Lewisham Council (202331984)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331984

Lewisham Council

28 June 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of reports of outstanding repairs to a toilet due to a leak and associated sewage leaks.
2. The landlord’s handling of reports of outstanding repairs to the back balcony doors. 
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in a 2 bed flat located on the first floor. The tenancy began on 18 March 2019.
On 20 July 2023 the landlord raised a repair for an uncontrollable leak from the toilet and this was raised initially as an out of hours call that was attended the same day and a further works order was raised. The following day the landlord raised a repair under emergency repairs stating that following the out of hours report, the only toilet in the property kept filling up. This appointment also shows as being completed the same day but the landlords record’s do not state what works were completed.
On 18 October 2023 the landlord raised a further repair for the toilet as an emergency repair as the toilet was leaking on the floor. On the same day it also raised repairs for the balcony door in the property as it was not closing.
Further repairs were raised between 20 October and 14 November 2023 regarding the resident’s balcony doors that would not close correctly and Between 30 October and 30 November 2023 regarding the resident’s toilet.
On 13 November 2023 the resident made a complaint to the landlord and stated:
1. For the past two months she had been contacting the landlords repairs team non stop raising two emergencies:
  1. Her toilet was leaking urine all over her bathroom floor and flooding it.
  2. Her two balcony doors were broken and unable to close, they were the only source of air in the living room as there were no windows and she had been unable to close them during the cold winter months. It was freezing and not being able to close the doors had left her no choice but to leave the heating on constantly as she had 3 children aged 5, 4 and almost 1.
2. This was affecting her gas bill. The only repair availability the landlord had was February 2024 and it was not possible to go that long in that weather in those conditions.
3. She did not think it was fair that she was paying full rent but none of the repairs had been done and were still not guaranteed until February 2024.
4. She had been told she would be eligible for some sort of compensation when the repairs were complete.
5. The matter had been on going since the balcony flooring was replaced by the Council as part of reconstruction of the building.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 17 November 2023 and informed the resident she would receive the formal response by 1 December 2023.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 01 December 2023. The landlord stated:
1. It could see work orders were raised on the 14 November 2023 as 24-hour any time emergency call outs for the leak within the bathroom and the back door not closing.
2. During out of hours, it only offered a make safe service. It’s contractor would report any remedial action required as part of their handover.
3. It could see following the reports from the contractors, a works order had been raised for an operative to repair the balcony door. An initial appointment had been booked for 26 February 2024 for the balcony door.
4. In addition, it had raised a works order for a plumber to attend and ensure the toilet and associated pipework was in full working order. That appointment had been arranged for 2 February 2024.
5. It wanted to make sure it had done everything it could to help and, on that occasion, had not upheld the complaint.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 January 2024 and stated:
1. The resident had raised concerns about two emergency repair issues which had yet to be dealt with by the Council’s Repair Team concerning repair to two back doors that did not shut securely thereby allowing cold to enter the property and the toilet was leaking into the middle the bathroom.
2. It apologised for the delay in getting those repairs completed and confirmed that it had been raised with the Repairs Team as an urgent matter and had been advised that the Maintenance Team would be going to the property on 9 January 2024 to carry out necessary the repair works.
On 11 January 2024 the resident requested that her complaint was escalated to stage two. The resident stated:
1. She was not happy with the stage 1 outcome. No one had attended to do the repairs.
2. She first complained about the toilet on 21 July 2023 and it was now 11 January 2024. The landlord stated in a letter sent by email that all necessary repairs would be carried out on 7 January 2024 but they had not. No one attended the property at all on that day.
3. She was a single parent with 3 children and had been left with leaking sewage water from the toilet that poured into the middle of her bathroom floor. She had used and ruined numerous towels and her own bedding to try and clean it up as it soaked her floor.
4. It smelled in the bathroom and was very embarrassing when guests came and she had to keep explaining herself.
5. She had a 1 year old baby who didn’t understand the water on the floor was dirty sewage water, had learnt to walk and she found it difficult keeping her away from the bathroom when at her age was natural for her to explore and touch.
6. She had an open plan living area and kitchen so was one big room. Inside that room she had the 2 broken back doors. The temperature outside had hit 4 degrees.
7. It was impossible even with her heating on 24/7 to keep it warm for her and her children. They got out of bed and were freezing and crying every morning before school.
8. It was frightening to think she was a lone parent and anyone could get access to her home through the balcony. There was only netting which could easily be cut that stopped intruders from entering the property. This affected her mental health when she left the property unattended to go on the school run. She could never be 100% sure that no one was in her home.
9. Those conditions had also made her children unwell causing time off school and did not deserve to be cold in their own home. She was disgusted that she had complained since July 2023 and nothing had been done. She had been left in the coldest harsh winter months to freeze as a result including Christmas.
10. She had to buy more clothes and washing more which increased her costs. She had to buy extra bedding to ensure they were warm in bed. Her gas bill was extremely stressful as she could not afford the bill and would not be in that financial difficulty if the broken doors were fixed or shut closed.
11. She had no choice but to keep the heating on 24/7 and half of that was going out the doors as she could not shut them. On top of the gas bill she had to buy heaters that she could not afford but had no other option.
12. She felt she had not been taken seriously and had been totally disregarded.
On 15 January 2024 the resident emailed the landlord again to request her complaint to be escalated to stage two. The landlord acknowledged the request on 22 January 2024 and informed the resident a response would be issued by 19 February 2024.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 20 February 2024. The landlord stated:
1. Its contractor attended to the window and back door on 25 January 2024 to inspect and reported that due to the specific design measurements, they would be unable to take on the work. It was currently in the process of looking into assigning the work to an alternative contractor and appreciated the resident’s patience while that was being reassigned.
2. It apologised if she received the wrong date in it’s correspondence with her and it had been unable to find were it confirmed work to be completed on 7 January 2024, however, it accepted that the repair had fallen outside of its 20-day allotted time frame.
3. As mentioned in it’s stage one response, an appointment was booked on 2 February 2024 for it’s operative to remove the bathroom unit and repair the leak. It apologised for having to reschedule the appointment and the inconvenience that had caused. The new appointment had been booked for 28 March 2024.
4. Following it’s investigation, the complaint was upheld as both repairs were yet to be completed.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports of outstanding repairs to a toilet due to a leak and associated sewage leaks.

The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy says it aims for repairs to be carried out within either 24 hours for emergency repairs, 3 working days for urgent repairs or 20 working days for routine repairs depending on the categorising of the repair priority. The earliest date in the landlord records that the toilet was reported was 21 July 2023 and the repair logs provided show that repairs works were raised the same day as an emergency, suggesting that it was rightly handled with a degree of urgency. However, whilst the landlord has indicated that it attended the same day, there were no repair records provided that explained what action it took and if any further works were required or scheduled.
The landlord’s records show further repairs for the toilet were raised on 18 October 2023, 30 October 2023, 13 November 2023, 14 November 2023, 30 November 2023. However as with the repairs attended in July 2023 there were no further records of what actions the landlord took at those appointments or if further works were required. The landlord has not demonstrated it was keeping accurate records of its visits to the resident’s property.
The landlord’s stage one response issued on 1 December 2023 provided a date for works to the toilet to take place of 2 February 2024. This repair date was 43 working days in the future, noticeably outside the landlords latest repairs policy timescale of 20 working days. At the time of the proposed date the repair would have been outstanding for at least 138 working days. The landlord did not offer an explanation or reason to the resident for the date provided.
Despite the repeated reports and subsequent emergency repairs, the landlord has not evidenced the actions or decisions it took in an attempt to resolve the outstanding repair and there is no evidence that the landlord took any further action to resolve the issues outstanding. This meant it missed opportunities to deal with the repair and caused unnecessary and avoidable delays, which would have been understandably frustrating for the resident, and this was a failing. The landlord has not evidenced it considered the resident’s reports of health and safety concerns or that she had said there was sewage leaking on the bathroom floor especially with three young children living in the property. This was a further failing by the landlord.
The stage one response from the landlord stated it had found no fault in its handling of the toilet repair and that the next appointment for a plumber to attend for repairs would take place on 2 February 2024.
After issuing the stage one response informing the resident of an appointment date of 2 February 2024, the landlord followed this up with a further letter one month later which appeared to be in response to an MP enquiry and apologised to the resident for the delay in getting the repair completed and that its repairs team would attend the resident’s property on 9 January 2024 for the repair to be completed which was almost one month earlier.
Although this was a positive step by the landlord, the letter was dated the same date as the appointment was due to take place and the repair was not logged in its repairs records so this service is unable to determine if the appointment did take place. This was a further record keeping failure by the landlord.
The landlords repairs records do show a repair was raised on 11 January 2024 under its routine timescale of 20 working days.
In the stage two response the landlord informed the resident the repair scheduled for 2 February 2024 had been rescheduled to 28 March 2024 for work to take place. There was no acknowledgement in the stage two response that it had already written to the resident in January 2024 to move the date forward and if any repairs in January 2024 had taken place. There was also no explanation to the resident why the date had to be changed to 28 March 2024 causing a further delay in the repair being completed. This would have caused more frustration to the resident.
The landlords repair records did not show works being raised for 28 March 2024 however the records did show that the repairs raised on 11 January 2024 were showing as completed on 3 April 2024 – 58 working days after it was raised. As with the other records raised for the toilet repair there was no records of what work had taken place.
However the landlord in internal correspondence noted on 9 April 2024 that the toilet needed to be replaced as it was in very bad condition, therefore indicating the repair remained outstanding.
In section 3.4 of the repairs policy the landlord states that it will adopt a ‘right first time’ approach, where it proactively manages repairs, and the resident does not have to chase works. Wherever practical, it aims to complete repairs in a single visit to both minimise disruption and deliver an efficient service.
Section 5.6 of the policy states where it is unable to complete a repair on a single visit, or within it’s expected timeframes, it will proactively keep the tenant updated with progress including arrangements for repeat or rearranged visits. This Service has seen no evidence the landlord did this.
Based on the landlord’s repairs policy, the longest period of time the repair to the toilet should have remained outstanding was 20 working days. At the time of the stage two response the repair would have been outstanding for a period of 150 working days and on 9 April 2024 when the landlord stated the toilet needed to be replaced was outstanding for 183 working days. These timescales were significantly beyond the landlord’s repairs policy timescales and represent a further failing by the landlord which left the resident feeling she had been “disregarded”. At the time of this investigation the repair remains outstanding.
Although the landlord has stated it attended the emergency repairs, it has failed to evidence the actions it took at those visits or that it took any further action following those visits since the first report of the toilet leaking. This has resulted in frequent further emergency repairs being required and the toilet has not been evidenced as being repaired. There was no evidence of a significant issue that would have caused a delay for the toilet repair to take place meaning the landlord is responsible for at least 11 months of avoidable delays.
The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint at stage one which given the failings identified in this investigation was an incorrect decision. It did uphold the complaint at stage 2 but it failed to offer an explanation or redress including compensation to the resident, so it did not acknowledge its failings and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delays, or the time and trouble to the resident in chasing the repairs. This was severe maladministration by the landlord.
The landlord’s Compensation Policy says it will consider compensation between £251 and £1000 if “The resident has suffered inconvenience and/or distress because of a serious or repeat service failure.”
Having considered the landlord’s Compensation Policy and our guidance, a compensation payment of £1000 is ordered to reflect the inconvenience of 11 months of a leaking toilet and the resident having to frequently clean sewage from the bathroom floor, plus time and trouble of chasing for the repair to be completed. An order is also made for the landlord to attend the property and complete the repair if it has not already done so.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, and investigations. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) confirms good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken. A recommendation is also made for the landlord to review the report and consider it against its record keeping processes.

The landlord’s handling of reports of outstanding repairs to the balcony doors.

It is acknowledged by this Service the resident stated in her stage two escalation request that she had been complaining since July 2023 and this is not disputed by the landlord. However, from the evidence provided the first evidenced reports of the resident reporting repairs were required to the balcony doors was 18 October 2023 with further repairs logged on 20 October 2023 and 30 October 2023. Other then it’s repairs logs indicating the repairs were raised, the landlord has not provided any evidence of the actions it took and this Service has been unable to determine the effectiveness of any action that may have been taken by the landlord.
However it is clear the repair to the doors remained outstanding and further reports were made by the resident resulting in the landlord raising more repair works during November 2023. As with the repairs raised in October 2023 the landlord has not provided evidence of its actions in response to those repairs raised. It is clear however that the landlord was aware of the resident’s reports and had raised multiple repair requests to investigate the doors.
From the evidence provide the landlord noted on 2 November 2023 that the balcony door needed to be replaced and on 3 November 2023 that it was not closing properly. It is also noted that the repairs raised on 2 November 2023 stated the repair was raised following an out of hours repair on 19 August 2023 which would indicate the resident was reporting the issue earlier than the records provided by the landlord stated.
The resident made it clear in her contact with the landlord that the property was cold, she had bought extra clothing, additional heaters and needed to keep her heating on all day. However, the landlord has not evidenced that it responded to the resident’s concerns about the effect of its delayed works at the property on her household. It has also not evidenced that it took expected actions including conducting a survey of the temperature in the property, risk assess that young children were potentially being left in cold accommodation or that it considered any alternative measures.
The landlord is obliged by the Decent Homes Standard to provide the resident with a reasonable degree of thermal comfort. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) also sets out that landlords should ensure that properties are free from category one hazards, including excessive cold. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord assessed the property, to ensure the thermal efficiency of the property was sufficient in line with its obligations.
The landlord’s stage one response stated that following an emergency call out on 14 November 2023 due to the resident’s report that her balcony door would not close properly it raised an order for follow on works to take place 26 February 2024. As with the repair to the leaking toilet, the landlord did not make it clear why there was a delay of 76 working days until the next scheduled appointment. This is particularly concerning as the appointment delay would have occurred during the winter period and the resident had already informed the landlord about her concerns of the effect of cold on the household.
The landlord also failed to acknowledge that repairs works that had been raised regarding the doors during October 2023 and November 2023 or provide an explanation to the resident of the steps it had taken so far and what steps it was planning to take next.
In internal correspondence on 26 January 2024 the landlord stated that on 23 January 2024 it attended the residents property and was unable to repair the doors and to refer to an alternative contractor.
On 13 February 2024 the landlord’s operative noted that it had been to the block and could not remedy the doors due to the height of the doors. It had suggested to the landlord that it went back to the initial people who fitted them. The only other option would be to renew the doors completely with a transom above.
The landlord has stated to this Service that there is a design fault with the doors, it had been unable to repair the doors and is looking into alternatives but it had been unable to find a suitable resource that can repair the doors.
In the stage two response the landlord did acknowledge that its contractors had visited the resident’s property in January 2024 and due to the design measurements, those contractors were unable to complete works and it was looking for an alternative contractor. Although it did acknowledge the repair had fallen outside of its 20-working day timeframe for repairs it failed to provide the resident with an expected timeframe or a date it would provide a further update. As with the toilet repair the landlord offered no compensation to the resident.
It would be understandable if the landlord’s works to the property were delayed by the need to source or have manufactured new parts for the doors. This is because it would not have had control over the length of time taken to do so by third parties. It was however not suitable that it has failed to evidence that it explained its delays to the resident or regularly updated her on it’s progress, which meant she has stated she had to continue to chase the landlord throughout her case.
The landlord has also failed to evidence it considered the effect the cold weather entering the property was having on the households health and finance when the resident informed it she had an increase in heating bills due to having the heating on to combat the cold weather entering the property.
Equally concerning is it is acknowledged the doors do not close properly and the doors lead to the balcony. The resident lives on the first floor and it is not clear from the evidence provided what investigation or works were completed to ensure the resident and her children were safe inside the property from entry by intruders and there was no risk the children may be able to access the balcony.
While the landlord cannot be held responsible if there were issues with the design measurements, the resident stated the issue occurred after the landlord completed works to the flooring in the block. The issue should have been escalated to a senior member of staff to investigate. This Service has seen no evidence that the contractor or landlord investigated what options were available or why it was taking so long to repair the doors. This should have been a priority because the resident and her children were living with an external door that would not close correctly at the coldest time of the year which caused them considerable distress and inconvenience.
It cannot be disregarded that the resident remained in a property where she had reported draughts coming from the doors during the winter months and the potential security and safety risks. It would have therefore been appropriate for the landlord to have arranged for a surveyor to inspect the doors and decide whether urgent remedial works or further health and safety inspections were required. The landlord has not evidenced it did this.
There is no evidence that the landlord conducted a risk assessment and while this Service understands there may have been a cost implication, it would have been reasonable for the landlord during the winter months or while there was potential safety and security risks to have assessed whether it was appropriate to decant the resident while it determined the most appropriate way forward.
Following the landlord’s complaint process, the repair remains uncompleted as of the date of this report. Causing further distress and inconvenience to the resident. In addition, there was a lack of information following the inspections to determine what works were required. The landlord should ensure it records any attendances at the property and notes any issues discussed or resolved with the resident. The landlord should ensure it appropriately records any agreed actions or concerns so that these can be actioned promptly.
Overall, the landlord has failed to repair the balcony door within a reasonable timescale as set out in its repair policy. In addition, the landlord did not demonstrate any consideration of the adverse effect caused by living with a door that would not close properly during the winter months, particularly with younger children living in the property. The landlord’s final response also failed to acknowledge the delays or provide redress to ‘put things right’. This amounts to severe maladministration from the landlord. The landlord has therefore been ordered to pay the resident £1000 compensation in recognition of its delays and lack of explanations and updates in repairing the resident’s balcony door.

The landlords handling of the resident’s complaint.

When a complaint is made, the landlord is required under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code to respond to all points raised in a complaint. While the landlord has responded to the issues regarding the outstanding repairs, it’s stage one response did not deal with the residents comments about the impact of the cold from the doors on her energy bills. The stage two response also failed to deal with this part of the complaint and the additional costs she had incurred in buying additional clothing and heaters for the cold, and use of towels and bedding to clean up the leaks from the toilet despite the resident making these issues a key part of her escalation request.
Given that in the escalation request the resident had stated the impact financially the delay in repairing the doors was having on her, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to set out its position on that part of the complaint. This was especially important given her financial concerns, and was a missed opportunity to support the resident and resolve the complaint more effectively. An order has been made for the landlord to contact the resident to consider the effect on her energy bills.
The landlord failed to uphold the complaint at stage one despite the failings identified and although it did uphold the complaint at stage two, the landlord failed to offer the resident any redress for its failings, it failed to inform the resident when and how it would keep her informed about the balcony doors or to outline the actions that it would take to prevent such failures in the future. This was contrary to the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles for it to put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord failed to evidence that it considered the impact the situation had had on the resident.
This was maladministration by the landlord and the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250 compensation in recognition of the failings identified in this report.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of outstanding repairs to a toilet due to a leak and associated sewage leaks.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the balcony door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology by the Chief Executive for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a sum of £1000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the toilet.
3. Pay the resident a sum of £1000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the balcony door.
4. Pay the resident a sum of £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of her complaint.
5. A senior member of the landlord’s repairs service inspects the balcony door and toilet and establishes what repairs are needed. The inspection should also determine any security or safety concerns that should be addressed and whether it is appropriate for the resident to remain living in the property until these issues are remedied. The landlord must then write to the resident and this Service setting out how it intends to resolve the issue.
6. Assess whether it considers the delays in repairing the door contributed to the resident’s increased energy bills. It should then write to the resident to set out the results of that assessment, and whether it considers it should reimburse any of the increased energy costs. If it does not intend to refund any increased energy costs, it should set out its reasoning to the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord must conduct a senior management case review conducted by an independent person or team within 12 weeks of the report which includes consideration of why the landlord was unable to complete both repairs within its repairs policy timescales, why it offered repair dates in its complaint responses that were so far in the future, and an action plan as to how it will ensure:
1. That its repairs service is able to respond urgently to sewage leaks and reports of dangerous door/window faults in the future and
2. That where it cannot resolve a health and safety repair on a first visit in the future, it conducts risk assessments to consider what interim measures are required pending completion of the works and a point of contact oversees such works.

Recommendations

The landlord reviews this Service’s spotlight report on Knowledge and information management and consider this with regards to it’s record keeping practices.