London Borough of Lewisham (202410375)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202410375

Lewisham Council

10 April 2025

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:
   1. Reports that the resident’s bath was damaged and needed to be replaced.
   2. Reports of problems with the drainage of the external gully.
   3. Reports of a faulty bathroom extractor fan.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

3. The resident occupies the property, a 2-bedroom, ground floor flat, under a secure tenancy which began on 4 November 1996. The resident lives at the property with his wife and two children.
4. On 14 March 2024, the resident reported that the bath at the property had rusted and had caused him an injury. The landlord inspected the property on 15 April 2024 and confirmed that the bath needed to be replaced.
5. On 16 April 2024, the resident reported that the drainage gully outside the kitchen was overflowing and that this was affecting his kitchen sink.
6. On 19 April 2024, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. He said:
   1. That the landlord’s operative had attended and told him that a new bath was needed, but the resident had not been contacted since then.
   2. That the fan in the bathroom was not working and although he had made an online repair request, he had not received a response.
   3. That the gully outside his kitchen was blocked which was leading to water overflowing into his kitchen sink. He said he had reported the issue online but not received a response.
   4. That he had contacted the landlord a number of times by phone, but could not get through.
7. On 5 May 2024, the landlord responded to say that the resident’s email had been forwarded to the plumbing supervisor to approve a bath replacement. The landlord also confirmed that appointments had been booked to repair the extractor fan on 22 May 2024 and unblock the gully on 9 May 2024.
8. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 15 May 2024. The landlord confirmed that it had arranged for a plumber to renew the bath on 11th June 2024, and that an appointment was raised for its electrician to attend and repair the bathroom extractor fan on 22nd May 2024. The landlord said that in relation to the gully, it was a resident’s responsibility to unblock waste pipes to sinks, toilets, basins, and baths where the blockage was in the home, and that it was also a resident’s responsibility to repair, replace or re-affix broken and cracked wall tiles.
9. On 31 May 2024, the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint. He said:
   1. That he had been injured by the bath and provided photos of his injury.
   2. That the blocked gully was outside, rather than inside the home.
   3. That the landlord had not addressed his complaint about how long it took to respond to repair requests, and whether this was in line with its policy.
   4. That the landlord had not addressed how long residents had to wait on the phone before the landlord answered their calls.
   5. That he wanted to know why he had to raise a complaint before something was done about repairs.
10. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 9 July 2024, and accepted it had not provided an acceptable level of service. It said that its call centre had been experiencing a high volume of calls and staff shortages, but that it had since recruited and trained new advisers to address this issue. The landlord apologised for the delay in replacing the bath, confirmed it had now been replaced and the bath panel had been renewed and sealed, and an appointment had been booked for tiling around the bath on 19 August 2024. The landlord also confirmed the bathroom extractor fan had now been replaced and the gully had been cleared. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had reported an injury, and requested that the resident complete and return the landlord’s insurance form. In addition, the landlord offered the resident £100 compensation, which was broken down as £50 for the delay in replacing the bath, and £50 for any distress caused.
11. The resident told the Ombudsman he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response because he thought the compensation offered by the landlord was too low.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports that the resident’s bath was damaged and needed to be replaced

12. The landlord’s repair policy states that routine repairs should be actioned within 20 working days.
13. The records show that the resident reported that the bath was rusted on 14 March 2024. The landlord attended to inspect the bath on 15 April 2024, which was 21 working days after the request was raised, a short delay of 1 day in excess of the 20-working day deadline.
14. However, after attending on 15 April 2024, and determining that the bath needed to be replaced, the installation of the new bath was not carried out until the 11 June 2024, which was a further 40 working days later. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that this was the first appointment available. Whilst it was necessary for the landlord to order the bath before arranging to fit it, the 40 working day delay exceeded the timeframe set out in the landlord’s repair policy.
15. After fitting the bath on 11 June 2024, the bath panel was subsequently fitted on 19 June 2024, and the tiling around the bath was completed on 9 August 2024. The landlord noted in its stage 2 response that the tiling could not be completed sooner because it was an all-day job. However, this was a further long delay and meant that the repairs to the bathroom were ongoing at the property for almost 4 months longer than the 20-working day deadline set out in the landlord’s repairs policy.
16. On 31 May 2024, in his escalation request, the resident reported that he had injured his foot on the rough edges on the bath. The landlord advised the resident within its stage 2 response to complete an accident form to be submitted to its insurance department. This was appropriate information for the landlord to give to the resident, and the Ombudsman understands that compensation has subsequently been offered by the landlord’s insurance department, and accepted by the resident in respect of his reported injury.
17. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged the difficulties experienced by the resident in reporting the repair via the landlord’s call centre. It explained it had been suffering from staff shortages at the time of the resident’s repair request in March 2024, but had subsequently recruited and trained new advisors and this had been effective in reducing call waiting times. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the difficulties the resident had experienced in reporting repairs, and outlined the steps it had taken to resolve the issue.
18. It was also appropriate that the landlord offered compensation in its stage 2 response, in recognition of the failings it had identified. However, the Ombudsman considers that the compensation of £100 offered by the landlord did not adequately reflect the impact of the failings on the resident, and therefore did not fully put things right.
19. In consideration of the above factors, a finding of maladministration has been made in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports that the resident’s bath was damaged and needed to be replaced. Considering the length of the delay, an appropriate compensation award for distress and inconvenience in this case would be £300, inclusive of the sum of £100 already offered by the landlord. This increased award is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a blocked external gully

20. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord will repair the structure and exterior of the property and keep in proper working order the installations providing services to the property.
21. In the landlord’s repair guide for residents, surging drains are classified as an emergency repair for which the landlord is responsible. Emergency repairs have a response time of 24 hours under the landlord’s repairs policy.
22. The records show that on 16 April 2024, the resident reported the gully outside the kitchen was blocked and this was affecting his kitchen sink. In his complaint on 19 April 2024, the resident again referred to the problem and noted that the drain water from the gully was overflowing into his kitchen sink.
23. As the resident was experiencing surging wastewater from the outside drain into his kitchen sink, the landlord should have responded within 24 hours.
24. However, the landlord’s records show that its contractor attended the property on 13 May 2024, which was 27 days after the issue was reported.
25. This delay in the landlord’s attendance to address the blocked and surging external drain amounted to maladministration. The landlord did not appropriately apologise or offer the resident compensation for its delay in dealing with the matter.
26. In the circumstances the landlord has been ordered to pay compensation of £200 in relation to the delay. This sum appropriately reflects the impact on the resident of surging drain water restricting the resident’s use of the kitchen sink, and is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a faulty bathroom extractor fan

27. The resident stated in his complaint on 19 April 2024, that he had previously made an online repair request regarding a faulty bathroom fan but had not received a response from the landlord.
28. There is no record within the evidence available to the Ombudsman, of an online repair request related to the extractor fan prior to the 19 April 2024. This means that the Ombudsman has been unable to assess any delay prior to that date.
29. However, there is evidence of a delay in dealing with the repair after the resident’s complaint on 19 April 2024. A routine repair should be completed within 20 working days under the landlord’s repair policy, but in the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord confirmed that the bathroom fan was renewed on 30 May 2024. This was 27 working days after the resident’s complaint, and therefore 7 working days over the routine repair timeframe.
30. Exceeding the target time for the repair was a service failure, and while the impact of the short delay was limited, it would be appropriate for the landlord to apologise for this delay.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

31. A landlord’s complaint handling should aim to resolve issues quickly, effectively, and fairly. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out what good complaint handling looks like, and all landlords are expected to comply with this.
32. Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, landlords are required to:
    1. Acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
    2. Respond to the complaint within 10 working days of receipt. The landlord can extend this timeline up to a further 10 working days, providing the resident with a clear explanation for the reasons.
    3. Acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days.
    4. Provide a final response within 20 working days of the date of the escalation request. The landlord can extend this timeline up to a further 20 working days, providing the resident with a clear explanation for the reasons, along with a clear timeframe for when the response will be received.
33. There were delays at both stages of the complaint procedure in this case. The resident raised his complaint on 19 April 2024. This meant that the landlord should have acknowledged the complaint by 26 April 2024, and provided its stage 1 response by the 3 May 2024. The landlord replied to the resident on 5 May 2024 to provide dates for the repairs to the bathroom fan and blocked gully, but did not formally acknowledge the complaint or provide a timescale for the landlord’s response. The stage 1 response was issued on 15 May 2024, which was 7 days late.
34. The resident made his escalation request on 31 May 2024, which meant that the landlord should have acknowledged the request by 7 June 2024, and provided its stage 2 response by 28 June 2024. There is no record of a formal acknowledgement of the escalation request, although the landlord responded with further information about the repairs on 31 May 2024. The stage 2 response was provided 7 working days late, on the 9 July 2024.
35. In addition to the delays outlined above, there were also several errors and inconsistencies within the stage 1 response which required the resident to respond and provide further information to the landlord in order to progress the matter. The landlord incorrectly stated that the resident had complained that the landlord had damaged his bath, when his complaint was that the bath was rusted. The landlord also said that it was not responsible for unblocking the gully because it was in the kitchen, when the resident had clearly stated that the blocked gully was outside. Additionally, the landlord stated that it was the resident’s responsibility to repair broken or cracked wall tiles, but at stage 2 confirmed that it would replace and reseal the tiles around the bath after replacing it.
36. The landlord apologised for the error regarding the location of the gully in its stage 2 response, but did not address the other errors or apologise for the delays in its complaint handling at stage 1 or stage 2, or make any attempt to put things right.
37. Overall, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
38. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation in respect of its handling of his complaint. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends compensation of this amount where there was minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, and it did not appropriately acknowledge this or fully put things right.

Determination

39. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Reports that the resident’s bath was damaged and needed to be replaced.
    2. Reports of a blocked external gully.
40. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Reports of a faulty bathroom extractor fan.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Orders 

41. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings outlined in this report. The apology should be drafted in line with the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance. A copy of the apology must be provided to the Ombudsman.
    2. Pay the resident £550 compensation, broken down as follows:
       1. £300 for the delay in completing the bathroom repairs.
       2. £200 for the delay in its handling of the blocked gully.
       3. £50 for its failings in dealing with the resident’s complaint.

The sum of £550 is inclusive of the compensation previously offered by the landlord, and therefore the landlord may deduct from this total any compensation that may already have been paid in relation to this complaint.

3. Provide the Ombudsman with evidence of the total payment of £550 to the resident.