Lambeth Council (202409760)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202409760

Lambeth Council

31 January 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs recommended by pest control;
2. record keeping;
3. handling of the resident’s reports of repairs and damp issues in her bathroom and kitchen;
4. handling of the resident’s reports of repair issues to the garden fence:
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident’s secure tenancy began via succession in February 2019. The property is a one bedroom flat. The property is on the ground floor of a 2-storey building and has one other flat above it. The building has front and back gardens. The landlord was aware that the resident was pregnant at the time of her complaint, and that she had her baby in September 2024. It had no other vulnerabilities recorded for the resident but she told she had asthma.
On 29 January 2024, the resident asked the landlord for permission to make her own improvements to her kitchen and bathroom. She referred to a leak in the flat above that had occurred in May 2023, its effect on her property, and the associated internal works that the landlord had begun that month. She asked for an update on the further works that it had identified for her damp hallway cupboard and kitchen wall. On 1 February 2024, the landlord gave the resident permission for her works but did not respond to her further works queries. The resident repeated her queries and advised the landlord that her plumber would begin her bathroom works in April 2024. She further stated that its contractor had not attended appointments for her kitchen ceiling works on 30 and 31 January 2024.
On 9 March 2024, the resident made her complaint to the landlord. The key points were:
1. She stated that the landlord had not responded to her request for an update regarding her further works, nor to its contractor’s failure to attend on 30 and 31 January 2024.
2. She highlighted that she was pregnant, and the stress being caused to her by the landlord’s lack of action or contact. She asked for an urgent action plan for when it would complete her outstanding works.
3. She said that the landlord had not done the works recommended by pest control in January 2020 to prevent mouse access.
4. She reported that the landlord’s 2023 renewal of the fence in the building’s back garden had been done to a poor standard and needed repairs.
The landlord’s records referred to various mould wash works raised for the resident’s property in March 2024. On 5 April 2024, the resident told the landlord that her plumber had removed her bath. She said that this had uncovered damp and damage to the wall, which was preventing the completion of her bathroom. She asked the landlord to do works to resolve this. On 30 April 2024, following the landlord’s attendance, the resident asked it for urgency, as she had been unable to live at her property without a bathroom. She chased the landlord for progress through May 2024. She emphasised that she was having to ‘sofa surf’ while pregnant and asked for temporary accommodation. She said that the landlord had advised her that there was no need for temporary accommodation, as the work would be done soon.
On 6 June 2024, the landlord issued the resident its stage 1 complaint response. It said that it would book a damp inspection with her the following week and inspect the roof the week after. It said it would arrange a fence inspection. It asked her to contact pest control. It stated that her complaint had been partially upheld pending the completion of the works. On 11 June 2024, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. The landlord attended her property the following day and identified external works and a further necessary investigation that would require scaffolding.
On 11 July 2024, the landlord did a damp survey of the resident’s property. On 16 July 2024, it issued her its stage 2 response. The key points were:
1. It said that its survey had not identified any damp or mould, and so no further works were necessary for this.
2. It noted that the resident was doing her own bathroom renewal, and emphasised “the need to leave access panel for the pipes in the bathroom”.
3. It confirmed that “the kitchen is fine and there is no requirement for it to be renewed at this stage”.
4. It said that it could not complete fence works, as the garden was overgrown. It stated that, if her pregnancy prevented her from clearing the garden, she would need to arrange for this to be done.
In November 2024, the landlord erected scaffolding and identified works to the resident’s building. The works included render repairs and gutter clearances and were completed in January 2025. In December 2024, the landlord agreed to treat and replaster the resident’s bathroom wall as a “goodwill gesture”. In January 2025, it raised works to “decorate kitchen after leak”. It did a pre-inspection for both these jobs during this investigation. The resident told us that she was still staying with family while she had no bathroom and asked that the Ombudsman investigate the landlord’s handling of the events above.

Assessment and findings

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. Paragraph 42. of the Scheme outlines complaint matters which the Ombudsman may not consider.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.c. 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 reports of outstanding repairs recommended by pest control.
Paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising”.
The landlord’s records stated that it received a report from pest control in January 2020. The report said that there were holes around the service pipes in the resident’s property that should be blocked to prevent mice from entering. The records stated that this work was completed on 13 February 2020. The resident’s complaint disputed that this work had been done but was not made until over 4 years later in March 2024. Accordingly, the Ombudsman rules this element of the complaint outside of our jurisdiction, in line with paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme.

Record keeping

We asked the landlord to provide copies of its records relevant to the resident’s complaint. This was to include contact records, repair logs, survey or inspection reports, and any internal correspondence concerning its findings.
The landlord did not provide us with any records relevant to the leak into the resident’s kitchen from the flat above, which she said that she had reported in May 2023. The earliest related records that it provided were from January 2024, when it undertook associated internal works at her property.
The repairs records that the landlord provided to us appeared to have been exported from its system and pasted onto a blank document. Each listed job began with a date, which it is reasonable to conclude was the date that the job was raised. Some of the job entries had further notes that included attendance and works completion comments. However, many did not, and simply stated “no notes”. The records also did not include the repair priority code (target timeframe) that the landlord had assigned to each job.
The landlord provided copies of the resident’s emailed repair reports and queries. However, it failed to provided telephone call records, despite the resident’s emails referring to the calls that she had made to it chasing matters.
Aside from one of its surveyor’s internal emails, the landlord has failed to provide any records of the findings of its inspections of the resident’s property. This was despite both its and its specialist contractors’ completed inspections and damp surveys. The resident has stated that she also requested, and was refused, sight of the reports from the inspections that were completed by the specialist contractors. This has meant, that in most cases, the landlord has been unable to evidence how it reached the conclusions that it did, nor the reasoning behind them.
Clear record keeping is a core function of repair and wider landlord services. It allows evidence to be provided to the Ombudsman when requested. More importantly, clear record keeping is essential to enable landlords to monitor outstanding reports and issues and provide effective services to its residents. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate and contemporary records, including residents’ reports of repairs, and its subsequent response, actions, and reasoning.
Aside from preventing the landlord from showing evidence of many of its actions, it is also reasonable to conclude that its poor record keeping contributed to the service failings detailed below. Its poor record keeping has also inappropriately obstructed our investigation, and it is unreasonable that we have had to rely on the resident’s own information for several aspects of it. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
In February 2022 and January 2024, the Ombudsman issued special investigation and inspection reports, respectively, about the landlord. These highlighted concerns about its record keeping for repairs, including for vulnerable residents. In this investigation we have identified failures similar to those that led to our special report in 2022 and subsequent inspection in 2023. We therefore order the landlord to consider the record keeping findings highlighted in this investigation against the recommendations in our inspection report of January 2024.

Bathroom and kitchen damp issues and repairs

The landlord’s repairs policy explained its 5 repair priorities codes, and their associated timescales (as above, the repairs records it provided did not include these codes). The policy stated that residents must get the landlord’s written permission to carry out alterations or improvements to their property.
As above, the landlord did not provide records relevant to its handling of the leak into the resident’s kitchen in May 2023. She explained to us that, after some delays, the landlord’s contractor had identified the leak as coming from the water tank of the flat above. She said that, as an temporary measure, the contractor had rerouted an external pipe. She stated that this had meant that the water was then flowing directly down the external wall of her kitchen. She said that this had caused damp to the internal wall, and inside her kitchen units. She said that the landlord had advised her that it would complete works in her kitchen once the leak was fully resolved. She said that after chasing the landlord, her internal works began in January 2024.
The landlord’s earliest relevant record was of a job that it raised for the resident’s property on 2 January 2024 for a “mould washdown”. The job entry contained no further details. However, the resident’s letter to the landlord on 29 January confirmed that it had undertaken the mould wash on 10 January 2024.
Aside from the resident’s comments regarding her earlier chasing, the mould wash was attended in a reasonably timely manner from when the landlord had raised it. However, as above, its failure to include repair priority codes in its record has meant that its attendances cannot be assessed against the timeframes of its policy.
The resident’s same letter requested the landlord’s permission to carry out improvements to her kitchen and bathroom. The resident’s wish to change the layout of her bathroom concerned the positioning of her bath and shower. There was no suggestion that the bath itself was unusable. The landlord gave her its written permission in a timely manner on 1 February 2024. Its letter explained the conditions of its permission, which mainly concerned responsibility for the future repairs of any items installed by the resident.
The resident’s letter also referred to the landlord’s surveyor’s attendance on 25 January 2024, and the upcoming works arranged for her kitchen ceiling on 30 and 31 January 2024. She further queried works to her kitchen wall, which she said that the surveyor had agreed to but that she had heard nothing more about. It was a failing that none of these attendances, or upcoming works, appeared to be reflected in the landlord’s records.
While the landlord responded in a timely manner to the resident’s permission request, it was unreasonable that it failed to respond to the further works queries she had made at the same time. The resident repeated her queries on 1 February 2024, and told the landlord that its contractor had not attended her kitchen ceiling works on 30 and 31 January 2024. The resident’s frustration with this was then increased by the landlord’s further failure to respond to her.
The resident raised all this again in her complaint to the landlord on 9 March 2024. She also told the landlord that she was pregnant, and was understandably experiencing stress from the outstanding issues, and the landlord’s lack of responses.
The landlord’s records stated that a job was raised on 13 March 2024. The job included a range of works, including the renewal of defective plaster, stain blocking, a roof and chimney inspection, and other repairs. It is unreasonable that the landlord’s poor record keeping has meant that it has been unable to demonstrate when these works were completed, nor what priority was assigned to them.
The landlord also raised a separate job on 13 March 2024 for a “mould wash and treat throughout property”. On 27 March 2024, it raised a mould wash post-inspection, but the job number aligned with the mould wash that it had raised on 2 January 2024, rather than its more recent one. As was often the case, its record of the post-inspection simply stated, “no notes”.
A post-inspection of the March 2024 mould wash was raised on 5 April 2024 but again stated “no notes”. Its separate entry on 5 April 2024 stated that “mould wash in property already completed”. As above, the landlord’s poor record keeping has left it unable to appropriately demonstrate its actions. It is reasonable to conclude that this would have contributed to the failings in the service received by the resident.
The resident’s plumber began the works to her bathroom at the beginning of April 2024. On 5 April 2024, she told the landlord that her works had been stopped following the removal of her bath. She said that the removal had shown the wall behind the bath to be damp. She said that it was also clear that the wall had been cut into to fit the bath. She highlighted her pregnancy and lack of working bathroom and asked that the landlord complete works to the wall urgently. She included photographs of her bathroom, which showed a deep groove cut into the wall in which her bath had been fitted, and a patch of wet wall next to the pipework in the corner where the bath had been removed from.
It is unreasonable that the landlord has failed to give evidence that it responded to the resident until it raised an inspection of her bathroom 11 calendar days later, which it booked with her for 30 April 2024. While it had been the resident’s own decision to do her bathroom works, the landlord was aware that she was pregnant and now without bathing facilities. The landlord’s delayed response failed to demonstrate that it had appropriately considered or prioritised her welfare.
The resident’s contact with the landlord on 30 April 2024 referred to the inspection that its surveyor had completed that day. She expressed her satisfaction with the landlord’s advice, which she said had “informed that a job would be raised for a specialist to find the cause of the damp and fix it” (the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of this advice). However, she asked it for urgency and an update. She highlighted that she had been ‘sofa surfing’ while she was unable to live at home without a bathroom, and the stress of this “when I’m trying to prepare for my baby’s arrival”.
The resident was of the view that, as the landlord had originally installed her bath, it was now responsible for repairing the wall that had been cut into to fit it. It is reasonable to conclude from the subsequent events that this was not the landlord’s position, and that it considered the resident to be responsible for any wall repairs associated with her decision to change her bathroom layout. Responsibility in this specific circumstance was not covered by the conditions stated by the landlord when it had given the resident permission for the work, nor by its policy or her tenancy.
As such, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident of its position regarding responsibility at its inspection, and for this to be reflected in its records. If the resident disputed the landlord’s position, it would have been further appropriate for it to provide her a clear and timely written explanation, including the reasons for it.
The resident’s open stage 1 complaint gave the landlord an ideal opportunity to do this. While the resident would not have welcomed the landlord’s position, a clear and timely explanation of it would have allowed her to make informed decisions about her own works. If she continued to disagree that she was responsible for the repair of the cut wall, it would also have provided her the opportunity to raise the matter in her stage 2 escalation request. The landlord has failed to show that it provided the resident a clear explanation of why it considered her to be responsible for the wall repair.
The landlord’s poor record keeping has also prevented it from showing that it responded to the resident’s contact on 30 April 2024 in a timely manner. However, her email to it on 14 May 2024 did refer to her contact with it in the meantime.
The resident’s email stated that she had asked about a temporary move on 9 May 2024. She described her chasing and the lack of call backs while she was passed between the landlord’s housing and repairs teams. She said that “sofa surfing is no longer possible” and asked for urgency in addressing her bathroom.
It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the resident was still unaware that, while the landlord would investigate any damp, it considered her to be responsible for the repair of her cut wall. The landlord raised a job to “investigate damp affecting bathroom” the same day that it received her email, and a further full property mould wash “post inspection” one week later. However, its records gave no further information and again only stated “no notes”.
The landlord’s next contact with the resident did not appear to be until 6 June 2024, when it issued her its stage 1 complaint response. It said that its contractor would contact her the following week to arrange a damp inspection, and to complete a roof inspection the week after. It said that it would complete decorations following the resolution of any identified issues. On 11 June 2024, the resident told the landlord that, following its lack of contact, she had referred the matter to the Ombudsman (the landlord subsequently noted this as her stage 2 escalation request date). It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord again failed to respond to her, as she found it necessary to chase the landlord and repeat her concerns on 20 June 2024.
The landlord’s roofing contractor completed an inspection of the resident’s building on 21 June 2024. It noted issues with the roof, chimney, and guttering. It identified the need for works and further investigation that would require scaffolding. It noted that the front garden would need clearing to allow the scaffolding, but that the resident was “6 months pregnant”.
It was again unreasonable that the resident needed to chase the landlord for an update on 1 July 2024. She highlighted that her pregnancy had been deemed “high risk”, and that she had been ‘sofa surfing’ due to her lack of bathroom for 3 months. She expressed her frustration and stress at the lack of progress since it had advised her that a specialist would be needed to identify the cause of the damp, and the amount of chasing she had found necessary. The landlord took a further 4 calendar days to respond to the resident and arrange a damp survey for the following week. The resident subsequently told us that the landlord’s damp and mould contractor attended on 8 July 2024, and its senior surveyor on 11 July 2024. It is unreasonable that the landlord has again failed to provide any record of these inspections.
The landlord issued the resident its stage 2 response on 16 July 2024. Its complaint handling has been separately assessed below. However, its response again failed to explain its position regarding the resident’s wall repair, and so would have done little to assure her that it had taken her concerns seriously. It stated that its recent inspections of the resident’s property had not identified any damp, mould, or need for further related works. It stated that her “kitchen is fine and there is no requirement for it to be renewed at this stage”.
The resident replied to the landlord’s stage 2 response the same day. She said that she had been told at the damp inspection that repairs would be raised. She expressed her view that the lack of damp in her bathroom was only due to it not being in use. It is unreasonable that the landlord’s lack of records has again inappropriately obstructed our investigation of these points.
The resident’s response was also the first and only reference in any of the information seen by the Ombudsman, to her being advised that she was responsible for the bathroom wall repairs. Her response suggested that this had been verbally advised to her by the landlord’s senior surveyor on 11 July 2024. This was around 14 weeks after she had told it that she had stopped her bathroom works, and over 10 weeks since it had completed its inspection on 30 April 2024. The landlord’s unclear and untimely communications throughout this period would have caused the resident significant time, trouble, and distress.
On 18 July 2024, the landlord raised a job to erect scaffolding at the resident’s building, which noted the overgrown front garden. The resident had her baby in September 2024. She has subsequently told us that she arranged for the front garden to be sufficiently cleared to allow for the scaffolding, which was erected on 6 November 2024. A few days later, the landlord identified various render and guttering works to the building, which its records stated were completed by January 2025.
In the meantime, the resident continued ‘sofa surfing’. She also reported “a new leak” to the landlord coming from the flat above into her kitchen, for which it raised decorative works. On 5 December 2024, the landlord confirmed in writing to the resident that, following their discussion, it would do works to her bathroom wall. It stated that it was doing this as a “good will gesture” to help her to complete her bathroom works. It confirmed that “other than that there are no other issues found upon inspection”. A pre-inspection ahead of both jobs was completed on 20 January 2025, and both were awaiting arrangement at the time of this investigation.
As above, our investigation of the landlord’s repairs handling has been significantly obstructed by its poor record keeping. Nevertheless, the delays and failings in its associated communications caused significant time, trouble, and distress to the resident through her pregnancy.
The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs and damp issues in her bathroom and kitchen. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident and pay her £750 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommendation of awards in this range where “there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident”. If it has not already done so, the landlord is further ordered to write to the resident to confirm when her agreed kitchen and bathroom works will begin.

Fence repairs

The resident’s tenancy agreement stated that “if you have a garden, you must keep it reasonably tidy”. The resident told us that she had made a right to buy application for her property to the landlord in 2020, which she did not go ahead with. She said that she had asked at the time whether her purchase would include ownership of either the front or back garden. She provided us with an extract of a document that confirmed that her prospective purchase would be of the property only, and did not include either garden. She said that her understanding from this was that the gardens were communal, with maintenance responsibilities shared with the flat above.
The landlord raised a job to renew the back garden fence at the resident’s building in July 2022. Its poor record keeping has prevented it from being able to give evidence of when the job was completed. However, it told us that the resident had confirmed that it was done in 2023. This was also what the resident stated in her complaint to the landlord on 9 March 2024, which highlighted issues with the standard of the renewal, and that the fence was “visibly tipping over again”.
It is unreasonable that the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it responded to the resident’s fence report until it issued her its stage 1 response 3 months later, on 6 June 2024. The response stated that it would inspect the fence, and that it would contact her with appointment details.
However, the resident’s email to the landlord on 20 June 2024 referred to its contractor’s inspection of the fence on 17 May 2024, 3 weeks before its stage 1 response. She highlighted that she had been unaware of the inspection and had only happened to be there, as she had returned home to check her mail while she was ‘sofa surfing’. She said that it had turned out the contractor had tried to arrange the inspection via her old telephone number, which she had long since updated with the landlord. She said that the contractor had advised her that she would be contacted about the fence repairs, but that she had heard nothing since.
The landlord’s stage 1 response suggested that it had been unaware that any of this had taken place. It is again reasonable to conclude that its poor record keeping directly contributed to these service failings.
The landlord’s stage 2 response to the resident in July 2024 stated that “no works can take place on the fence until the garden is in a reasonable state”. It said that this was in line with what it had previously informed her. However, it has failed to give evidence of how or when it provided her this information. Its response referred to the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement regarding keeping the garden tidy. It acknowledged that her pregnancy may prevent her from doing this and stated that she would therefore need to arrange for it to be done.
The resident responded to the landlord the same day. She stated her understanding that she shared the gardens with the tenant of the flat above. She questioned the fairness of holding her solely responsible for the garden maintenance and highlighted that she had not been living at her property for almost 4 months.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to respond to the resident in a timely manner and clarify responsibilities for the garden maintenance. The landlord has failed to demonstrate that it responded to the resident at all. At the time of this investigation the resident is still not living at her property and has told us that the situation with the back garden and fence is unchanged.
The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of fence repairs. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance where “there was a failure which adversely affected the resident”. The landlord is further ordered to write to the resident to confirm responsibilities for garden maintenance, and its intentions for the fence repair.

Complaint handling

The landlord gave us its corporate complaint policy, which concerned complaints made to the council that are under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. Its website explained its separate procedure and timeframes for complaints that are under the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman.
Its procedure stated that it operated a 2-stage complaint process and would acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It said that it would issue written responses within 10 and 20 working days of acknowledgement at stages 1 and 2, respectively. It said that for complex complaints, which may take longer than this, it would explain the reasons and revised response time to the resident.
The resident made her complaint to the landlord on 9 March 2024, which it acknowledged 1 working day later in line with its policy. However, despite the resident’s chasing, it did not issue her its stage 1 response until 6 June 2024. This was 59 working days after its acknowledgement, and 49 working days longer than the timeframe of its policy. The landlord has also failed to demonstrate that, in the meantime, it provided the resident with any reasons or revised timescales for her delayed complaint in line with its policy.
This was further worsened by the landlord failing to make any reference or apology for this delay in its stage 1 response to the resident. It was aware of how stressful she was finding the overall matter and the reasons, including her pregnancy, for her asking for urgency. Its severely delayed stage 1 response failed to show that it had taken her concerns or welfare seriously, and would have added to her time, trouble, and distress.
It was appropriate for the landlord’s stage 1 response to advise the resident of its intended repairs actions. However, it failed to apologise for, explain, or even mention, the communication and attendance failings that she had complained about. It was entirely understandable that the resident questioned the meaning of the landlord’s stage 1 conclusion that her complaint “should be partly upheld pending the completion of the afore mentioned scheduled works”.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 11 June 2024. She provided a full explanation of the outstanding issues, and the distress that she was experiencing. The landlord again failed to act in line with its own policy by taking 14 working days to acknowledge it, which was 9 working days longer than its stated timeframe.
The landlord also again worsened this by only referring to the fencing element of her complaint in its acknowledgement to her. The resident understandably expressed her frustration to it the same day. She said she “wanted to make it very clear that my complaint is more than a request for a fence to be fixed”. She again emphasised her high risk pregnancy, the issues she was facing, and that the landlord’s “lack of action has greatly exacerbated my stress”. The Ombudsman would agree with the resident’s comment that “there is a clear lack of communication between departments and the below email (the acknowledgement) is further proof of this, as it’s making reference to a fence which quite frankly is the least of my concerns right now”.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident after 25 working days on 16 July 2024, which was 5 working days later than the timeframe in its policy. It again failed to explain or apologise to her for the delays in its complaint handling. As above, it also failed to take the opportunity to offer her a clear explanation of its position regarding the works needed to her bathroom wall, and other matters she had raised.
The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling, and a further £300 compensation has been ordered. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommendation where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident, and “the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failing or attempted to put things right”.

Conclusion

In February 2022, the Ombudsman issued a special report about the landlord, highlighting concerns with its complaint handling. The report recommended the landlord review its complaint handling procedures to reduce the risk of similar failures in the future. We continued to identify problems with the landlord’s performance, reaching findings of maladministration and severe maladministration following investigations into 20 separate complaints from residents.
In June 2023, we told the landlord of our intention to carry out an inspection to find out the reasons for its ongoing failures in complaint handling. In January 2024 we issued a report setting out our findings with further recommendations for service improvement.
In this investigation we have identified failures similar to those that led to our special report in 2022 and subsequent inspection in 2023. We therefore order the landlord to consider the complaint handling findings highlighted in this investigation against the recommendations in our inspection report of January 2024.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs following the attendance of pest control is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. reports of repairs and damp issues in her bathroom and kitchen.
2. reports of fence repairs.
3. associated complaint.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that, within 4 weeks, the landlord:
1. Writes to the resident to:
  1. apologise for the further failings identified in this report.
  2. confirm responsibilities for garden maintenance, and its intentions for the fence repair.
  3. confirm when her agreed kitchen and bathroom works will begin if it has not already done so.
2. Pays the resident £1,150 total compensation made up of:
  1. £750 for the time, trouble, and distress caused by the failings identified in its kitchen and bathroom repairs handling.
  2. £100 for the time, trouble, and distress caused by the failings identified in its fence repair handling.
  3. £300 for the time, trouble, and distress caused by the failings identified in its complaint handling.
3. Compensation awarded by the Ombudsman should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against arrears where they exist.
The landlord should give evidence of compliance with these orders to the Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
The Ombudsman further orders that, within 8 weeks, the landlord consider the record keeping and complaint handling findings highlighted in this investigation against the recommendations in our inspection report of January 2024. This review is to result in a written report to be provided to the Service.
The landlord should give evidence of compliance with this order to the Service within 8 weeks of the date of this report.