- As outlined earlier in this report, the landlord also failed to address the reports of water ingress and the impact this was having on the resident. Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to resolve the resident’s complaint. It is evident the landlord did not consider the water ingress or the resident’s health when prioritising the repair.
- The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 14 May 2024, 26 working days after the complaint escalation. While the delay was not excessive, the landlord failed to evidence that it had contacted the resident about the delay. This was not consistent with the landlord’s policy or the Code.
- In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord apologised that the resident was misinformed by its call centre in respect of the repairs. Both at stage 1 and stage 2, the landlord also said it had raised the failings to the relevant managers to prevent similar issues happening in future. This response is in keeping with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle ‘learning from outcomes.’
- The landlord upheld the complaint at stage 1 and then partially at stage 2. Considering all the circumstances, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints, in that it:
a. unreasonably delayed in providing its complaint responses – both at stage 1 and stage 2.
b. failed to address the water ingress in its responses.
c. failed to consider further compensation for the failures identified at Stage 2.
- The Ombudsman has recommended that the landlord offers the resident compensation of £100 in relation to the complaint handling. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principals to put things right.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of repairs following a car hitting the property.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
Orders
- Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £500 compensation, comprised of:
a. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs following a car hitting the property. This is inclusive of the £160 already offered.
b. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
- Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident to arrange and undertake an inspection of the property to identify an action plan for any outstanding repairs. This must include specific reference to the reported water ingress.
- The landlord must provide a written report to the Ombudsman and the resident within 10 working days of the inspection, which must set out a schedule of works, together with indicative timescales to complete any repairs that are found to be outstanding. This report must also confirm the landlord’s position on the brick boundary wall, with reasons for the decision and reference to its policies.
- The landlord should provide this Service with evidence to confirm it has complied with the orders above within the specified timescales.