London Borough of Lewisham (202231881)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231881

Lewisham Council

29 February 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs, including damp and mould.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident lives with her two children in a three-bed maisonette on the ground floor. The resident holds a secure tenancy which began on 21 November 2022.
The resident does not have any vulnerabilities listed.
The resident moved into her property on 28 November 2022, following a period of void works being completed by the landlord. The resident reported that there were several repairs that had not been completed, including:
1. An incorrectly installed wet room drain that was causing flooding.
2. A missing letterbox on the rear kitchen door, which the resident said let in draughts, insects and rodents.
3. An uncovered drain in the rear garden.
4. Damage to the garden fence.
5. A broken step, which was coming away from the banister.
The resident reported these issues, and the landlord completed a repair to the drain, although the leaks in the interim had caused water damage to other parts of the property. The resident also noted that damp and mould was present in her children’s bedrooms.
The resident raised a complaint on 28 December 2022 as the remaining works were outstanding. The resident said this was poor service from the landlord and posed safety risks to herself and her children.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 17 January 2023. It upheld the complaint and said that it would arrange for contractors assess the remaining works required at the property. The landlord did not commit to repairing the garden fence, as it was still attempting to establish who owned this. It also said that the water marks from the leaks would be the resident’s responsibility to resolve, under her tenancy agreement.
The resident escalated her complaint on 2 February 2023. She stated the contractors had not contacted her and the repair work remained incomplete. This included ongoing damp and mould within the property.
The landlord issued its final response on 8 March 2023. The landlord partially upheld the complaint because it had not identified the outstanding works during the post-void inspection, but that it had since completed these on 13 February 2023.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 14 March 2023 seeking completion of repairs which she said remained outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Outstanding repairs

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, landlords have a statutory duty to maintain the structure and exterior of its properties, which includes the roof, walls and external fixtures. Once notified of a defect, landlords must make a lasting and effective repair in a reasonable time.
The landlord’s repairs policy categorises repairs as follows:
1. Emergency repairs, which the landlord commits to attending within 24 hours of notification.
2. Urgent repairs, which the landlord commits to attending within 3 working days of notification.
3. Routine repairs, which the landlord commits to attending within 20 working days.
The Housing Act 2004 established the ‘Housing Health and Safety Rating System’ (HHSRS). The HHSRS outlines several hazards which would mean that a property does not meet the ‘decent home standard’. This includes ensuring that a property has “a reasonable degree of thermal comfort” and is free from damp, mould, excess cold and fall hazards. The Regulator of Social Housing enforces this expectation through its ‘home standard’ which all social landlords must adhere to.
The resident notified the landlord when she moved into the property that a series of works were outstanding, as set out in paragraph 5 above. The resident specifically said that the lack of a drain cover posed a safety risk to her children, and that they had become unwell because of the damp in the property.
This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, personal injury, therefore we will not consider this element of the resident’s complaint. This Service can give an opinion as to whether the landlord responded in a reasonable manner to the resident’s reports of illness and the risks within the property. Claims of personal injury must be decided by a court of law who can assess specialist medical evidence and make a judgement on the merits of the case. The Ombudsman understands this situation has been very stressful for the resident and therefore she may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health, or the health of her children, has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that the repairs raised by the resident had not been noted in its post-void inspection. The evidence does not identify any reason that these repairs had been missed, nor any action that it was planning to take to prevent a reoccurrence in the future. This was a failure because it left repairs unresolved for longer than necessary and caused the resident and her family loss of enjoyment of their property and distress and inconvenience.
The resident first notified the landlord of these outstanding repairs when she moved into the property in November 2022. She also notified the landlord again in her complaint on 28 December 2022.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response stated that most of these repairs were completed on 13 February 2023. The landlord’s repair logs and internal correspondence are inconsistent with this statement, as they show jobs being raised and discussions about the progress of the works for:
1. An inspection of the walls and letter box in May 2023.
2. A damp and mould inspection in May 2023.
3. Works to the windows and seals on 5 June 2023
4. A further inspection of the rendering on 9 June 2023.
In either event, the Ombudsman considers this was an unreasonable delay because the landlord should have made these repairs when the property was void or otherwise within 20 working days of them being reported. This represents a delay of between 32 working days and over 6 months to complete different aspects of the repairs.
This Service has noted that the delay in completing the repairs were largely due to:
1. Poor communication between the landlord’s voids team and its repairs team. There is evidence both internally and with the resident about confusion over which team should have managed the repairs and a clear lack of accountability. This led to delays and a poor customer experience for the resident because she felt she was regularly caught in the middle of two teams, neither of which wanted to take ownership of the repairs.
2. Poor communication between the landlord and its contractor. In its stage 1 complaint response on 17 January 2023, the landlord stated that contractors would contact the resident to attend and assess the outstanding work. When the resident contacted the contractors on 31 January 2023, the contractor stated that they had not received any instructions from the landlord and that the property had been “signed off.” This meant the resident had to spend time and trouble chasing the landlord to complete the actions it had said it would take.
3. The landlord commissioning a new survey of the repairs, which the resident said had already been completed in December 2022. The landlord has not provided copies of either survey, so it is not possible to determine if this additional survey was required. This is a record keeping failure.
4. The landlord’s repair records are vague, including entries such as “inspect damaged letter box on front door” or “S&B – Void TOT”. These records give no indication as to when this was completed, what the findings were, or any outstanding actions required. Effective records allow works to be tracked and monitored through to completion in a timely way.
The landlord told this Service on 5 September 2023 that the property continued to experience damp in two bedrooms. The resident has confirmed that, at the time of investigation, there is still damp and mould present in her children’s bedrooms and the wet room, despite a mould wash in January 2024. This represents an unacceptable delay of over 15 months since the resident first told the landlord about this issue.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on ‘Damp and mould – it’s not lifestyle’ and the subsequent follow up report made recommendations to landlords which included the need for a dedicated damp and mould strategy, effective recording of information and joined up working across different departments. There were several failings in this regard in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould reported in this case. The landlord must now self-assess against the recommendations in the spotlight report to highlight learning for the organisation.
The Ombudsman considers this to be maladministration because:
1. The landlord failed to accurately assess the works required in the property and complete them prior to the tenancy beginning.
2. The landlord failed to complete the works within a reasonable time once it was put on notice of the repairs by the resident. The Ombudsman notes the resident is still experiencing damp and mould at the time of this investigation.
3. The landlord’s prevalence of poor communication, both with the resident and between its own departments.
4. The landlord’s poor record keeping.
The landlord has previously apologised for delays in completing repairs but has not provided any other redress. The Ombudsman considers this is insufficient to address the failings found by this service and the impact of those failings on the resident. It has also failed to identify why things went wrong and what it will do to prevent this from occurring in future. It must now undertake a full assessment of the outstanding repairs and provide a schedule of works, alongside paying the resident appropriate compensation and undertaking a case review to learn from the delays in this case.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a three-stage complaint process. It commits to acknowledging complaints within 5 working days and issuing a response within 10 and 20 working days at stage 1 and 2 respectively.
The landlord’s third complaint stage refers the matter to an independent adjudicator, although the timescales for this stage are not clear from the landlord’s policy.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) which was in force at the time of this complaint sets out key standards that our Service expects landlords to deliver as part of its complaint handling. This includes:
1. Paragraph 4.4: “A complaint should be resolved at the earliest possible opportunity, having assessed what evidence is needed to fully consider the issues, what outcome would resolve the matter for the resident and whether there are any urgent actions required.”
2. Paragraph 4.15: “A full record must be kept of the complaint, any review and the outcomes at each stage. This must include the original complaint and the date received, all correspondence with the resident, correspondence with other parties and any reports or surveys prepared.”
The landlord issued both of its complaint responses outside its policy timescales. There were delays of 3 working days at stage 1 and 4 working days at stage 2. Whilst these are not significant delays, there is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged this, or that it apologised to the resident or kept her informed about the delays. This was a service failure as this Service expects landlords to progress complaints in a timely way and keep residents informed of any delays.
More widely, the Ombudsman expects landlords to keep adequate records of complaints and any associated correspondence, as required by the Code. This includes repair logs, correspondence, inspection records and more. In this case, the landlord was not able to supply the resident’s original tenancy agreement. It has also failed to provide any survey reports, void inspection checklists or other documentation regarding the assessment of the repairs. This is maladministration as this frustrates the ability of the landlord and this Service to properly assess a complaint and progress it to a suitable conclusion in a timely way.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM) outlines the importance of using data to effect repairs. The landlord must now undertake a self-assessment against the recommendations in that report to highlight areas of learning for the organisation.
The landlord’s delay in issuing complaint responses and the poor record keeping is maladministration. The landlord has not provided redress for this element of the complaint. It must now undertake an assessment of its complaint and record keeping processes, apologise to the resident and pay appropriate compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs, including damp and mould.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Arrange for a senior officer at Director level or above to apologise to the resident in person for the failings identified in this determination.
2. Arrange a survey of all outstanding repairs in the property, notably around damp and mould. The landlord must share the survey report with the resident and this Service within 5 working days of receipt, along with a schedule of works to remedy any defects identified. The landlord must then use its best endeavours to complete the works within a reasonable timescale, not exceeding 6 weeks.
3. Pay the resident £850 compensation comprised of:
  1. £600 for the delays in undertaking repairs in the property, which caused the resident distress and inconvenience and affected her enjoyment of the property.
  2. £250 for the complaint handling failures.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Undertake a self-assessment against the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould. It must provide this Service with a copy of the self-assessment, any learning identified and a detailed plan to implement this learning, including timescales.
2. Undertake a self-assessment against the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management. It must provide this Service with a copy of the self-assessment, any learning identified and a detailed plan to implement its learning, including timescales.
3. Undertake a case review for this complaint to identify the root causes for delays in completing the repairs and issuing complaint responses. The learning points identified must be shared with this Service. This must show how the learning will be implemented and embedded into its operations within a reasonable period, not exceeding 10 weeks from the date of this report.
The landlord must provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales shown above.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider utilising the remedies framework and orders in this report for the period since it issued its stage 2 response until effective completion of all outstanding works in efforts towards a negotiated final settlement and improved ongoing relationship in this matter with the resident.