Lambeth Council (202011261)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011261

Lambeth Council

15 September 2021

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 concerns:

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns around the safety of electrical works carried out in September 2018.
The length of time taken by the landlord to carry out repairs to the resident’s heating and hot water system.
The length of time taken by the landlord to repair the resident’s kitchen and main front windows.
The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the 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 will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns around the safety of electrical works carried out in September 2018.
Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”.
As a result, this Service can only consider a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns around the safety of electrical works carried out in September 2018 that was brought to its attention within a reasonable period of normally within six months of the matters arising at that time. Therefore, while the historical incident provides contextual background to the current complaint, we cannot make a determination regarding its handling of his concerns around the safety of the electrical works that were carried out in September 2018.
This is because of the length of time that has passed since the incident occurred in September 2018 and the resident’s subsequent formal complaint about this on 22 February 2021, and the resulting lack of evidence concerning this incident. It is of concern, however, that he reported the above electrical safety incident to it on 16 July 2019, when he requested details from it to enable him to make a formal complaint to it about this, but that he reported that it did not subsequently respond to him, as well as that its final stage complaint response of 22 April 2021 only briefly addressed this in relation to a safety test in August 2019. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint in respect of this is therefore considered below.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
The property is a flat, situated in a building comprised of similar properties.
The resident emailed the landlord on 16 July 2019, to report his concerns to it in respect of the safety of “repair works carried out” in September 2018. He noted that, following the repair works being carried out to his immersion heater, the area was left unsafe, which led to him experiencing an electric shock. The resident also attached photographic evidence of exposed wires to support this, and he requested contact details from the landlord to enable him to make a formal complaint to it about this.
The resident then wrote to the landlord on 12 February 2020, to request the replacement of his heating system by it. He noted that its contractor had attended his property earlier that day, and that they had advised him that, “although they have cleaned the system, an upgrade was desperately needed for the property.” Furthermore, the resident advised the landlord that the current heating system was not suitable for his health needs, which had led to him using an alternative heating source during the colder months that had increased the cost of his energy bills.

Summary of events

The resident emailed the landlord on 22 October 2020 in respect of his kitchen window not locking to advise it that its contractor had attended on 4 September 2020 to assess the issue, and that they had then, on 18 September 2020, confirmed that a new window was needed. The landlord responded to this on 28 October 2020, and it advised the resident that “the window [was] in the hands of the manufacturer”, and that its contractor would contact him to arrange a “fitting date”.
On 27 October 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to report that “rain water [was] leaking through [the] side of [the] front window[,] causing the wall to become wet”, and to request for this to be repaired. It confirmed, on 4 November 2020, that it had raised a work order for the above repair to be carried out as a “high priority repair”, which was due to be completed within 28 days.
The resident wrote to the landlord, on 23 December 2020, to raise a stage one complaint about the way that the repair needed to his hot water supply had been handled by it. He advised that:
1. He had completed a repair form on 15 December 2020, in which he had stated that he was without hot water and that he therefore needed a new immersion heater for this.
2. Its contractor had attended his property twice on 23 December 2020, and during the first visit they advised that a plumber was required to complete the repair, and on the second visit they had attended to complete another repair, which was not needed.
3. A third contractor’s visit was due be carried out before 9pm on 23 December 2020, however no one had attended this by 10pm.
On 14 January 2021, the resident wrote to this Service, as he was yet to receive a response to his stage one complaint of 23 December 2020.
The resident wrote to the landlord again on 29 January 2021 to:
1. Chase a response to his complaint of 23 December 2020.
2. Explain that the lack of hot water had impacted his health and his ability to use the property.
3. Advise that he had initially reported the hot water repair issue on 13 December 2020, yet he did not receive a response to this from it until 23 December 2020.
4. Report that its contractor had attended his property twice on 23 December 2020, and that he had received a text message on 24 December 2020 stating that a third visit would be carried out, however he said that this did not happen and so the repair issue was still outstanding.
5. Confirm that he was yet to receive a complaint response from it.
6. Ask why the above events had happened, what action it was taking to repair the outstanding hot water issue, and what compensation it was able to offer for the length of time that he had been without a hot water supply.
On 22 February 2021, the resident wrote to both this Service and the landlord to further complain that:
1. He had been without a hot water supply since 13 December 2020, and that it was yet to carry out repairs for this or address his complaint of 23 December 2020, which was raised in respect of the same repair issue.
2. He had “been unable to secure” his property since September 2020 because the kitchen window could no longer be locked. The resident advised that the landlord was aware of this issue, and that its contractor had attended his property for this on 4 September 2020. Furthermore, he noted that this repair issue had impacted his mental health.
3. He had contacted it on 12 February 2020 in respect of the functionality of his heating system. The resident had advised the landlord that the existing heating system did not heat the property to an acceptable temperature, which had impacted his health and had led to him supplementing this with an alternative heating method that had increased his energy consumption.
4. On 27 October 2020, he had contacted it to report that the “main front window was letting in rainwater”, which it had confirmed on 4 November 2020 would be repaired within 28 days. However, the landlord was yet to action this further. Additionally, the resident noted that the leak to the window allowed water “to go down the wall under all [his flooring]”, which had led to damp, mould, and silver fish developing in his property.
5. He had contacted it on 16 July 2019, following its electrical repair works in September 2018, to advise that the works carried out were unsafe, which had led to him experiencing an electric shock. The resident noted that the landlord did not respond to this.
6. Due to the outstanding issues detailed above, he had been “unable to use” his property. Furthermore, the resident noted that his “mental and physical wellbeing” were impacted, along with his financial situation.
7. As an outcome to his complaint, he wished for it to explain why it had not handled the above matters in a more timely manner, provide an action plan for the remedial of the repair issues raised, and offer compensation for him “not being able to use [his] home properly for the past year”. The resident explained that this was for him being without reliable sources of heating and hot water, for his dealing with water leaks, damp and mould, and for the extra costs that he had incurred because of the landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 9 March 2021, in which it addressed the resident’s concerns regarding the repair that was outstanding to his immersion heater. In respect of this, it advised that:
1. It had raised a work order on 23 December 2020, when an electrician had attended the property and had found that a plumber needed to attend and “reset [the] thermostat”.
2. It was due to attend another appointment for this on 19 February 2021, however this was not successful.
3. A new appointment was scheduled for 24 February 2021, but this was re-arranged by him for 2 March 2021.
4. It decided to partially uphold his complaint, as the repair was still outstanding and so it advised him that “compensation [for delays could] be considered” upon completion of the repair, and that compensation for missed appointments was to be requested from its contractor.
On 16 March 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to request for his complaint to be escalated to the final stage of its complaints procedure because:
1. On 24 December 2020, he was notified by text message that its contractor would attend his property, however this did not go ahead.
2. On 24 February 2021, he was informed of the appointment 41 minutes prior to this taking place.
3. Further appointments were arranged for 2, 5 and 12 March 2021, but no one had attended his property.
4. On 15 March 2021, he had arranged for a private contractor to carry out repairs to reinstate his hot water supply.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 April 2021 to report that its contractor had attended his property on that day at 9pm, without prior notice, to carry out repairs to his heating system. He advised it that he had informed the operative attending that they had previously deemed the heating system to be at “end of life”, and that he was expecting a new boiler and radiators to be fitted.
The landlord issued its final stage complaint response on 22 April 2021, comprised of the following:
1. In respect of the repairs needed to the resident’s immersion heater, it confirmed that its contractor would pay him compensation of £20 for each missed appointment, on 19 February and 2, 5 and 12 March 2021. The landlord also requested that he “provide further details of the defect”, the “works carried out to resolve this”, and “any receipts for [the] works that were completed” to it, so that it could review these.
2. It explained that repair works to the resident’s kitchen window were completed on 4 September 2020, and it apologised to him for the length of time taken to undertake these works and for the inconvenience caused.
3. It advised that it would request that its contractor prioritise repair works to the resident’s main front window.
4. In respect of the resident’s reports concerning unsafe electrical works that occurred in September 2018, it apologised for any upset or inconvenience that this had caused him, but it confirmed that it had completed a safety test in August 2019, and that “everything was left in full working order”.
The resident subsequently contacted this Service on 29 April and 28 May 2021 in respect of the issues detailed above and the outcome that he sought from the landlord. He complained that he had been left without suitable heating and with cold temperatures at his property for over a year since February 2020, which meant that he was unable to keep well in cold weather due to his underlying health condition, and that he had to stay elsewhere during the corona virus pandemic. The resident also reported that he had to pay an electricity bill of approximately £400 every three months to run a portable heater when he had stayed at the property, which he was struggling to pay and sought suitable compensation for in the form of a five-month rent rebate.
The resident explained that this was because the landlord had still not replaced or mentioned his malfunctioning air heating system as recommended by its contractor in February 2020. He additionally complained to that it had not fixed and that it had only measured his broken kitchen window on 4 September 2020, and that it had offered him no compensation for the damage caused by it taking six months to repair the leak to his main front window and surrounding brickwork. The resident added that the landlord’s safety check at his property had only covered the light fixtures and plugs, and that this had not thoroughly investigated the electrical shock that he had received,
The resident therefore also requested compensation from the landlord for his distress from the outstanding repair to his broken kitchen window, as it was aware that he had been experiencing antisocial behaviour and was caused stress by leaving his home vulnerable, as well as that it replace the window as soon as possible. He additionally sought compensation for the redecoration of the walls and the replacement of his flooring that had to be ripped up due to the rainwater leaking and puddling from his main front window and surrounding brickwork. The resident added that he wanted to understand why the landlord had not responded to his original report of the electrical shock that he had experienced, why it did not investigate this thoroughly at the time, and how it was stopping this from recurring.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s repair timescales

The landlord’s website categorises repairs based on “risk and urgency”, and commits it to the below timescales:
1. Emergency repairs that represent a risk to the resident’s health, or to the safety of the building, are to be made safe within two hours, and are to be fully repaired within 24 hours. Whereas emergency repairs that do not pose a risk to health and safety are to be attended to within one working day.
2. Urgent repairs are to be attended to within three working days, unless stated otherwise.
3. Non-urgent repairs are to be attended to within seven working days, unless stated otherwise.
4. Routine repairs are to be attended to within 28 working days, unless stated otherwise.
5. Planned repairs are to be attended to within 90 working days, unless stated otherwise.

The landlord’s complaints policy

The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy, as per below:
1. Local resolution – the landlord commits to acknowledging the resident’s complaint within two working days, and it aims to issue a full response within 20 working days.
2. Final review – the landlord commits to acknowledging the resident’s request for escalation within two working days, and it aims to issue a full response within 25 working days.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that, in instances where it cannot meet the above timeframes, it will contact the resident to provide an explanation for the delay and a new response date.

The length of time taken by the landlord to carry out repairs to the resident’s heating and hot water system

It is noted that the resident has stated that he considers that the issue with the lack of heat and hot water at his property has exacerbated his medical conditions, and that he seeks a five-month rent rebate from the landlord. However, it is beyond the authority or expertise of this Service to determine whether there was a link between the length of time taken by the landlord to repair these and his medical condition, or to award damages for these or rent rebates, in the way that a court, tribunal or insurer might. Therefore, no determination will be made on this aspect of the resident’s complaint, and we are unable to order or recommend any changes to his rent.
Based on the information provided to this Service, the resident contacted the landlord on 12 February 2020 to ask for his heating system to be replaced by it due to the lack of heat from this being unsuitable for his health needs, and increasing his electricity bills as he had to use an alternative heating source. This matter was raised again by him in his correspondence to both it and to us of 22 February 2021. On 7 April 2021, the resident confirmed that an operative from the landlord’s contractor had attended his property to carry out repair works to his heating system.
This Service appreciates the inconvenience experienced by the resident from the reported lack of heat at his property, however in this instance there is no evidence that the landlord was required to replace the existing heating system there, as it was not documented in writing whether this was needed or not. Nevertheless, considering that he had advised it that his heating system was not fully operational on 12 February 2020, and that it did not address or action this matter until its contractor’s repairs to the system on 7 April 2021, its response to his reports was unreasonable. This is because this suggests that the resident was left without a reliable heating source for almost 14 months from February 2020 to April 2021.
In such cases, the landlord would also need to complete an inspection of the property’s existing heating system to determine whether any further repair works are necessary or are possible to resolve the reported lack heat from this, or if this requires replacement to ensure that the resident has a reliable heating supply. It was therefore inappropriate that there is no evidence that it carried out such an inspection at his property, or that it compensated him for its above very excessive heating repair delay during the corona virus pandemic as a vulnerable person, contrary to its website’s above repair timescales of up to 90 working days.
It is noted that the resident explained that the repair issue relating to his hot water supply in his stage one complaint of 23 December 2020 was reported to the landlord on 15 December 2020. However, all of his further communication about this stated that he reported the issue on 13 December 2020, and there is an absence in the landlord’s records of this of confirmation as to the date that the report was made.
In respect of this, it was confirmed that the landlord attended the resident’s property twice on 23 December 2020, however his hot water supply was not reinstated until 15 March 2021, when he employed a third party to carry out the works. Considering that the remedial works were not completed by the landlord, along with the fact that its final stage complaint response agreed to compensate him for four missed appointments, it failed to adhere to its website’s above repair timescales from 24 hours onwards. This is because the resident was left without a reliable hot water supply in winter for approximately three months from December 2020 to March 2021 during the corona virus pandemic as a vulnerable person.
The landlord’s offer of compensation of £20 for each of the above missed appointments on 19 February and 2, 5 and 12 March 2021 was reasonable and in line with the amounts usually offered in such instances. This Service has also taken into account its request for the resident to provide it with further details regarding the works carried out, along with the receipt for this, for it to review. However, considering that it was not confirmed whether the landlord would take any further action in respect of this following a potential review, this alone cannot be considered to be an offer of reasonable redress by it to him for its above hot water repair delay of approximately three months.
To conclude, this Service appreciates the inconvenience experienced by the resident, along with the landlord’s eventual efforts to seek to put things right following the above delays. However, while we cannot instruct it to replace his heating system, it took an unreasonable length of time to address his concerns regarding his heating system, and it failed to adhere to its website’s repair timescales in respect of this and his lack of hot water. The landlord also did not fully recognise its very lengthy repair delays for these items by offering the resident proportionate compensation for their severe long-term impact on him, for which this Service’s remedies guidance recommends awards of £700 and above.

The length of time taken by the landlord to repair the resident’s kitchen and main front windows

On 22 October 2020, the resident advised the landlord that, on 18 September 2020, he was informed that his kitchen window needed to be changed and he queried when this would be done. In its final stage complaint response, issued on 22 April 2021, it stated that the repair was completed on 4 September 2020. However, this could not be accurate because, on 28 October 2020, the landlord informed the resident that the window was still with the manufacturer, and he reports that this is still outstanding. Taking the above into account, along with the lack of further communication on the matter on its part, the repair was left outstanding for over seven months from September 2020 to April 2021, and it failed to adhere to its website’s above repair timescales of up to 90 working days.
On 27 October 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to report that his main front window allowed water to leak into the property, which had caused damp, mould, and silver fish there. On 4 November 2020, it confirmed that this would be rectified within 28 days, however, in its stage two complaint response issued on 22 April 2021, it advised him that it would request its contractor to prioritise the repair works due to be carried out to the window. Taking the above into consideration, it is clear that the landlord did not meet its response timeframe for this because the repair was still outstanding in April 2021, which was almost six months since the resident had first reported the issue in October 2021, and he later reported that it took six months to repair this.
To conclude, based on the information provided to this Service, the landlord failed to adhere to its repair timescales or to handle the repairs required to the resident’s kitchen and main front windows reasonably. This is because it provided conflicting information about these repairs, and left them outstanding for long periods of time, which caused further unnecessary inconvenience to him that it inappropriately failed to offer him compensation for or complete all of the repairs. Whereas this Service’s remedies guidance recommends awards from £250 for failures over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy to address repairs.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The resident raised a stage one complaint on 23 December 2020 in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs to his water heating system. It issued a stage one complaint response for this 51 working days later on 9 March 2021. In this instance, the landlord failed to adhere to its above complaints policy concerning complaints at the first local resolution stage. This is because it did not issue a formal response within 20 working days, as required by the policy, nor did it contact the resident to provide a reason for the delays or a new response set date, and it did not offer him compensation for this or for any of its other complaint handling failings below.
The resident then requested for his complaint to be escalated to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 16 March 2021, and it adhered to its complaints policy’s response timescale of 25 working days for this. This is because it issued a formal response 25 working days later on 22 April 2021.
Between 23 December 2020, when the resident first contacted the landlord to lodge a stage one complaint, until 9 March 2021, when it issued a stage one complaint response, he additionally contacted it on 29 January and 22 February 2021. This was to state that he was also unhappy with its handling of his reports concerning the functionality of his heating system, the repairs needed to his kitchen and main windows, and his safety concerns relating to the electrical works carried out in September 2018.
It is noted that the landlord failed to address these additional aspects of the resident’s complaint in its stage one complaint response of 9 March 2021 because it only discussed his concerns relating to the repairs needed to his hot water system. However, it did address these in its final stage complaint response of 22 April 2021, except for the resident’s concerns relating to his heating system that it inappropriately failed to reply to. It is additionally concerning that the landlord only responded to the resident’s electrical safety concerns at his property by referring him to a satisfactory safety test approximately 20 months earlier in August 2019, instead of addressing his current safety concerns there.
To conclude, this Service appreciates the landlord’s eventual efforts to attempt to handle the resident’s complaint in a satisfactory manner. However, it failed to do so because it did not meet its complaints policy’s response timeframe for the stage one complaint response, and it did not address all of the aspects of the complaint raised by the resident, particularly regarding his heating system and current electrical safety concerns. The landlord also did not compensate the resident for these failings in its complaint handling, despite this Service’s remedies guidance recommending awards from £50 for repeated failures to reply to correspondence.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
1. The length of time taken by it to carry out repairs to the resident’s heating and hot water system.

The length of time taken by it to repair the resident’s kitchen and main front windows.
Its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord attended the resident’s property to repair his heating system almost 14 months after he reported that this was not fully functional and he requested a replacement for this, and it did not carry out an inspection to confirm whether this needed to be replaced or compensate him for its delay.
The landlord failed to carry out repairs to reinstate the resident’s hot water supply in a reasonable timeframe, as it took approximately three months to do so, and it failed to attend multiple appointments or compensate him for this other than for the missed appointments.
The landlord failed to replace the resident’s kitchen window or repair the main front window, which reportedly led to water leaking into the property and causing further damage there that it did not compensate him for.
The landlord failed to adhere to its complaints policy’s response timeframe for stage one complaints, and it did not address all of the aspects of the resident’s complaint or compensate him for this.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Contact the resident within four weeks in respect of the works that he carried out privately to reinstate his hot water supply to re-offer to review the works and receipts for this, and to reimburse him for the costs incurred for this, if it has not done so already.
2. Arrange an inspection of the resident’s heating system within four weeks to assess its functionality, advise him of its findings, and provide him with a timescale for it to carry out any works required for this.
3. Contact the resident within four weeks to arrange for his kitchen window to be replaced, if it has not yet done so.
4. Send a detailed response to the resident within four weeks to address all of his current electrical safety concerns regarding why it did not respond to the electrical shock that he had reported to it in July 2019, why it did not investigate this thoroughly at the time, and how it is stopping this from recurring.
5. Pay the resident the £80 total compensation that it previously offered him for its four missed hot water repair appointments within four weeks, if he has not received this already.
6. Pay the resident compensation of £1,000 within four weeks for any distress and inconvenience caused by the length of time that it took to carry out repairs to his heating and hot water system.
7. Pay the resident compensation of £400 within four weeks for any distress and inconvenience caused by the length of time that it took to address the repairs needed to his kitchen and main front windows.
8. Pay the resident compensation of £100 within four weeks for its failure to meet its complaints policy’s response timeframe for his stage one complaint, and for its failures to address his concerns relating to his heating system in any of the complaint responses or to fully address his current electrical safety concerns.
It is recommended that the landlord:

Review its staff’s training needs in relation to repair timescales, complaint handling and compensation, which should include consideration of this Service’s remedies guidance at https://hos.staging.civiccomputing.com/about-us/corporate-information/policies/dispute-resolution/policy-on-remedies/, and the completion of our free online dispute resolution training for landlords at https://hos.staging.civiccomputing.com/landlords-info/e-learning/, if this has not been done recently.
Review its internal record keeping processes to ensure that all interactions are accurately logged to prevent any further disputes concerning the events that occurred, and that all repair reports, inspections and responses are fully recorded and monitor to avoid a recurrence of its above delayed and missed repairs in the resident’s case.

The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders and whether it will follow the above recommendations.
The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.