Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Lambeth Council (202307065)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307065

Lambeth Council

30 July 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of unsafe windows and other required repairs at the property.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 19 December 2022. At the time of these events, she was on crutches. She has 3 children, one of whom has been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and an autism spectrum disorder.
  2. The property is a first-floor flat with metal framed windows which cannot take modern opening restrictors.
  3. In late 2022, the resident occupied another property owned by the landlord and wanted to move. She said it was unsuitable for her family’s needs and in December 2022 the landlord showed her the property that is the focus of this complaint. She was concerned that the electrics were unsafe and that the windows would be dangerous for her child. The landlord advised her to accept the property and that any problems could be remedied before she moved in. She reported the problems the same day. The landlord agreed a schedule of works in February 2023. And completed them in late February 2023. The resident still refused to move in because there were no restrictors on the windows, and she felt this would be dangerous for her child.
  4. In March 2023, the landlord provided the resident with a 9–week rent rebate for the property as she was still living at the old property and paying rent there too. However, the resident said this was not enough as she still had not moved in.
  5. The resident complained formally to the landlord on 11 May 2023. She said it had encouraged her to accept the property even though the boiler and front door were broken and there were numerous safety hazards there by telling her it would sort out any problems quickly if she did so. In particular, she had been concerned that the windows were not safe for her child. It had told her that she would not be charged rent for both properties, but she had been. At the time of complaining, she said, electrical sockets were still not attached to the wall and wires lay loose on the floor. The windows had only recently been mended though she was still concerned about them. She said she wanted the house to be inspected and said she had been treated unfairly.
  6. The landlord completed works which limited the extent to which the windows at the property could open on 11 May 2023. The resident moved into the property on 25 May 2023.
  7. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 15 June 2023. It said the resident had taken possession of the property in December 2022 after inspecting it. It considered the windows to be safe but, because the resident had limited mobility and her child had ADHD, it had agreed to install window restrictors as a gesture of goodwill. It said it had fulfilled its obligations and had gone further by writing off 9 weeks of rent thus would not write off any more rent.
  8. The resident was not satisfied with this response and requested a review of her complaint on 4 July 2023. In its stage 2 complaint response on 8 August 2023, the landlord waived the rent up until 11 May 2023 when the window regulators were installed but otherwise maintained that the property had met the void standard and had been safe.
  9. The resident brought her complaint to this Service. She said the landlord had treated her unfairly. She had not been excused rent for the final 2 weeks that she lived at the old property, until 25 May 2023. Nor had the landlord recognised that she had paid 2 sets of council tax over the first half of 2023. She says the property remains in a poor condition with broken windows.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has raised several matters about the condition of the property in her communications with this Service which she did not raise in her complaint to the landlord. These include damp and mould and that, in July 2024, the landlord’s contractor said that the windows require replacement. She also claimed that the landlord discriminated against her on account of her race. However, while she raised the matter in 2 emails sent to the landlord in February and March 2023, she did not raise the issue of discrimination in her formal complaint to the landlord of 11 May 2023.
  2. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) states, at paragraph 42(a) that the Ombudsman may not normally consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. The landlord has not had the opportunity to respond to the resident’s concerns about these matters through its internal complaints procedure. For that reason, in this report, we are dealing only with the issues raised in her complaint to the landlord which are set out above.
  3. In any event, we cannot determine whether discrimination took place since we do not have the authority or expertise to do so in the way that a court or tribunal might, with these legal matters therefore being better suited to a court or tribunal to decide. It must be clarified however that, had the matter of discrimination been included in the complaint, this Service could have assessed whether the landlord considered its duties under the Act in its decision making, actions and treatment of the resident and her complaint.
  4. However, the resident can complain about both these matters to the landlord if she wishes. If she is dissatisfied with its response, she can refer her complaint to this Service, which would deal with it as a separate complaint with a new reference number.

The resident’s reports of required repairs at the property

  1. The landlord’s void policy says that, before 1 of its properties is let, it must meet its “void standard”. This says that windows and doors must be sealed, glazing should be free from cracks, windows must be in sound condition and electrical and gas fittings must be safe. All fixtures must be in good working order.
  2. The landlord’s “remedies menu” says that, when deciding whether to award compensation as a good will gesture to a resident, it will “need to consider the vulnerability of the affected household when calculating the level of compensation”. Other factors to consider when deciding whether such an award would be appropriate are the time taken to resolve the matter and the amount of time and effort required by the complainant. Awards should be cumulative which means that awards for different elements should be added together to create the total sum.
  3. The landlord says that the property met the void standard when the resident was offered the property in December 2022. However, on the available evidence, this was not the case. The void handover certificate is not complete and neither the electrical nor the gas safety certificate sign offs are checked. The boiler had been decommissioned when she moved in and had to be recommissioned on 21 February 2023. Photographs taken at the time show electrical sockets lying loose on the floor. This evidence supports the resident’s claims that the property was not ready are justified.
  4. On the evidence, therefore, the property likely did not meet the void standard when let. But, in any event, the landlord has not disputed the resident’s claim that it agreed that it would carry out further works on the property before she and her family moved in nor that it assured her that she would not be required to pay rent on 2 properties. In the absence of contrary evidence to this assertion, this Service finds that the landlord should not have insisted that she pay rent on both properties for as long as it did. This was not considerate of the inconvenience and financial cost to the resident.
  5. On 19 December 2022 the resident told the landlord that her main concern was about the windows at the property which she believed would be unsafe for her child with ADHD.
  6. The landlord did not install regulators on the windows until 11 May 2023. It then wrote off rent owed for the property until 11 May 2023. This was a fair and reasonable period to waive the rent when the modifications to the windows which allowed her to regulate the amount that they opened had been completed. The resident says that she did not, in fact, move into the property until 25 May 2023 so the landlord should waive the rent until then but that is not the responsibility of the landlord. Thus, there was no failing in the landlord requiring her to pay rent from the date the works were completed. However, the landlord did not waive the rent at the time, or even in the stage 1 complaint response in June 2023.  Although it did so at stage 2 on 8 August 2023, this meant that the unfairness in the resident having to pay rent on 2 properties was not resolved sooner. This delay in writing off the rent at the earliest opportunity caused the resident unnecessary concern and is the basis of this Service assessing the adequacy of its response.
  7. In the circumstances of this case the landlord should also have considered offering the resident compensation in recognition of any time, trouble, inconvenience and distress caused by its failures to carry out the works at an earlier stage and its insistence that she should pay 2 sets of rent.
  8. The landlord’s remedies menu says it should consider the vulnerability of the affected household and the inconvenience any service failure may have caused. In this case, the resident regularly had to travel the 4.5 miles between the old property and the new one to admit contractors. At the time, she was on crutches and had young children including 1 with ADHD. This was clearly a major inconvenience, and the waiver of the rent does not adequately redress the impact on her. This Service has recommended a remedy, in line with the landlord’s remedies menu and our guidance on remedies.
  9. The resident continues to believe that the windows at the property are unsafe. This view was supported when, in July 2023, the landlord’s contractor visited the property and found that the windowsill had broken and the windows were in need of urgent repair. However, the landlord then sent a surveyor to the property who inspected the windows and found that they were not dangerous, and the required repairs were not urgent. It informed the resident of this in its stage 2 response and therefore dealt appropriately with this concern. This Service cannot determine whether this conclusion is a representation of the actual position as it is contradicted by the contractor’s report of July 2023. It is understandable that the resident will continue to be concerned. We have, therefore, made an order in respect of this.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of required repairs at the property.

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must undertake the following and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
    1. Send the resident a letter apologising for the failures set out in this decision.
    2. Pay the resident £300 in consideration of its delays to handling the repairs and the inconvenience to the resident.
    3. Arrange for the inspection of the windows by expert operatives to ascertain whether they are safe in their present condition and to clarify when they are likely to be replaced.
    4. On being presented with evidence that the resident had to pay council tax for both properties simultaneously, the landlord should reimburse her the appropriate amount.