Lambeth Council (202220999)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220999

Lambeth Council

22 February 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 the landlords handing of leaks into the residents property and the resulting damage.
The landlords handling of the residents complaint including the compensation offered.

Background

The residents sister has acted on his behalf, as his designated representative. All engagement on these matter with the landlord were through the residents sister. The sister had also previously acted as her mother’s representative with the landlord, when her mother became ill with cancer. For ease of reference in this report, the engagement from the resident and his sister will be referred to as from the resident.
The resident succeeded to his mother’s secure tenancy, following her passing on 22 February 2022. The property is a two-bedroom 2nd floor flat, and the landlord is a local council.
The resident said there had been a history of leaks causing damp and mould at the property from when their mother had the tenancy, this was evidenced in the historical repairs logs. A year prior to their formal complaint they had reported leaks to the landlord from a water cylinder/ immersion heater. This had damaged newly painted walls in the hallway, bedroom, and kitchen of their mother’s flat, that they had recently paid in excess of £2000 to have redecorated, in preparation for their mum, coming out of hospital.

Scope

The Ombudsman, in accordance with the Scheme, may not consider complaints that were not raised formally with the landlord within a reasonable time period of them occurring. A reasonable time period is usually considered to be six months. This means that the historical events going back to 2020 when the residents mother held the tenancy, cannot be included in this investigation. Any mention of these events in the report will be to provide context only. The Ombudsman does however acknowledge the problems were historical and have been re-occurring which will be considered when looking at the landlords responses to the matter.

Summary of events

Dissatisfied with the landlords response to reports of an ongoing leak and associated damage to their property, on 30 December 2021, the resident made a formal complaint. In summary she said:
1. She had reported in October 2020, that there were problems with water ingress and mould in her mother’s flat. She had consistently chased the landlord, without success, and the situation had deteriorated further, since her brother had taken over the tenancy.
2. She said the year had been very difficult with the loss of their mother, and also having to keep chasing the landlord for repairs.
3. She had been advised that the repairs contract had expired, and a new contractor had taken over. She was told by the landlord if she provided the repairs reference numbers, the landlord would arrange for the new contractor to carry out the repairs.
4. The landlord had however, still not resolved the leak, she said she was very disappointed with the landlords treatment of both her brother and her mother in handling these repairs.
The landlord completed its stage 1 investigation and provided its response to the resident on 26 January 2022, in summary it said:
1. It was sorry that she had cause to complain about the service centre and leaking emersion cylinder, that had still not been repaired.
2. It confirmed a works orders had been raised, but it had not been completed because the contract had ended with the existing contractor, but it would be issued to the new one and highlighted as a priority.
3. It emphasised that its Service Centre was currently experiencing longer waiting times than usual, and was asking residents to be patient with it. It also explained the service centre team had access to limited operatives and their availability can be affected by the number of emergency call outs they receive.
4. The complaint had been partly upheld, in acknowledgment of the delays and that an improved level of communication would have been beneficial. In acknowledgement of any inconvenience experienced, it awarded £100 as a gesture of goodwill, credited to the residents rent account.
On 20 April 2022, the landlord’s repair records note contractor attendance at the property for repairs to the damage to kitchen, hallway and living room caused by an ongoing leak. The contractor advised the landlord the leak was still apparent and needed to be repaired before decorating work could be completed. Works were re-scheduled for 24 May 2022.
On 26 April 2022, records showed that contractors attended to test the boiler, they had noted that the residents had said to them that the immersion heater was not in use and needed to be removed as it was damaging the walls.
30 May 2022, the landlords repairs records have a note from its scaffolding and roofing contractor to say they had attended and found damp in the cupboard, they went into the loft, but could not detect a leak. They advised the landlord they would need scaffolding to be erected from the third-floor balcony to inspect the roof.
On 31 May 2022, the landlord emailed the resident in response to her email of the same date (email not seen), to say it was sorry that she was not happy with the service received for repairs. It advised that the process was, that operatives were supposed to report their findings back to the landlord’s contractor, who in turn liaises with the landlord to investigate and progress the findings. It confirmed that there had been some miscommunication in the residents case and extended it sincere apologies.
The resident responded the same day and said she did not accept the apology as the landlord had continuously ignored her emails and failed to pass on her complaint. She said she had been raising these issues for 2 years, and “was not open to dealing with” anyone now but a manager. She also complained that the landlord had paid £100 compensation to the rent account, she had asked them to take this back as the damage exceeded £100, and she wanted the compensation to be looked at again as it had not been accepted.
On 9 June 2022, the landlord email the resident, stating that it again apologised for not following up on all her emails, and added that it did have a backlog of complaints at the moment. It provided an update on the repairs which included a repair to the immersion heater completed 18 January 2022, and the current position with the outstanding repairs to the hallway, living room and kitchen from a long-standing leak, was that following no findings of a leak in the loft, a roof inspection had been ordered. It explained compensation for damages of belongings, in the first instance residents should claim from their contents insurance, but failing this, would be “to place a liability claim” with the landlord. It provided the link to do this.
Also in the email as a gesture of goodwill, it agreed to pay an additional £100 for the inconvenience experienced and £210 for the delays. It stated it was currently crediting payments to rent accounts because of delays with the BACS service, but gave her the opportunity to claim a BACS payment in preference to an immediate rent account credit.
The resident responded the following day, stating she was not prepared to accept £310; she did not feel it was proportionate for her “technically complaining about 2, coming up to 3 years” first on behalf of her mother and now her brother. She had made a claim to the risk and insurance team a month before and heard nothing from them. She said she personally paid £2,500 to have her late mothers flat redecorated when she was in hospital for cancer treatment. The leaks had significantly damaged this work, as evidence she had already supplied showed, and that had also been recorded by the contractor.
On 9 June 2022, the repairs records noted that there was still a leak from the roof space into the boiler room, and the tenant had reported that it gets worse when it rains. The landlord emailed the roofers.
On 20 July 2022, a plumbing contractor attended to investigate the leak from the loft into the residents cupboard. It found the leak to be coming from the communal water tank and its pipework. An order was then raised on 27 July 2022, for the pipework to the communal water tank to be re-routed, so that it did not disperse water above the resident’s flat.
The same day the resident emailed to check with the landlord that their complaint had been escalated. An operative had attended that day who she believed was trying to repair the roof. She said the operative had agreed the problem was bad, and he had seen the damage in the flat below. He had told her his report would have to go back to the landlord. She complained that about 25 operatives had been out to investigate their leak, and nothing was getting resolved.
On 12 October 2022, the immersion heater was removed by the landlord. In its complaint response it said it had responded to the residents request to remove it, as this was causing them concern. In the process of removal, dirty water escaped from the cylinder and damaged the residents carpet. Two days later an operative returned to remove the stains, but was not successful.
On 15 November 2022, the landlords stage 2 complaint response was issued. In summary it said:
1. It received the resident’s initial complaint on 30 December 2021, regarding damage being caused to the walls due to the immersion heater. A response was provided on 26 January 2022, where the service apologised for the delay in providing a response and offered a compensation award of £100.
2. It acknowledged the residents response was that they were unhappy with the compensation award and would like the amount to be re-evaluated.
3. On 03 March 2022 a works order was raised to carry out redecorations to the walls affected by water ingress. This work was scheduled to commence on 20 April 2022. When the operative attended, he advised the landlord he would be unable to carry out the works until the water ingress location had been identified, he did not believe the issue to be stemming from the immersion heater and that further investigations were required. The works had to be rescheduled to 24 May 2022.
4. On 30 May 2022. The landlord’s contractors found no defects in the loft and requested that scaffolding be erected for further investigations to be made to the roof. A series of work orders were raised in an attempt to identify the source of the matter in June and July. These included a roof inspection and an inspection of the communal loft.
5. On 09 June 2022, it informed the resident that the compensation award had been revised and the new award amount would be £310. As the resident challenged the amount again, their complaint was escalated to a final review.
6. Following the inspection of the communal tank room, contractors found that vent pipes from the feed and expansion tank, did not terminate over the tank, instead it terminated directly over the resident’s property. The vent pipes were to be rerouted or to be capped off if it was not in use.
7. On 12 October 2022, on the residents request the immersion heater was removed, it acknowledged the damaged carpet, apologised, and accepted the operative should have laid adequate floor covering to protect it. It was aware the resident was liaising directly with the contractor in this regard.
8. The redundant immersion heater was the property of the landlord and as such the operative was under no obligation to leave it with the resident.
9. An order had been raised for the decorative works specified to be finalised, and attendance confirmed for 1 December 2022. With regard to the damage caused to the walls and other household items, it understood the resident had submitted a claims form to its Risk and Insurance team. The Team would process the claim and send the outcome of the claim directly to the resident.
10. It apologised for the significant delay in responding to the final review complaint, and any upset and frustration this may have caused them. The complaint had taken longer than intended to investigate, and a number of staff changes within its service had delayed matters further. It recognised that this fell below the service standard it would expect and as a result awarded a goodwill gesture of £75 to the resident.
11. It referred the resident to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman should they wish to escalate their complaint any further.

Post Complaint Events

On 1 December 2022, the resident emailed to complain that the decorator was there to paint the ceilings, and water had started to come through the ceiling in the kitchen and hall cupboard again. The contractor had advised her to turn off the electrics as water was coming through the light. She said their appliances and new kitchen cupboards and glasses were getting ruined. Video footage provided from the resident, showed flooding through the kitchen ceiling, and the resident discussing the issue with an operative who was trying to work in the hallway.
On 2 December 2022 a heavy leak in the flat was recorded on the repairs system. The landlord sent out an operative to trace and rectify the leak. The leak was caused by a fault on the hot water cylinder (immersion heater the coil had split), from the flat below, which was overheating and causing water to overflow through the expansion vent pipe located in the roof space above the residents flat. This caused water damage in the residents flat affecting sections of ceilings (which came down), walls and flooring to the kitchen, lounge hallway and cupboard.
On 19 May 2023, the landlords insurers wrote to the resident to advise that they admitted to the breach of duty alleged against them for the incident dated 29 October 2020.
On 18 July 2023 the insurers wrote to the resident in settlement of the claim it had offered £850.00 for damaged contents, loss of electricity and inconvenience caused. Which the landlord said was accepted and paid.
On 30 October 2023, contractors attended to hack off and replaster a small area of water damaged plaster. Works for a mould wash, sealer application and two coats of emulsion, were also completed to areas of the living room and hallway.
The landlord provided this service with an update on the status of the remedies to the residents complaint on 15 November 2023, the leak in the loft space had been identified and fixed. The contractor had confirmed they had paid compensation for the damage to the carpet. The mould wash and internal decorations were completed on 30 October 2023. The resident had indicated that she was happy with the works and confirmed there were no outstanding repairs.

Assessment and findings

Landlords legal and policy context

The operation of the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, implied a term into the resident’s tenancy agreement from 20 March 2020 that the landlord must ensure its dwelling was fit for human habitation at the beginning of, and throughout, the tenancy. The existence of a hazard as defined by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is one of the factors that may be considered when assessing fitness. Hazards arise from faults or deficiencies that could cause occupants harm, including rising, penetrating, and traumatic dampness, or persistent condensation.
The tenancy agreement requires the landlord to maintain the structure and outside of the property. This aligns with its repairing obligation at section 11 of the landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Repairs must be completed within a reasonable period of time.
The landlords repairs manual sets out its repair responsibilities, these include the structure and exterior of its properties, drains stack pipes, gutter, and outside pipes. Keep in proper working order any fittings for supplying water, gas, or electricity, toilet facilities and water heating inside the property. It is also responsible for carrying out repairs to the exterior of its blocks and estates including communal areas and equipment shared by neighbours. The landlord takes responsibility for leaks and overflows, whilst not technically communal, they can affect the structure of the building or another flat.
The repairs manual also sets out the landlords repair priorities, and the expected response times to the various category of repair. They are as follows:
1. Urgent Emergency – those repairs that the landlord must attend within 2hrs and fix within 24hrs of emergency callout of the repair being reported, such as the loss of power, water, toilet, and lift breakdown.
2. Emergency – those repairs that the landlord must undertake within 1 working day after the repairs is reported.
3. Routine repairs 1– those repairs that the landlord must fix within 7 days or 3 for certain qualifying repairs, such as repairing front door lock, securing a handrail, blocked sink, or bath.
4. Routine repairs 2– those repairs that the landlord must undertake within 28 days of the repair being reported; these include repairing a ceiling or pram sheds.
5. Planned repairs – those repairs that the landlord undertakes as part of an agreed program and/or improvement works within a specified timescale or 90 days unless otherwise stated. Examples include plaster work after repairs, clearing gutters.
The landlords housing management complaints policy had three stages:
1. Early resolution: this complaint will be passed to the officer to resolve, who will agree timescales and actions required. A written response is not produced.
2. Local Resolution: requests must be made in writing, a senior officer will look at it, with 20 days to respond in writing.
3. The Review: requests should be made in writing within 20 days. They are undertaken by an Improvement and Review Officer and a member of Senior Leadership Group. There is no timescale for a response.
The policy requires that if a complaint is upheld, the aim is to apologise, put right the problem (wherever that is possible, practical and value for money) and to apply any lessons learnt to improve services, and to avoid a reoccurrence of the problem. In exceptional circumstances, compensation may be payable.
The landlords Housing Management Compensation Policy allows for financial compensation to be considered when it finds that a service failure has occurred that has an adverse effect on the complainant. Staff can consider when calculating compensation:
1. Loss of non-monetary benefit, examples include- in repair cases, the tenant may have been deprived of the full use and enjoyment of his or her home and experienced distress by living in those conditions.
2. Quantifiable loss – consider costs that would not have been necessary but for the service failure that has adversely affected the customer.
3. Service failure – which should consider any anxiety, frustration, worry, uncertainty caused to the complainant as a direct result of the failure. The amount will need to account for all circumstances including the severity of the distress, the length of time involved, the number of people affected and the personal circumstances of those affected.
4. Time and trouble in pursuing the complaint: only consider the complainant’s time and trouble in pursuing the complaint beyond the minor costs routinely incurred when making a complaint.
5. Statutory and Contractual – examples include home loss payments or disturbance allowance for costs incurred in having to move home.

The landlords handing of leaks into the residents property and the resulting damage.

In accordance with section 11 of the landlord and tenant act, once it was reported, the landlord had a responsibility to repair the leaks and associated damage to the residents flat, and within a reasonable time. Whilst there is no statutory definition of a reasonable time frame, there is guidance in the right to repair scheme, and the landlord had its own repairs policy, which determined its definitions of a reasonable timeframe. Although the policy does not specifically state the timescale for repairing a leak of this nature, its examples suggest it would fall into 1 of 3 categories that take between 1-7 days.
The remedial works to the damage caused by the leak in the residents flat, in accordance with its repairs policy would be classed as a ‘routine repair 2’, that should be “undertaken within 28 days of the repair being reported”. The resident made her complaint about the failure to address these repairs in December 2021, the work had to be postponed several times because the underlying problem had not been resolved, this in itself was a failing, but provided a reason for delay. Once the leak was finally resolved in December 2022, records show that the kitchen work was completed on 23 July 2023, and final repairs to the living room were completed on 30 October 2023, these repairs cannot be considered to have been completed in a reasonable amount of time. There was no evidence that the landlord adhered to its policy timescales in its handling of any of these repairs throughout, and no evidence to support any justification for the excessive delay post completion of the leak repair, which was 8-11 months later than the agreed date given by the landlord of 1 December 2022.
In its stage 1 response 26 January 2022, the landlord acknowledged that it had failed prior to the complaint, in meeting its repair responsibilities, the orders had been raised but not completed, which was not reasonable. The landlord attributed its failure to repair to a change in the responsive repair contractor. As a resolution it said it would issue the works order to the new contractor, and it would highlight it as a priority. It awarded the resident £100 as a gesture of goodwill for the delay and inconvenience caused to the resident.
It would be reasonable to expect that when a new contractor took over the responsive repairs service, processes would be in place to ensure business continuity and the level of service was maintained. As a minimum this should include that all existing orders automatically transfer from the outgoing contractor to the new, and the new contractor would have the resources available to adequately accomplish that handover. It would also be reasonable to expect residents to be pre-informed of the changeover and advised should any outstanding orders not be attended to, to inform the landlord as soon as possible.
It was not reasonable that the resident, only found out about the change, as a result of chasing her outstanding repairs. She was then also required to provide the landlord with the relevant job numbers in order to get the jobs handed over to the new contractor, which was not appropriate, these were details the landlord should have had recorded and been easily able to transfer. Notwithstanding this service failing, despite the resident chasing the repair, it took her formal complaint, for the landlord to re-issue the order to the new contractor and award any level of urgency to it, which was not reasonable.
Evidence determined the landlords lack of urgency continued; it took a further 3 months before any of the landlords contractors attended the resident’s property, again in breach of its repair policy timescales. When the contractor did attend (20 April 2022), it was to repair the damage that had resulted from the leak, but it was unable to progress, as the leak had not been addressed. This was not reasonable, its repairs policy requires a leak to be resolved within 1-7 days, depending on the source of the leak. Despite the landlords stage 2 commitment to progress the repair to the leak as a priority, the evidence suggests it had not followed this through. The resident continued to live with this and the resulting damage for a further 3 months without the cause of the leak even being determined. This was not acceptable; the landlord had not adhered to a reasonable timescale and was in contravention of its repair policy completion guidelines.
A contractor was sent to trace and rectify the leak over a month later, on the 30 May 2022, again considering how long the resident had been living with these conditions an immediate response would have been more appropriate. The contractor identified damp still in the property, but could not trace it to anything in the loft space above as expected. The cause of a leak is not always easily identifiable, and a process of elimination can be required before the actual cause is detected, this inevitably has to be taken into account on the length of any reasonable timeframe. If the landlord is pro-actively investigating, and acts in a timely manner on recommendations of actions to take, this would be considered within a reasonable time. However in the residents case the issue had been ongoing for a considerable amount of time beforehand, with no evidence that any appropriate investigation had taken place prior to this.
Following this inspection, in June/July 2022, further investigation to the roof was recommended which required scaffolding. This again takes additional time to organise, but was a health and safety requirement which was outside of the landlords control. The landlord around the same time, also raised an inspection of the communal water tank, which was reasonable and demonstrated a more proactive approach from the landlord which it had previously been lacking. There was, however, no follow up information or outcome to this inspection.
In its stage two response, 15 November 2022, the landlord confirmed the cause of the leak had been identified as the communal tank, it advised that the vent pipes were to be re–routed or to be capped off, so as not to disperse water over the residents flat. Although the exact date this was determined is not clear, the inspections were raised June and July 2022. Bearing in mind the extensive delay and detriment the resident had experienced; this service would have expected to see evidence of the work being completed as a matter of urgency. The landlord’s stage 2 response in November 2022, did not confirm completion and provided no dates for the work to be done. The repair records supplied by the landlord, could not confirm completion of the work at this time either. The removal of the hot water cylinder/immersion heater in October 2022, was the only work recorded as complete, which the landlord did not deem to be the cause.
Post complaint information identified that two weeks after the stage 2 response was issued, the resident was having the remedial repair work done, and experienced another uncontainable leak to her property, through the kitchen ceiling, which led to part of the ceiling coming down. The landlords contractor determined the cause to be the communal tank dispersing water over the residents flat. This indicated along with a lack of repairs records around this issue that the landlord had not undertaken or completed, this repair as its stage 2 response had indicated. This was not reasonable and caused significant and unnecessary damage in the property and further detriment to the resident.

Complaint handling and compensation

The Housing Ombudsman’s Code requires landlords to have a 2 stage complaints process to prevent any unnecessary delay in resolution. The landlords complaint policy did not comply with the code which still quotes a three-stage process, which was not appropriate.
The code requires Stage 1 complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days. In exceptional circumstances, the landlord may extend this timeframe provided that it offers an explanation to the resident and the extension does not exceed 10 working days without good reason. The resident made her complaint on 30 December 2021 and the landlord responded on 26 January 2022, there was no evidence of any communication with the resident about an extension of time, and the response exceeded the timescales set out in the code.
The Code also requires that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. With regard to the resident’s losses for their damaged belongings, in its stage 1 response, the landlord did not address this aspect of the complaint at all, which was not reasonable.
The landlords policy on damages is, that in the first instance residents are directed to their own contents insurance. Failing this they can place a liability claim with the landlord through its insurers. Despite the resident raising her damages in her initial complaint of 30 December 2021, the landlord failed to advise the resident of this, until 9 June 2022, which was a service failure.
The stage 1 complaint response partially upheld the residents complaint. It was however difficult to see justification for this outcome; there were no aspects of the residents complaint that it had not found service failings on, and the reasoning it gave did not adequately explain why it was not fully upheld.
The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation to go to the rent account for ‘inconvenience’. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to offer financial redress, the offer was considered low, within the range that the Ombudsman would recommend for failings that have had a significantly adverse impact on a resident, and was not a proportionate offer.
The resident refused the offer of compensation, but the landlord added it to the rent account. The landlord reviewed its original compensation offer on 9 June 2022. It offered an additional £100 for inconvenience and £210 for delays, (it is assumed this meant for the previous delays in the repairs, at the time of the complaint, but the wording was not entirely clear). The Ombudsman would not seek to discourage a landlord to reflect on its decisions and increase offers of redress, but the purpose of a complaint procedure is to instil fairness, consistency and encourage earliest resolution. There was no evidence that this review was something the landlord would do consistently, and the landlord could have made a more appropriate offer at an earlier stage as part of its complaint process. Offering additional redress randomly outside of its complaints procedure rather defeats the purpose and objectives of the complaints process.
The Code defines a complaint as amongst other things, an expression of dissatisfaction, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation. The landlords response to the residents email of 31 May 2022, showed the resident had clearly expressed her continued dissatisfaction with the repairs service, but the landlord failed to acknowledge this email as a complaint. As the complaint was about issues that had not been resolved following the commitments in its stage 1 response, this expression of dissatisfaction should have been logged formally and escalated to stage 2 of the landlords complaint process. The landlord did not do this until 20 July 2022, when the resident had challenged the landlords failure to communicate with her, and questioned whether her complaint had been escalated which was not appropriate.
The response at stage 2, of the complaint process was significantly delayed. The residents complaint was made at the end of May 2022, chased in July 2022 and she did not receive a response until 15 November 2022, nearly 6 months, which far exceeds the Code response times of 20 working days. The landlord acknowledged this as a failing in its response, it apologised and offered a good will gesture of £75. Failing to investigate the complaint in a timely manner, brought the added consequence of the substantive issue not being addressed as quickly as it could have done, causing further unnecessary detriment to the resident, which was not reasonable.
Part of the reason for the escalation request was the amount of compensation offered to the resident. The stage two investigation referenced the compensation amount as a reason for escalation but in the end did not demonstrate that it had re-looked at it. By the time of the stage 2 response the landlord was aware the resident had been complaining about an ongoing leak for almost two years, and as a result the remedial work could not be progressed. The delay of two years in resolving the leak and resulting remedial work was excessive. In addition to the detriment of living in those conditions there was the time and energy expended by the resident to get the landlord to honour its repairing obligations. In this Services view the compensation offered by the landlord continued to be low, compared to the levels the Ombudsman would recommend, for failings that had a long-term and significant impact on a resident and was not a proportionate offer. Furthermore, post complaint information from the landlord confirmed the resident experienced further leaks and had to a wait another year (30 October 2023), before the issues were fully and finally resolved.
It was noted that although the landlord failed in its timeliness to complete the remedial repairs, caused by the leak, the landlord had from the beginning agreed to carry out the repair and redecoration of the residents property, which was reasonable. As it had committed to this it was also reasonable for the landlord not to consider the residents claim for reimbursement of the costs, she had previously paid for redecorating the flat, in its compensation award.
An effective complaints process enables a landlord to learn from the issues that arise for residents and to take steps to improve the services it provides. The landlord did not demonstrate that it had taken any learning from its handling of the residents complaint. It was evident the service the resident received for her repairs had not improved following the stage 1 complaint investigation; the repairs agreed were not progressed or not completed, and there was no evidence of the landlord monitoring the outcome. Despite the landlord referencing that it used complaints as a tool for learning in its stage 2 complaint response, it did not explain how it would do this, and the resident continued to experience the same problems and receive the same level of service the complaint process identified and apologised for.
In the function of its landlord duties, a council should refer residents that are not satisfied with the outcome of its internal complaints process (ICP) to the Housing Ombudsman. The landlord referred the resident to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, which was the wrong Ombudsman and could have delayed the escalation process for the resident.
In light of the above failings we would usually have ordered the landlord to review its complaints policy to ensure that it is in accordance with the Code. However, the Ombudsman has recently inspected the landlord and produced a standalone report. This report includes recommendations to amend its complaint policy and processes, in order to comply with the Housing Ombudsman’s new Complaint Handling Code, so a separate order is not necessary.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlords handling of leaks into the residents property and the resulting damage.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the residents complaint including the compensation offered.

Reasons

The landlord did not adhere to its policies, or its legal repairing responsibilities when dealing with the resident’s reports of leaks and the remedial repairs required in their property. There were extensive and unnecessary delays in identifying the causes. Outcomes of some investigations were unknown or unclear. Causes which were identified were not followed through, unnecessarily delaying resolution. The detrimental impact on the resident has been significant and despite an acknowledgement of its failings and agreed actions to resolve the issues, the failure to repair and resolve the issue continued for a further 11 months post ICP.
The landlords complaint handling process does not comply with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, and also failed to adhere to its own complaint handling policies and complaint policy timeframes. Its failures included not responding to all aspects of the complaint, not escalating the complaint when it should have, an excessive timeline for its stage 2 response and not implementing the actions agreed at both complaint stages. The landlord could not demonstrate it had taken any learning from either stage of the complaint process, resulting in the resident continuing to experience the same service failings and the significant detriment this caused.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks, someone from the landlords executive team apologises to the resident or his representative.
The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks, in addition to the compensation it has already offered (or paid), it pays the resident the total sum of £1800 broken down as follows:
1. £1000 for the failings previously identified in addressing the leaks and associated remedial work, and for the continued repair failings identified.
2. £600 for the complaint handling failures identified.
3. £200 for the failings identified in the handling of the residents damages.
The landlord should reply to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report to evidence of compliance with these orders.