Lewes District Council (202343599)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202343599

Lewes District Council

21 November 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (asb).
3. The landlord’s regard for the needs of the resident’s household
4. The landlord’s handing of the resident’s associated complaint.
5. The landlord’s handling of her rehousing request.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord, a local authority. The tenancy is joint with her husband. The couple live with their 3 children in a flat. The family have multiple needs, brought to the attention of the landlord at the start of the tenancy.
The resident reported to the landlord incidents around her block of flats and in communal areas that caused her family anxiety and distress. This included asb, loud noises, groups congregating and waste in common areas. The resident also raised reports about the condition of her kitchen units, mould in the bathroom and kitchen, and the kitchen sink plumbing. She made the landlord aware of difficulties using the kitchen tap linked to the effects of her husband’s disability.
The landlord undertook various repairs actions. It told the resident that it was handling local estate issues and provided an update after she chased contact.
On 28 August 2023 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She said that it:
1. Had failed to appropriately handle her reports about incidents in the immediate and communal areas. The landlord had failed to communicate.
2. Did not consider or recognise the family’s needs and the effect of their housing circumstances. This included internal storage. She felt ignored.
3. Had failed to deal with repair issues and had communicated poorly.
Before the landlord’s response, it arranged to inspect the resident’s kitchen. It authorised for some kitchen units to be replaced and the taps changed.
The landlord issued its first stage response on 17 October 2023. It apologised for the delay, explaining that this was due to staff shortages. It acknowledged limitations on its local services in early 2023 due to staff absences, staff training, and budgets. However, it considered it had taken all available actions and acted in line with its policies and procedures. It admitted delay progressing concerns about the kitchen from April 2023 due to its administrative error. It apologised. It set out information about its repairing priorities.
The landlord carried out works to the resident’s kitchen and plumbing on 30 October 2023. She raised a further complaint on 2 November 2023 that the works had led to a large leak and water damage to her belongings. She described a failure by the landlord to make reasonable adjustments in its communication and planning of the arrangements. The resident submitted a request to escalate her original complaint on 27 December 2023. As well as concerns relating to the landlord’s first stage response, she included issues about how it had handled the further remedial steps it had taken. The landlord agreed to consider the intervening issues as part of her escalated complaint.
The landlord installed a bathroom fan in early January 2024. It updated its system to record the resident’s household vulnerabilities the day of its final complaint response, 7 March 2024. In its response the landlord said it was sorry for its delayed reply, describing difficulties with workload levels and staffing. It apologised for communication issues and advised the resident to continue logging incidents. It apologised for how its repair arrangements were handled, the standard of its service and damage to her belongings. It upheld the resident’s complaint, noting that it had not been able to review relevant evidence from its services. It set out the further steps it was taking to resolve outstanding items and an explanation for mismatching doors. It offered the resident £100 for time and trouble and £147 for specific damage to the resident’s belongings.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

The resident raised concerns about how the landlord handled her request for rehousing, including the assessment of her allocation banding. The Ombudsman has not reviewed these matters within its investigation as they fall outside of its jurisdiction. Paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme states that this Service may not investigate complaints that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. The allocation of housing under the Housing Act 1996 by the local authority is a matter for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

Scope of investigation

Under the rules of the Scheme in use at the time of the resident’s complaint, this Service may not investigate complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, normally considered as within 6 months of the matters arising. The resident’s complaint was brought to the landlord in August 2023. The resident described difficulties repeatedly raising concerns in writing due to the level of caring responsibilities and the effects of her own disabilities. In these circumstances and considering the relevance of the period end of 2022 and early 2023 to her complaint, also reviewed by the landlord, this Service considers it reasonable to consider the period from August 2022.
Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident has said this situation has had a detrimental impact on her health and wellbeing and that of her family. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s experience, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link arising from the landlord’s action or inaction. The resident may wish to seek independent advice about whether she has cause to make a personal injury claim. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s repair reports

This landlord’s records of its handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of her home were limited. Its repairs logs did not allow a complete understanding of any actions it had taken. Many repair jobs had an assigned ‘completed’ status. However this status was used for works carried out as well as for items deemed completed for other reasons, for example those outside of its obligations or priorities. While it mentioned visits it had made to the property in correspondence, it kept no detailed or appropriate records of its attendances and discussions with the resident. It had no records of phone or attendance notes of its contact with the resident or her household about the repairs. For example, the inspection visit in September 2023.
The landlord is responsible for failing to maintain reasonable records. This significantly impacted the ability of this Service to assess how the landlord handled the resident’s repair reports. Limited findings have been made from the records made available. The landlord’s poor record keeping adversely impacted the resident’s recourse to a fuller investigation.
At the time of the resident’s complaint, it was evident from the records supplied that:
1. The resident reported her kitchen units as falling apart 9 months earlier. The landlord noted these as in poor condition in April 2023. It took no action to repair or replace the units.
2. The resident experienced repeated issues with leaking from kitchen plumbing that she reported in February, March, May and June 2023. The landlord noted each report as ‘completed’, however it is unclear what action it took. The repeat nature of reports indicated that a complete repair was not conducted for over 20 weeks.
3. The resident reported mould in the bathroom and kitchen 2 weeks prior. The landlord recommended works to support the management of damp conditions in the bathroom on 28 August 2023. There is no evidence it considered the kitchen.
The landlord was under an obligation to the resident in accordance with section 11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property and in working order any installations for the supply of water. The landlord was also responsible, by operation of the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, to ensure that the property was fit for human habitation. The existence of any hazard as defined by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System was a relevant factor to assessing fitness. Hazards arise from faults or deficiencies that could cause harm to occupants and include damp and mould growth and risks of falling elements. Related repair or other remedial action was required within a reasonable period.
Each of the issues outstanding at the point of the resident’s complaint were likely to fall under 1 or both of the landlord’s above statutory obligations. This Service cannot be satisfied from the evidence considered that it acted in line with its obligations. The landlord’s records show a delay in considering if it was required to repair or remove or reduce potential hazards in the kitchen.
Although the issues reported by the resident carried associated risks, there is no evidence that the landlord considered any ongoing potential harm to the household to inform its response. There is no record that it had regard to any reasonable interim measures that could be offered in line with its mould procedure, for example a timely mould wash pending remedial works, temporary repairs or alternative storage.
The landlord arranged to inspect the resident’s kitchen following her complaint. Although the landlord promised the resident an inspection on 13 September 2023, it raised no further actions until the end of that month. The landlord completed works in the kitchen to the plumbing and units at the end of October 2023. This represented delay, the remedial work was significantly outside of a reasonable period of time following the resident’s original reports.
There was no evidence of any progress by the landlord of measures to resolve damp in the bathroom until January 2024 when it installed an extractor fan. This was 4 months after the landlord had noted the need for this action. This was an unreasonable delay considering the harms associated with damp living conditions, the vulnerability of the household and the timescales set by its own repairing priorities.
The landlord’s records show that it raised an order for a kitchen extractor fan in early February 2024, more than 5 months after the resident’s report of damp in the area. This was outstanding at the point of the landlord’s final response. There is no evidence that the landlord took remedial steps within a reasonable period to resolve any repairs linked to damp in the kitchen.
In its first stage complaint response the landlord admitted that it failed to take action in a timely manner for the kitchen units and apologised. However, it failed to acknowledge the accurate extent of its delay, noting only the date that it operatives confirmed the poor condition of the units. It did not acknowledge the earlier date the matter was reported by the resident. It failed to consider the resident’s account about advice provided by its staff. Its apology did not reflect the full extent of its failings and was an insufficient remedy to reflect the level of its delay and the particular impact on the resident’s family. The landlord’s response also failed to explore and address her complaint about its handling of her reports about the kitchen plumbing.
The landlord reasonably agreed to consider within the resident’s complaint the issue of damp and her concerns about the standard of works completed to the kitchen in October 2023. The landlord’s final response apologised for damage caused to the resident’s belongings arising from its works and offered specific compensation for the items. It also went further than its first reply by apologising more widely that its repairs service did not meet service standards and offered £100 for the resident’s time and trouble. It identified the further action to install a fan in the kitchen.
However, its final response failed to show reasonable exploration of its prior handling of the resident’s damp report, or her concerns about the fitting of the new units, for example gaps in the doors. This left her without reasonable investigation into and answers to her concerns. The landlord’s admission was wide and failed to consider all of the specific points that were important to the resident and part of her complaint. By failing to appropriately explore its handling, the landlord missed opportunities for learning, for example how it assessed risk. It also affected the ability of its apology to redress the particular detriment caused. It is evident from review of the landlord’s complaint handling records that the fullness of its investigation was hampered by internal issues compiling relevant records. This impacted its own ability to self-reflect and reflect the resident’s experience. While its apology went some way towards showing an admission of responsibility, it did not go far enough.
The landlord provided a reasonable explanation about why it was unable to match the doors to the other units and offered details of its intended kitchen replacement timescale.
Both the first and second stage responses from the landlord included standard paragraphs about how it was handling repairs priorities and the pressures it faced. The limitations described had little relevance to the nature of the resident’s complaint or the apparent causes for its failings. The inclusion of this rather lengthy standard information placed at risk the clarity of its response and detracted from its acceptance of failing. Although such explanation undoubtedly has a place in managing expectations, its inclusion to the resident was inappropriate.
The landlord’s failings in its handling of the resident’s repair reports were multiple and had an adverse effect on her household. Its record keeping failings were significant and not only impacted this Service’s assessment of its handling but its own level of investigation and complaint response. It was responsible for the resident experiencing unreasonable delays. Of greatest impact, its delays caused prolonged distress to a vulnerable household, aggravating the detriment caused. The resident, a carer for her family and living with her own personal challenges, incurred unnecessary time and trouble chasing and raising issues to the landlord. This added to the burdens she faced during this time and exacerbated the distress she experienced.
While the landlord offered suitable specific compensation for damaged items of £147, its offer of £100 for time and trouble fell below a proportionate level of financial redress to reflect this detriment. The landlord’s attempt to put things right did not go far enough in its identification of issues, its admission or its offered remedy. It failed to show consideration for the particular impact on a vulnerable family.
The landlord is therefore responsible for maladministration in its handling of the resident’s repair reports. It is ordered to pay compensation to the resident of £350. This sum is within the appropriate range of awards set out in this Service’s remedies guidance for situations such as this, where the landlord has acknowledged some failings, but failed to address the detriment to the resident and the offer made was disproportionate. It must also pay the £100 previously offered by its complaint response, unless this has already been paid to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour

This Service requested relevant records from the landlord about its handling of the resident’s reports of asb or those of her household on their behalf. This was important to enable a full understanding of what reports were made in the relevant period, what the landlord considered, how it handled its contact with the resident and any response or actions. The landlord failed to supply reasonable records. It provided no contemporaneous record of:
1. Any investigation into the resident’s reports, for example local inspections.
2. The actions it took to support resolution eg warnings.
3. Letters it received from professionals supporting the family that detailed concerns.
There was very limited record of any contact it had with the resident about her reports outside of its complaint responses. Although its records made reference to a home visit, there was no record of a visit, or of the content of any discussion or any follow up confirmation of advice given or actions agreed, if any.
The limited nature of the landlord’s records prevented this Service from gaining a thorough understanding of how it handled reports made across the relevant period. This regrettably impacted this Service’s assessment.
It is apparent from the evidence that the resident, whether by herself or through her husband, reported asb concerns to the landlord across the second half of 2022. The resident or her husband had contact with the landlord’s local office and made other attempts to reach the service. However, the only record of this contact was a single email on 22 August 2022. There is no evidence of any action in response or communication from the landlord in the second half of 2022 or the first 5 months of 2023. It appears that the resident and her husband’s concerns about asb and its impact were ignored and no action taken.
In the circumstances, this Service cannot be satisfied that the landlord took reasonable actions in response to the resident’s reports. This was a complete failure by the landlord to adhere to its asb policy, customer service standards and act in accordance with best practice statutory guidance. Its failure to act or communicate with the family is of particular concern considering the level of household vulnerabilities of which the landlord was aware. There is no record of any form of risk assessment to consider the potential for any harm arising to the family.
The landlord supplied a copy of a report made to it in May 2023 by the resident. She detailed conduct on the immediate estate, including waste in communal areas and a serious threatening incident. The activities were described as having a serious adverse impact on her vulnerable family. The landlord’s response was minimal. While it did initially acknowledge contact, provide assurance that it was dealing with issues on the estate and requested evidence of littering, it failed to proactively update her on actions taken. It gave an update only after it was chased, advising that it had contacted residents about littering.
Considering the level of impact and nature of concerns expressed by the resident’s reports, these brief interactions did not demonstrate reasonable engagement with her concerns. There is no record that the landlord had regard to the risk of harm to the family to inform its response and contact with her. There was no evident of a proactive communication plan or approach. It failed to express empathy as to the difficult personal impact disclosed or consider providing greater detail as an assurance of its response. It overall failed to show the adoption of a customer and victim centred approach in line with statutory guidance and its own asb policy.
The landlord’s internal investigations into the resident’s complaint of August 2023 suggested that actions were taken to warn local residents and investigate the issues reported. Apart from the May and June 2023 contact considered above, there was no evidence that the landlord took any such actions or updated the resident.
The landlord’s complaint responses did not reflect the failings identified by this Service. The landlord did acknowledge that its service was restricted due to staff absences, staff training, and budgeting constraints. However, it failed to reflect upon how its limitations affected the resident’s experience and compliance with its obligations to her. It described lack of communication as ‘unavoidable’ in both of its responses. It offered an apology within its final response for a limited period of no contact. It offered no form of remedy, even an apology, for the significant period of time in 2022 and early 2023 during which time there is no record of any reasonable form of engagement with the resident’s concerns.
The landlord failed to show learning from the resident’s complaint. While it is appreciated that budget pressures and staffing may impact services, systemic procedures should reasonably support the management of risks. For example, non-compliance with obligations and the identification of cases where there is high likelihood of harm or vulnerabilities to priortise response. The landlord’s suggestion that a lack of contact was unavoidable was unreasonable and unempathetic to the impact on the resident.
The landlord’s complaint response at stage 1 stated that it took ‘all actions available’ but declined to provide further detail due to data protection. Considering the level of harm described by the resident, it is unclear why the landlord was prevented from offering any further assurance or additional anonymised details. There is no record of any actions that could not have been summarised in a way to prevent disclosure of confidential information. The records reviewed by this service are inconsistent with its finding that it took all appropriate actions in line with procedures.
The resident described the issues reported and the limited nature of the landlord’s response as causing extreme distress to her and her vulnerable family. The landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and the limited apology offered by its final response did not address their extent or associated detriment.
The landlord is responsible for maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of asb. It is ordered to pay compensation to the resident of £500. This sum is within the appropriate range of awards set out in this Service’s remedies guidance for situations such as this where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings, or put matters right, and its failure had a significant impact on the resident. This Service had regard to the aggravating impact to the resident owing to the family vulnerabilities.

The landlord’s regard for the needs of the resident’s household

The landlord was aware throughout the period under investigation that the resident’s family lived with multiple and complex needs. Each member of the household lives with needs described as impacting their daily living. This includes mental health conditions, autism, and learning difficulties. The resident is a carer for her family and lives with her own mental health conditions.
The resident took significant efforts throughout the period under review to remind and update the landlord of her family’s disabilities and ongoing needs. When raising concerns to the landlord about issues on the estate and in communal areas, repairs and managing in her home, she took time and effort to explain in detail to the landlord how the issues interacted with the effects of their vulnerabilities.
In line with the landlord’s duties in the Equality Act 2010, it was required to have regard to the family’s needs when providing services and to make reasonable adjustments. This Service found only limited evidence that the landlord demonstrated consideration of the family’s needs or active engagement with its duties across the relevant period.
The nature of the family’s vulnerabilities required particular care and sensitivity by the landlord in relation to the local estate and communal area issues. Although it was aware that the effects of the family’s disabilities were worsened by loud noises, crowds and cleanliness issues, it showed no apparent consideration of their vulnerabilities. The resident’s reports were treated as standard estate management or asb reports. It gave no apparent regard to any adjustments it could make to its services or support it could offer. Although she raised with the landlord difficulties using the standard reporting logs, there is no evidence the landlord considered or offered any reasonable alternatives. It showed little consideration for tailoring its communications to adopt an empathetic approach.
When raising repair concerns, the resident explained how these matters were exacerbating the family’s circumstances. Although the landlord’s repairs priorities guide said that it would ‘always’ give ‘due consideration’ to those residents with medical conditions or circumstances that placed them at higher risk of harm, there is no evidence that the landlord considered the household vulnerabilities. There is no evidence that the landlord’s staff or contractors made efforts to agree and plan works and communicate with the resident in a way that took account of the particular difficulties that would arise from people coming into their home. The landlord did not record the family’s needs on its repairs system until the day of its final complaint response. However, it had been on significant prior notice.
The resident brought to the landlord’s attention issues of storage and risks arising from the kitchen condition specifically linked to the family’s vulnerabilities, for example the direction of the tap. Despite the resident’s detailed explanation, the landlord internally noted that the storage concerns were a ‘decorative issue’. While the tap was fixed after a period of delay, there is no evidence that the landlord considered if this issue or others engaged its duties in the Equality Act, gave consideration for the family’s needs, or referred to its adaptations policy.
The landlord’s complaint responses did not acknowledge its failures across multiple issues to have regard to the family’s needs. Although its stage 1 response referred the resident to a mental health helpline and crisis support, it failed to show relevant consideration of the effects of disabilities described to it. Both its stage 1 and stage 2 responses provided standard explanations for restrictions upon its services, but failed to reflect whether the service limitations were appropriate in view of its equality duties. It failed to identify that a tailored and not a standard approach was reasonably required due to the household needs. Its stage 1 response stated that services were restricted due to the prioritisation of ‘the safety of our most vulnerable tenants’. There is no evidence the landlord had regard to the level of vulnerability of the household and whether the resident’s family may have fit within this definition.
The landlord’s final stage complaint investigation internally identified that its repairs service had failed to take account of the family’s needs. The landlord updated its systems to record their needs. However, its response failed to acknowledge any level of related failing to the resident.
The landlord’s failure to show sufficient consideration of the family’s needs and engagement with its equality duties adversely affected the resident. The resident was put to significant time and trouble repeating the family’s needs in an effort to be heard. This caused her distress, aggravated by her vulnerabilities of which the landlord was aware. This effect was multiplied across different services and increased the level of detriment caused.
The landlord is responsible for maladministration due to the failings in its regard for the needs of the resident’s household. It is ordered to pay compensation to the resident of £550. This sum is within the appropriate range of awards set out in this Service’s remedies guidance for situations such as this where the landlord did not acknowledge its failings or take sufficient actions to put matters right. The aggravating factors considered above place the level of award at the higher end of the relevant banding.

The landlord’s handing of the resident’s associated complaint

The landlord’s complaint responses were delayed at both stages of its complaint process. Its first stage response was sent to the resident 5 weeks after the 10 working days deadline specified by its complaints procedure. Its final response was issued 6 weeks after its 20 working days timescale.
The landlord repeatedly failed to provide proactive updates to the resident about its delay. This caused the resident to incur time and trouble chasing responses throughout both stages of the complaint process. The level of engagement with the resident was inconsistent across its process. It did not act in line with the proactive updates and contact expected by the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord’s delays and failure to proactively manage expectations of timescales caused harm to the landlord and resident relationship. The distress this caused to the resident her was aggravated by her vulnerability.
The landlord’s complaint responses offered acknowledgement of delay and offered apology. However, although its compensation scheme guided it to consider financial redress for the impact of it failing to resolve a complaint for ‘many months’, it made no other remedial offer. Its apologies alone failed to reflect the extent of delays, their repeat nature or their impact on the resident.
The landlord is responsible for maladministration in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It is ordered to pay compensation to the resident of £100. This sum is within the appropriate range of awards set out in this Service’s remedies guidance for situations such as this where the landlord failed to address the detriment to the resident or offer a proportionate form of remedy.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s repair reports.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of asb.
3. The landlord’s regard for the needs of the resident’s household.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the allocation of housing is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for an apology in writing to be made to the resident from a senior member of the landlord’s staff for the failings identified in this report and their impact on the resident.
2. Pay the resident the £247 compensation previously offered if this has not already been paid.
3. Pay the resident £1,500 compensation. It is comprised of:
  1. £350 for any distress, inconvenience, time and trouble relating to its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
  2. £500 for any distress relating to its handling of the resident’s reports of asb.
  3. £550 for any distress and time and trouble relating to its regard for the needs of the resident’s household
  4. £100 for any distress and time and trouble relating to its handling of the resident’s associated complaint
4. The above ordered compensation should be paid direct to the resident and not be offset against any outstanding arrears.
5. Carry out enquiries into any household vulnerabilities that the resident is comfortable sharing with it and consider any reasonable adjustments that may be required across its services, including its communications. This assessment must be conducted by a member of the landlord’s staff appropriately trained in the landlord’s Equality Act 2010 obligations and independent of the service areas responsible for the above identified failings. The landlord must update its records with a copy of the assessment to inform its future service provision.
Within 10 weeks of the date of this decision and in accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of its identified failings and determine what action it should take to prevent reoccurrence. The review should include but not be limited to consideration of:
1. Whether its tenancy management and/or asb procedures enable early assessment and management of risk.
2. Its handling of the resident’s family’s vulnerabilities.
3. The record keeping failings identified in this case against the recommendations in this Service’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

The review should be conducted by a senior manager independent of the service areas responsible for the failings identified by this investigation. A copy of the above ordered review and any associated updated policies, procedures or plans should be provided to the Ombudsman.