Lambeth Council (202213082)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213082

Lambeth Council

5 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 the disrepair in the resident’s home.
The Ombudsman investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy on a one-bedroom flat on the 4th floor of a residential block owned by the local authority landlord. The tenancy agreement began on 6 January 1992. The resident has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and HIV. He suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, depression, arthritis, and lower back issues.
This service is aware that back in 1997, the landlord upgraded the district heating system that had served the resident’s property. The upgraded system required the installation of radiators in the resident’s property. However, the resident declined to have the system installed due to concerns about dehydration. The resident explained to this service that he had purchased mobile electric heaters to heat his home and that he was satisfied with this arrangement.
In 2019, the resident instructed a solicitor to litigate on his behalf regarding the condition of his property. Consequently, the landlord and the resident’s solicitor agreed to instruct a Single-Joint Expert to report on the condition of the resident’s property. The expert surveyor visited the resident’s property on 19 December 2019; the report was published on 24 December 2019. It found the property in a state of disrepair, and that the landlord was ‘in breach’ of its duty to repair under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act and its duty of care under Section 4 of The Defective Premises Act 1972. The report listed the following items of disrepair:
1. Non-operational space heating.
2. Worn kitchen, corroded bathtub, wet ceiling in the bathroom.
3. Leaking gutter joint; blocked drainage gulley.
4. Cracks throughout, missing floor tiles, loose windows, and a dropped door.
The surveyor said remedial works should be completed within 6 weeks while the resident remained in occupation. However, the resident would need to remove his belongings so that operatives had the space to work.
On 5 March 2020, the landlord approached the resident to arrange a start date for the work. The resident said works could not go ahead as he was clinically vulnerable and had already started shielding against COVID-19.
The UK went into full lockdown on 24 March 2020. As restrictions had eased, the landlord approached the resident on 23 July 2020. It said it found a vacant property nearby that the resident could temporarily move to while it carried out remedial works in the resident’s home. The resident explained that Occupational Health was scheduled to install a wet room in his home at that time. The landlord postponed the remedial works. Occupational Health fitted the wet room in the resident’s flat in August 2020. England went into lockdown again in October 2020.
On 7 April 2021, the landlord arranged to meet the resident and it showed him a nearby vacant property. The landlord said it had refurbished the vacant property with a new bathroom, kitchen, and heating system so the resident could move there temporarily while it carried out remedial works in the resident’s home. However, upon viewing the property, the resident declined the offer as the property had a bath, which was not suitable for his needs.
On the same day, the landlord returned to the resident’s home. It agreed with the resident that he would stay in occupation while the remedial works would take place. They agreed that the landlord would pack his excess belongings and send them to storage so that operatives would have the space to work. The landlord advised the resident to keep the items he needed for daily use. On 13 May, 14 May, and 17 May 2021, operatives packed the resident’s belongings and removed to storage, in preparation for the remedial works to start.
On 19 July 2021, the resident complained to the landlord, stating he had already made a previous complaint, which the landlord ignored. He said he had “very few clothes, no laptops, and no belongings”, yet work had not begun in 2 months. He also said he had no hot water in his basin.
The landlord did not respond. On 26 January 2022, the resident approached his councillor and said 8 months had passed and the remedial works on his property had not begun. He said the experience was detrimental to his health and well-being; he incurred the costs of having to purchase winter clothing and replace essential belongings held in storage.
The councillor contacted the landlord on 11 February 2022, and the landlord responded on 18 February 2022. It said:
1. It had “significant difficulties in getting any work to start because the resident was a hoarder”.
2. Despite initially accepting a temporary property, the resident had decided not to relocate. However, it took a “long time for the resident to get himself together”, and the contractor then informed the landlord that it would not have the time to do the job before its contract ended.
3. The resident would “now have to wait a little longer” while the landlord would allocate a new contractor in July 2022.
The councillor was not satisfied with the landlord’s response, and on 14 March 2022, he escalated the complaint to stage 2. He noted that the landlord’s previous response had not met the “commitments set out in the landlord’s customer standards which had said: ‘We would tell you what we are doing to resolve your request and when we would do it by'”.
On 17 June 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and said a year had passed since the complaint was made, and the landlord still had not responded. The landlord replied on the same day. It said it reopened the complaint. It recognised the long delay in responding and said it had “escalated the complaint to its Head of Compliance, requesting urgent action to arrange an appointment to complete the agreed works”.
The resident approached this service on 20 September 2022 and said 15 months had passed, and the landlord had not responded. This service asked the landlord to issue its final response letter. The landlord sent this service its final response letter on 11 November 2022. This service then emailed the landlord’s response to the resident on the same day. The response letter said as follows:
1. A Single-Joint Expert report had identified “minor disrepair and recommended improvements, including a kitchen and heating upgrade”.
2. Following the resident’s ‘refusal’ to let the landlord do the work, it asked that the resident explain why.
3. The resident had agreed to be moved temporarily. Consequently, the landlord put time and effort into finding a property nearby; it had fitted a new bathroom and decorated it throughout. However, the resident had rejected the move and decided to stay at the property and have operatives working around him, working one room at a time. This was not practical. Therefore, it had negotiated with the resident to remove excess belongings to storage, except for “day-to-day items”.
4. The landlord would arrange a pre–work inspection for 22 November 2022 to ensure operatives understood the work they had been asked to do and to confirm a start date to commence the work.
The resident told this service In January 2024 that there has been no progress with the works. He said that in 2023, the landlord had sent operatives to the property to assess the scope of work. The resident had asked to take a picture of the operatives before they entered the property, which he said was for his safety. The operatives had refused, explaining they did not feel comfortable with the resident having their picture, which could potentially be posted online. Consequently, the inspection of the resident’s home had been cancelled. To resolve the complaint, the resident would like:
1. All members of staff who were linked with this case to be “formally reprimanded for failure to handle this matter in a timely manner”.
2. Carry out the remedial works at the property to good a standard.
3. To return the resident’s belongings that the landlord “rushed into storage”, with a commitment to replace any damaged or lost items.
4. Full “reparation for all the costs incurred whilst waiting for the works to be done and having to purchase more clothes, shoes and winter coats”.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the disrepair in the resident’s home

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles, which include treating people fairly, following fair processes, putting things right, and learning from outcomes. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failure on the landlord’s part occurred and, if so, whether this adversely affected or caused detriment to the resident. If a failure by the landlord adversely affected the resident, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord took enough action to ‘put things right’ and learn from the outcome.
In this case, the parties’ Single-Joint Expert found that the landlord was at fault and the property was in a state of disrepair. In line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, this investigation would now turn to assess the detriment to the resident. The property was affected by the following items of disrepair:
1. Non-operational space heating.
2. Worn kitchen, corroded bathtub, wet ceiling in the bathroom.
3. Leaking gutter joint; blocked drainage gulley.
4. Cracks throughout, missing floor tiles, loose windows, and a dropped door.
The landlord commissioned a structural survey in 2020, which identified that the cracks did not affect the structure of the property. Therefore, in assessing the detriment to the resident, the cracks, together with the missing floor tiles, loose windows, a dropped door, wet ceiling in the bathroom, leaking and blocked drainage gulley, a worn kitchen and a corroded bathtub, were items of disrepair which mainly affected the decoration of the flat and did not pose a risk to the safety of the resident or the integrity of the building.
The provision of operational space heating is an implied term of the tenancy agreement enforced by Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act. However, in this particular case, the resident has explicitly informed both the landlord and this service that he did not wish to have space heating in the property. As a result, the landlord cannot be held accountable for a service that the resident has refused to accept.
Consideration was given to ensure that any redress would be fair and proportionate, reflecting the severity of the landlord’s failure and its impact on the resident. While the report’s findings adversely affected the resident, the detriment was mitigated because the items identified in the report did not pose a risk to the safety of the resident or the property.
The Single-Joint Expert report was published on 24 December 2019. It said it should take the landlord 2 weeks to form an action plan for the works. From the first week in January 2020, the landlord took 8 weeks to form its action plan, which it communicated to the resident on 5 March 2020. The 6-week delay in forming the action plan was not appropriate.
When the landlord contacted the resident on 5 March 2020 with its plan for the works, the resident advised that he was clinically vulnerable. He started shielding due to the COVID-19 pandemic and could not accommodate the work. The pandemic was out of either party’s control. England entered full lockdown on 23 March 2020.
As restrictions started to ease in June 2020, the landlord put its action plan in motion and contacted the resident in July 2020 to finalise arrangements. The landlord said it had secured a temporary property and had planned to relocate the resident while it carried out the remedial works in his home. However, the resident informed the landlord that Occupational Health was in the process of replacing the bathroom in the property with a wet room. This meant the landlord needed to find a temporary property with a shower or a wet room to suit the resident’s needs. There is no evidence that the landlord was informed about the change in the resident’s circumstances before this time. Therefore, it would be unfair to attribute this delay to the landlord. However, the landlord noted that to suit the resident’s needs, it would need to find an alternative decanted property with a wet room or shower, but not a bath.
Lockdown restrictions started to ease again on 8 March 2021. The resident kept pursuing the remedial works with the landlord, and in April 2021, the landlord offered the resident a temporary property nearby. The landlord said it had decorated the property throughout, fitting it with a new bathroom so the resident could move there for a few weeks while the landlord did the remedial work in his home. However, upon viewing the temporary property, it became apparent that the landlord had fitted it with a bath. To shower safely, the resident’s home had already been fitted with a wet room in August 2020. Evidently, the landlord had noted in July 2020 that the resident needed a property with a shower or a wet room. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerabilities when it fitted the bathroom in the temporary property. This was a significant oversight by the landlord and was not appropriate.
The resident explained to this service that he would not have been able to wash safely if he accepted the move. He said the temporary property was not suitable for his needs.
No further progress had been made with the works in the 87-week period leading up to the landlord’s final response letter on 11 November 2022. This was in addition to the 6-week delay in January 2020, making the total delay 93 weeks. During this time, the state of the property caused distress and inconvenience to the resident which will be discussed later on in this assessment.
It is important to differentiate between the adverse effects on the resident caused by the distress and inconvenience as a result of the outstanding repairs and the level of distress and detriment the resident suffered after the landlord removed his belongings.
After the resident declined the temporary property in April 2021, the landlord and the resident reportedly walked to the resident’s home. They agreed that the resident would stay in occupation, but he would send excess belongings to storage. It is not disputed that remedial works could not have occurred until the resident’s excess belongings were removed.
The landlord inspected the resident’s property at that time. The landlord would have been best placed to assess how long it should take operatives to remove the resident’s belongings and prepare the property for the work to start. Before collecting the resident’s belongings, the landlord should have had a plan to carry on with the remedial works. The resident’s belongings were removed on the understanding that work on the property would start soon after. The landlord was not able to provide contemporaneous evidence to explain the delay and the apparent lack of planning. This lack of planning on the landlord’s part was not appropriate.
The landlord explained to the resident’s councillor in February 2022 that the delay was because the resident “was a hoarder”. The landlord’s hoarding policy says a formal mental health assessment is required by a qualified mental health professional before someone is considered a hoarder. The first step to getting a diagnosis is making a referral to adult social care, followed by an assessment of the resident’s home using the Clutter Image rating tool. There is no evidence that the landlord followed its hoarding procedure. There is no evidence that it discussed the issue with the resident, contacted adult social care, and assessed the resident’s property using its Clutter Image matrix. If the landlord believed the resident was a hoarder, it failed to follow its procedure. This was not appropriate.
The landlord told the resident’s councillor that it had asked the resident to only pack his excess belongings while keeping day-to-day items. It did not accept that the resident needed additional belongings and said the resident would have to ‘wait a little longer’ until the landlord could carry out the work, but this would not happen before July 2022. However, the definition of terms such as “excess belongings” or “day-to-day items” may vary between the landlord and the resident. The landlord once again failed to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and consider the impact of its actions on the resident.
There is no evidence that the landlord considered its social obligations and ensured that the resident had access to support services or knew how to seek help. At the very least, the landlord should have asked if the resident needed to retrieve any specific item from storage or if there was anything it could have done to assist, recognising the resident’s vulnerabilities. The landlord’s unsympathetic tone and lack of compassion toward the resident’s situation were not appropriate.
There were 78 weeks between 14 May 2021, the day the resident’s belongings were removed, and 11 November 2022, the day of the landlord’s response letter. This period has evidently heightened the resident’s frustration and compounded his distress.
In July 2021, the resident reported not having hot water flowing from the tap in his basin. This service understands that the hot water in the resident’s kitchen was unaffected as there was an immersion heater. The resident had an electric shower that was also unaffected.
The landlord explained to the resident’s councillor on 18 February 2022 that it had ‘already explained’ that “if the resident ran his shower and wash hand basin at the same time, there would be a pressure issue”, which prevented hot water in the basin. The landlord said it had offered to upgrade the boiler to overcome this issue. The resident explained to this service that he did not have a reason to use the basin’s tap while showering. He said this issue occurred whenever he tried to use the hot water tap in the basin. He had brown-coloured, cold water flowing from the hot water tap. According to the evidence, on 2 March 2022, operatives inspected the resident’s property and recorded a “really rusty cold-water tank feeding the hot water cylinder was full of sludge and needed to be cleaned and disinfected”. There is no evidence that the landlord had acted upon this finding, nor that it acted on the resident’s repeated reports of no hot water in the basin. The landlord had not kept the tank ‘in repair’, and therefore, was in breach of its duty under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act. This service understands that no progress has been made to date.
There were 69 weeks between 19 July 2021, the day the residents raised the hot water repair, and 11 November 2022, the day of the landlord’s response letter.
Throughout the complaint, the resident had to live in a property which had already been found in a state of disrepair. It had a worn kitchen, a wet ceiling in the bathroom, a leaking gutter joint, a blocked drainage gulley, cracks throughout, missing floor tiles, loose windows, and a dropped door. The resident later reported no hot water in the basin, which the landlord had dismissed. Despite reports from its operatives, it had taken no action to resolve.
It took the resident time and effort to chase the landlord to progress the repairs. The resident’s distress was compounded when the landlord collected his belongings and failed to follow up to do the work. The resident had been without his belongings since May 2021, and he has been left worrying whether his belongings have been kept safe in what had turned out to be long-term storage. It took further time and effort chasing the landlord to progress the complaint, and it ultimately delayed the resident from getting a resolution.
In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors, including any distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s acts and/or omissions. This assessment distinguished the periods according to the level of detriment to the resident, as follows:
1. There was a 6-week delay in January 2020 and an 87-week delay from March 2021 in progressing the remedial works in relation to the items identified in the disrepair report. There has been no progress to date, which is a further 63–week delay. In total, 156 weeks. In compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the condition of the property, this service has calculated compensation based on 10% of the weekly rent of £118 and awarded £1,840.80.
2. There was a 78-week delay between 14 May 2021, the day the resident’s belongings were removed, and 11 November 2022, the day of the landlord’s response letter. There has been no progress to date, which is a further 63 weeks, and in total, 141 weeks. In compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord removing the resident’s belongings without progressing the works in the resident’s home, this service awarded an additional £10 per week, a total of £1,410.
3. There were 69 weeks between 19 July 2021, the day the residents raised the hot water repair, and 11 November 2022, the day of the landlord’s response letter. There has been no progress to date, which is a further 63 weeks, and in total, 132 weeks. In compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by not having hot water in his basin, this service has awarded an additional £2 per week and a total of £264.
The landlord failed to recognise the resident’s disabilities by offering a decanted property not suitable to the resident’s needs. Once the resident’s belongings had been removed and work had not followed, the landlord failed to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities yet again. In this case, the detriment to the resident was magnified because of his vulnerabilities, and it compounded his distress. The landlord failed to consider the individual behind the complaint.
The landlord’s unsympathetic tone further damaged the relationship between the landlord and the resident. Despite the councillor’s alerts that the landlord was heavy-handed in its approach, there is no evidence that the landlord modified its approach. It did not consider ways to help the resident, reduce the adverse effect, or decrease the risk to the resident and other tenants, caused by the alleged hoarding activity. The distress caused by the landlord’s shortcomings in progressing the remedial works to completion was compounded by its failure to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities. It appears that the landlord did not consider the individual behind the complaint.
In recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities, a further compensation of £1,500 has been awarded below.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The resident raised his formal complaint on 19 July 2021. The landlord failed to respond despite the resident’s sustained pursuit. The resident brought his complaint to this service on 20 September 2022. This service had chased the landlord several times for its response. The landlord responded on 11 November 2022, 336 working days after the resident had raised its formal complaint. This was not appropriate.
By the time the landlord sent its first and final response letter on 11 November 2022, it had already been accountable for 93 weeks of delaying the works. Its formal response said: “Following your refusal to let us make either improvement, you will need to confirm why you’re refusing or do not want the Council to make the improvements.” The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code says: “If any aspect of the complaint is unclear, the resident must be asked for clarification and the full definition agreed between both parties.” If the landlord did not know why the resident allegedly refused the work, a reasonable action it could have taken was to ask the resident. The landlord’s failure is seriously concerning, as there has been no progress with the required repairs.
When the landlord sent its response letter, it sent it to this service. This service subsequently informed the resident and sent him a copy of the landlord’s response. This means that, to date, the landlord has not formally addressed the resident. This was a significant failure by the landlord, and it further damaged the relationship between the landlord and the resident. The resident told this service that this has made him feel humiliated. This amounts to severe maladministration. In recognition of the distress caused by feeling humiliated, further orders of compensation and for the landlord to formally apologise to the resident have been made below.
Finally, there is no indication that the landlord has identified learning from this case. A further order has been made below for it to review the failings identified in this report, summarise what it learned, and what it has done/ or would do to ensure mistakes such as these do not reoccur.
In February 2022, the Ombudsman issued a special report about the landlord, highlighting concerns with its complaint handling. The report recommended that 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 December 2023, 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 findings highlighted in this investigation against the recommendations in our inspection report of December 2023.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the disrepair in the resident’s home.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must follow the following process, updating the resident and this service at every stage:
1. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must instruct a specialist surveyor to inspect the property and produce a report detailing the remedial works required.
2. Within 4 weeks from the date of the surveyor’s report, the landlord must follow the report’s recommendations in full.
3. On completion of the works, within 8 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must confirm with its surveyor that the works were carried out in line with the surveyor’s recommendations and that all issues have been resolved.
4. Given the likely intrusive nature of the works, the landlord should discuss with the resident whether a temporary decant is needed, and if so, ensure that it meet the resident’s needs.
5. Within 48 hours of completion of the works, the landlord must return all of the resident’s belongings to the resident’s property, and verify against the inventory that all items have been returned.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must formally apologise to the resident. A copy of the landlord’s must be sent to this service within 4 weeks from the date of this report.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident directly (and not be offset against arrears) a total of £5,514.80, broken down as follows:
1. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the worn kitchen, wet ceiling in the bathroom, leaking gutter joint, blocked drainage gulley, cracks throughout, missing floor tiles, loose windows, a dropped door, this service has calculated compensation based on 10% of the average weekly rent of £118. There were 156 weeks, and this service awarded £1,840.80 in compensation.
2. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord removing the resident’s belongings without progressing the works, this service awarded £10 per week. There were 141 weeks, and this service awarded £1,410 in compensation.
3. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by not having hot water in the basin, this service has awarded £2 per week. There were 132 weeks, and this service awarded £264 in compensation.
4. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience, time and effort caused by the landlord’s failure to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities, this service has awarded £1,500 in compensation.
5. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint, this service has awarded £500 in compensation.
The landlord must review the findings highlighted in this investigation against the recommendations in our inspection report of December 2023. the outcome of this review must be sent to this service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

The landlord should discuss with the resident whether he would benefit from having a nearby storage garage. The landlord could then return the resident’s belongings to the storage garage instead of the resident’s property.