Lambeth Council (202204597)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204597

Lambeth Council

22 May 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 no gas or heating.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new kitchen and bathroom.
3. The landlord’s decision to place contact restrictions on the resident.
4. The landlord’s decision to take the resident to court for the use of the drying room and his claims of harassment.
5. The landlord’s failure to allocate the resident a social worker.
6. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant. The property is a 2-bedroom flat and the tenancy is managed by a tenant management organisation (TMO) on behalf of the landlord. The housing records note the resident has cancer. The resident also said he has had a stroke and has had suicidal thoughts. He told this Service he also struggles to read and write.
The resident’s kitchen was included on the landlord’s investment programme in 2015 but the work was cancelled. The landlord said this was because of the unhygienic condition of the property. It also said it would add the property on to its ‘‘mop up’’ programme for 2017/18 once the flat had been cleaned up. The landlord’s contractor visited the resident on 22 June 2016 to discuss the replacement of the kitchen and bathroom. It completed the survey of the kitchen but said it was unable to carry out an assessment of the bathroom. It said this was because the resident wanted the bathroom completely retiled. It also said the resident refused to agree for the kitchen to be replaced unless the bathroom was fully retiled.
The resident made a complaint on 23 February 2021. He said he was without heating and cooking facilities for long periods of time and had to arrange for the boiler to be repaired. He wanted compensating for the lack of heating. He also said his kitchen and bathroom had not been replaced and the contact restrictions put in place by the TMO were unreasonable. He noted he had not been allocated a social worker and said the landlord was harassing him. This was because it took him to court over the use of the drying room.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 June 2022 and said it had failed to respond to emails sent by both him and his daughter. He also said it did not respond to the gas leak he reported in February 2021 and his bathroom did not meet health and safety standards. He asked the landlord to provide an update on his allegations of staff harassment against him.
The TMO told the resident on 8 June 2022 that its staff were not harassing him and it was waiting for a court hearing date in relation to antisocial behaviour (ASB) and harassment caused by him. It also said he had failed to engage with social services and refused access to allow repairs to be completed. It noted it would arrange a new appointment time to carry out the work and said it had communicated effectively with the resident.
The TMO told the landlord on 5 October 2022 that its gas engineers visited the property every time the resident reported he had no heating or hot water, but no remedial works were required. It said this was because he had not topped up the gas meter. It also said it had refused his request to install an electric boiler and was unaware he had arranged for the gas boiler to be repaired. The TMO noted legal action was pending against the resident given he continued breaching the court injunction and power of arrest that was put in place for threats against staff and contractors. It also noted referrals had been made to support agencies but he failed to engage with them or allow access to his allocated social worker.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 11 November 2022. It said:
1. Its gas engineer attended on every occasion the resident reported he had no heating or hot water. No remedial works were required because the lack of gas was due to the resident not topping up his gas meter.
2. Its contractor was unable to gain access to his property to replace the kitchen and bathroom in 2014/15. It had also carried out a survey and both rooms were deemed functional and fit for purpose when inspected and no replacement was required.
3. The resident was banned from the office because of his disruptive and abusive behaviour towards staff. He could communicate with the TMO via the generic email box or through a third party.
4. A court order was in place in relation to the drying room and he could continue using it as long as he abided by the order.
5. It had made referrals to support agencies, but he had failed to engage and this may have affected the process of being allocated a social worker.
The resident’s complaint was accepted by this Service on 27 February 2024. He said he had heating and hot water but was unable to use his cooker due to the cooker supply pipe being capped. He said he arranged for the pipe to be capped after he removed the old cooker and there was a gas leak which the TMO failed to respond to. He also said his kitchen and bathroom had not been replaced for 35 years and he was still waiting for the work to be done.

Post complaint events.

An inspection of the property was carried out in August 2023 and identified extensive work was required to the kitchen and bathroom. The landlord told this Service in February 2024 that a further survey would be carried out in May 2024 and the resident advised when the work would done. The resident told this Service no one had contacted him and he was still waiting for the work to be done.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
In accordance with paragraph 41(c) of the Scheme, this Service will not investigate the resident’s complaint about contact restrictions that were put in place by the landlord. This is because the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion ‘concern matters that are the subject of court proceedings.’ In this case, the landlord and resident have confirmed the matter was subject to a court order, although no evidence of the order was provided to this Service.
In accordance with paragraph 41(c) of the Scheme, this Service will not investigate the resident’s complaint about the use of the drying room and claims of harassment. This is because the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion ‘concern matters that are the subject of court proceedings.’ In this case, the landlord and resident have confirmed the matter was subject to a court order, although no evidence of the order was provided to this Service.
In accordance with paragraph 42 (j) of the Scheme, this Service will not investigate the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s failure to allocate him a social worker. This is because the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion ‘fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman.’ In this case, the resident may wish to approach the local government and social care ombudsman which has jurisdiction for complaints relating to social services.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of no gas or heating.

It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure landlords meet their repair obligations. It also ensures accurate information is provided to residents. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord also has an obligation to provide this Service with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation to be undertaken. In this case, the records provided by the landlord were limited and its poor record keeping has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair, reasonable and in accordance with its policies and procedures in the circumstances.
The landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of its management agreement with the TMO and it is unclear what housing functions and powers have been delegated to it. Whilst this Service understands the TMO is responsible for repairs and maintenance on the estate, it is important to note that the landlord has overall responsibility for its residents and properties. It is also responsible for monitoring the services delivered by the TMO. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms it is responsible for recording, implementing and monitoring repairs undertaken, the quality of contractors’ work and performance.
Whilst the landlord did not provide this Service with a full copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement, its repairs policy confirms it is responsible for repairing and keeping in good working order any installations for supplying gas and heating. Timescales are set out in the repairs handbook, with reports of no heating or hot water between October and February classified as an emergency repair. Emergency repairs are completed within 24 hours. Residents are told to contact the gas supplier if there is a gas leak.
In this case, the limited repair records have made it difficult to determine what repairs were ordered or carried out. Whilst it is evident the resident told the landlord on 23 February 2021 that his boiler had broken down on a number of occasions during and after the pandemic, there are no reports of any breakdowns recorded on the landlord’s records during this time period.
The repair records confirm the last report was received in 2016. It is of concern to note the landlord did not act on the resident’s report of a gas leak and he had arranged for the boiler to be repaired by a private contractor. This meant it did not confirm the appliance was safe. This was not in accordance with its gas safety policy which says it will ensure the safety of the properties it owns and manages. The landlord’s repairs handbook also says it will treat repairs to gas pipes as an emergency. There is no evidence it responded to his request for compensation for the lack of heating under its right to repair scheme.
It was appropriate for the TMO to respond to the resident’s email of 7 June 2022 and to note that he had refused access to allow repairs to be completed. It is unclear, however, what repairs this relates to or what jobs were ordered. It was appropriate for the TMO to note that another appointment would be arranged, although it is unclear whether the work was carried out or if it took action to secure access to the property, if it were denied again. There is no evidence it responded to the resident’s claim that it failed to respond to his report of a gas leak in February 2021.
The landlord said in its final complaint response on 11 November 2022 that its gas engineer attended on every occasion the resident reported he had no heating or hot water and there were no undue delays, although it has provided no records to this Service confirming this. Neither did it arrange for the boiler to be checked to ensure it was safe. This was not appropriate.
In summary, the limited repair records have made it difficult to determine whether the landlord’s actions were appropriate and in accordance with its policies and procedures. The failure to provide the information indicates poor record keeping and oversight of the TMO. It also raises concerns about whether the landlord met its obligations under the resident’s tenancy agreement. Its communication with the resident was poor and it is evident the situation caused him distress and inconvenience. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of no gas or heating.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new kitchen and bathroom.

Whilst it is acknowledged the resident has been waiting for his kitchen and bathroom to be replaced since 2015, this investigation focuses on the period from when the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord in 2021.
It is not this Service’s role to determine whether the resident’s kitchen and bathroom needed to be replaced or when work should be carried out. The landlord is best placed to make such decisions. This investigation has, however, assessed whether the landlord responded in accordance with its policies and procedures.
The Government’s Decent Homes Standard (DHS) provides criteria for social landlords to ensure their properties are ‘decent.’ It says properties should be free from category 1 hazards under the Housing, Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), be in a reasonable state of repair and have reasonably modern facilities. Whether a property can be considered in reasonable repair depends on whether the building components are old and need replacing or major repair. Whilst a building component is defined as ‘old’ if it is older than its standard lifetime, it cannot fail the DHS based on age alone. The property must also lack more than three relevant facilities such as a reasonably modern kitchen and bathroom. The DHS says kitchens must be no more than 20 years old and bathrooms no more than 30 years old.
In this case, the landlord’s poor record keeping has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were appropriate in the circumstances. It is unclear from the housing records when the kitchen and bathroom were last inspected and whether they meet the DHS. The landlord’s asset management strategy (2015-2021) confirmed it would bring all of its properties up to the Lambeth housing standard by 2020. This included replacing kitchens that were over 20 years old.
The housing records confirm the resident told the landlord on 23 March 2021 that his kitchen and bathroom were ‘‘old’’ and he was waiting for them to be replaced. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the enquiry or arranged for the property to be inspected. This was a missed opportunity to update the resident, check if the property complied with the DHS and if not, arrange for it to be included in its future refurbishment programme. A further opportunity was missed on 7 June 2022, when the TMO failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about the bathroom when he said it did not meet health and safety standards.
Whilst the TMO told the landlord on 5 October 2022 that the property had been surveyed and said the kitchen and bathroom were functional and fit for purpose, a copy of the survey was not provided to this Service. It is unclear when the survey was undertaken and there is no evidence it provided the resident with an update following the visit.
The landlord confirmed the kitchen and bathroom were fit for purpose in its final complaint response on 11 November 2022, although it is unclear on what basis the decision was based given the lack of documentation. Whilst it acknowledged the property was included in the 2014/15 investment programme it did not confirm whether the property met the DHS and if it planned to add it to its investment programme in the future.
In summary, the limited records have made it difficult to determine whether the landlord’s actions were in accordance with its policies and procedures. It is evident the landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident and was not proactive in arranging an inspection of the property. This meant it did not confirm whether the property met the DHS. It is also evident the situation caused the resident distress and inconvenience. He told the landlord his health conditions made him vulnerable and he found the situation stressful. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a new kitchen and bathroom.

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

The housing records confirm the resident made a complaint on 23 February 2021. There is no evidence the complaint was acknowledged by the landlord, although its complaint policy says it will do this. Neither is there any evidence it sought to understand the resident’s complaint or the outcomes he was seeking. This was not in accordance with this Service’s complaints handling code.
Whilst the landlord told this Service on 30 August 2022 that it would issue a stage 1 complaint response by 26 September 2022, there is no evidence it contacted the resident or provided a response. This was not in accordance with its complaints policy or this Service’s complaints handling code. This says landlords must respond to stage1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. The landlord’s failure to provide the resident with a response caused him distress and inconvenience.
The landlord did not issue its final complaint response until 11 November 2022; some 20 months after the resident made his initial complaint and only after contact was made by this Service. The landlord did not apologise for the delay and there is no evidence it sought to understand the resident’s complaint and the outcomes he was seeking. Neither did it offer compensation for the delay in responding. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will consider doing this if the service failure had an adverse impact on the resident. Service failures include unjustifiable delays and failure to follow the landlord’s policies, rules or procedures.
In summary, the landlord failed to follow its complaints procedure and there were significant delays in responding to the resident’s complaint. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 41(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about contact restrictions put in place by the landlord is outside the jurisdiction of this Service.
In accordance with paragraph 41(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the drying room and claims of harassment is outside the jurisdiction of this Service.
In accordance with paragraph 42 (j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about not being allocated a social worker is outside the jurisdiction of this Service.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of no gas or heating.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a new kitchen and bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to offer an apology to the resident for the failings set out in this report. A copy of the apology letter must be shared with this Service.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £750. This must be paid directly to the resident and made up as follows:
1. £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in its handling of his reports of no gas or heating.
2. £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in its handling of his request for a new kitchen and bathroom.
3. £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in its handling of his complaint.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to check the pipework to the gas cooker is safe to enable the resident to reconnect his cooker. The outcome of the inspection must be confirmed with this Service.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident and confirm whether his home meets the DHS, and if not, confirm when the kitchen and bathroom works will be done. It must also send a copy of the letter it sends to the resident to this Service.
Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to review the record keeping practices of the TMO, in light of the findings in this report and this Service’s spotlight review on knowledge and information management. A summary of the review findings must be shared with the resident and this Service.