Lambeth Council (202220339)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220339

Lambeth Council

19 November 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 resident’s reports of:
1. An ongoing leak in the property, and the subsequent damaged caused.
2. Damp and mould in the property.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s:
1. Record keeping.
2. Handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the property, which is a 2-bedroom, first floor flat. The resident lives in the property with her 2 children.
On 8 November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to complain about its handling of the leak in the property. She said the leak from the upstairs flat had caused damp in her kitchen which had spread to her bathroom. She said the kitchen cupboards were “soaked and starting to bow”. She said she did not understand why it was not being fixed. The resident said the property was not suitable for her family and it was causing her stress. The landlord recorded the complaint as an “Early Resolution”.
On 10 November 2022, the records showed the resident’s kitchen ceiling collapsed due to the ongoing leak. The landlord raised an order to attend and make the area safe. The landlord carried out repairs to the roof in March 2023, however, the resident reported that the leaks were ongoing. On 28 March 2023, the landlord stated that it would arrange for the works to be inspected to ensure it was watertight. It said it would also arrange for the damp and mould and other internal repairs to be carried out.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 15 August 2023. She said someone was booked in to complete the repairs to her kitchen following the ceiling collapse and water damage, but she still had water coming into her property when it rained. The resident provided a video of the issue. She said she could not use her kitchen without getting wet. She said she was concerned for her children who were aged 1 and 3 being in the kitchen due to the risks posed to them. The resident said the landlord kept saying it would sort it, but she would like to know when.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 6 October 2023. It acknowledged that its response was overdue and apologised for the delay. It said its contractor attended in July 2023 but was unable to resolve the issue. The landlord said it had arranged for a surveyor to attend the week commencing 9 October 2023 and they would contact her to confirm a time and date.
The resident contacted the landlord on 2 November 2023. She said someone attended on 12 October 2023 but nothing had happened. She said she had been asking for help for over a year and nothing had been done about the leak in her kitchen. She said the kitchen was currently flooded and the walls were full of mould. The resident said there was also still a hole in the ceiling from her ceiling collapse. She said she could not take it anymore and she was worried her children would die from all the mould. She said she contacted the complaints team and they said the case had been closed as it had been dealt with. The resident then brought her complaint to the Ombudsman who contacted the landlord to request it provided a stage 2 response.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 5 December 2023. It said it had reviewed the background correspondence related to the resident’s complaint. It said its contactor attended on 2 July 2023 and sourced a roof leak. The landlord said it was waiting for authorisation from the scaffolding contractor before any further works could commence. It said mould washes were carried out on 17 November 2023 and all areas affected were painted afterwards. It said it appreciated the resident’s frustration in the amount of time taken to address her concerns. It said it trusted the actions it had highlighted provided a resolution to the complaint.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She has informed the Ombudsman that the leak is ongoing and the situation is getting worse. She said there is also a new leak in her children’s bedroom and the living room. She said her children cannot sleep in their beds due to the damp and mould. The resident said she has had to use a dehumidifier in the children’s bedroom to try and assist with the excess moisture, but it is not enough. She said she did not understand why the landlord was taking so long to fix the issue and feels it is waiting for her family to get hurt or even die.
On 10 April 2024, the landlord described the conditions in the property as “pretty dire”. It said it was a longstanding repair which was very urgent and needed immediate attention. As stated above, the resident has confirmed that the situation is still ongoing.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of an ongoing leak in the property, and the subsequent damage caused.

Social landlords are expected to provide housing to residents which meet the definition of a decent home. The standard of a decent home from 2006, is that:
1. It is in a reasonable state of repair.
2. It has reasonably modern facilities and services.
3. It provides a reasonable degree of thermal comfort.
4. It meets the current statutory minimum for housing. Dwellings which do not are those containing one or more hazards assessed as serious (Category 1) under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
The HHSRS sets the minimum standard for housing safety. It lists 29 common hazards, the impacts these hazards can have, and the possible causes. There is advice for landlords on how to categorise the hazards as category 1 (requiring urgent repair) or category 2 (repair if needed). Relevant to this complaint, it provides advice on asbestos, electrical hazards, damp and mould, and structural collapse.
The landlord’s repair policy categorises repairs as the following: Emergency (within 24 hours), urgent (within 3 working days), non-urgent (within 7 working days), and routine (within 28 working days).
The resident stated that she first reported the water ingress upon moving into the property in September 2022. The Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s account, however, the landlord’s records which have been provided to the Ombudsman only go back to November 2022. A lack of repair records means it is difficult for the Ombudsman to determine the exact course of events following the initial report. The landlord’s record keeping will be addressed later in this report.
The ceiling collapsed 2 days after the resident’s complaint on 8 November 2022. In her complaint, the resident said she had been reporting the leak to her housing officer who was not responding. It is of concern that between the resident’s initial report in September 2022 and the day of the ceiling collapse on 10 November 2022, no works to remedy or identify the leak appear to have taken place. Leaks would be considered an emergency and therefore the landlord should have responded within 24 hours. There is no evidence that it did, which is a failing.
The landlord raised a repair for the ceiling to be made safe by the next day. The notes from the 10 November 2022 stated that it was an “artex ceiling” and an “urgent bulk survey to be done to kitchen ceiling”. The Ombudsman understands this to mean that the ceiling needed to be tested for asbestos. The landlord’s records do not indicate whether anyone attended to make the ceiling safe. The resident informed the Ombudsman that someone did attend, however, they said they could not carry out the repair as it was not within their remit. The resident said she recalled someone testing for asbestos but when she contacted the landlord, they said they had no record of requesting a test.
While the Ombudsman cannot substantiate the resident’s account from the records provided, there is no evidence that the landlord made the ceiling safe or confirmed whether there was asbestos in the ceiling. Under the HHSRS, the landlord should have identified the location of any asbestos in the property, assessed how vulnerable it was to damage, and identified any current damage or potential fibre release. As stated in its notes, this should have been an urgent assessment due to the damage already caused to the ceiling. It is troubling that the landlord has not provided any records to evidence that it gave due regard to the safety of the resident and her children.
It is a further failing that the situation currently remains the same, 2 years later. The resident resorted to creating a makeshift cover for the ceiling with black bin bags. She said this would help to redirect any water ingress towards her kitchen sink, rather than her floor. The resident has provided photo and video evidence of this. It is worrying that the resident and her family are currently living in such conditions and that there does not appear to have been any risk assessment undertaken throughout the case. Upon receipt of this determination, if the landlord cannot find satisfactory evidence of it assessing the property as safe and habitable, then it should prioritise this case taking into account the concerns identified.
The landlord emailed the resident on 11 November 2022. It said that it had asked the allocation team to see if it could offer a similar property for the resident as it was having access issues with the flat above. It said this was causing a delay in securing the leak and repairing the resident’s flat. It said it strongly suggested that the resident did not approach the neighbour.
While the email shows some consideration for the condition of the property and the risk to the resident, there was no further correspondence regarding its request. The resident informed the Ombudsman that she did not wish to permanently move at the time but said she would have accepted a temporary move if it was offered to her. There was no evidence of the landlord considering a temporary move for the resident, which was not appropriate. The landlord suggested the delays in securing the leak were due to access issues with the neighbour. While this would have caused some difficulties, it was the landlord’s responsibility to consider what measures it could take to gain access to the neighbour’s property. There is no evidence of it exploring those measures at the time.
The landlord erected scaffolding on 1 February 2023 and a quote was provided for the works on 14 February 2023. On 15 March 2023, the landlord confirmed the roof works had been completed. While it is positive to see that works were carried out to try to address the issue, there were unreasonable delays in doing so since the resident’s complaint.
On 24 March 2023, the resident reported that the leaks were continuing and provided a video to the landlord. It was confirmed that the neighbour in the property above was also experiencing the leak. The notes stated that the situation had gotten worse since its attendance. The landlord emailed the resident on 28 March 2023 and said it would arrange for its senior housing officer to inspect. Given the report of an active leak in 2 properties it was not appropriate that the landlord did not attend within 24 hours. It is unclear when the properties and roof were inspected. The Ombudsman has not been provided with an inspection report. However, if any works were carried out at that stage, they were not successful as the resident continued to report the leaks.
The Ombudsman has seen internal emails in June 2023 stating that the leaks were from the balcony above, not the roof. It is unclear what action was taken at that time to address any issues with the balcony. In its stage 1 response on 6 October 2023, the landlord stated that despite attending in July 2023, it was unable to identify the source of the issue. While it said it would arrange for a survey in October 2023, the landlord failed to show that it had been proactive in sourcing the cause of the leak prior to that.
It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as leaks, as it can be difficult to identify the cause of an issue. This is especially relevant in a block of flats where multiple properties may be involved. However, in this case, the delay in identifying and confirming the cause of the leaks from 2022 is extensive and unreasonable. The leaks remain unresolved, and this is likely to have caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident. This is also evident in the considerable time and trouble the resident spent in pursuing a resolution and updates from the landlord.
The landlord’s records show a repair was raised for an electrician to attend on 2 November 2023. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord should have inspected the electrics much sooner given the resident had been living with the leaks and ceiling collapse for over a year by that point. The notes stated that the leak was going into the kitchen wires, and it needed to be made safe. The follow-on notes dated 4 November 2023 stated that the sockets and lights had been checked and all were clear of water penetration. It also noted that the leak was spreading and should be dealt with as soon as possible.
The resident disputes the landlord’s account and stated that she was told the appliances should not be plugged in on one of the walls due to the electrical risk from the water ingress. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to substantiate this account. However, the resident did send an email to the landlord on 7 November 2023 referring to a dangerous plug socket where the water dripped and that she was slipping on puddles on the kitchen floor. While the landlord responded to say the roofing contractor would be attending the next day, it did not respond regarding the internal hazards the resident had reported. This was a failing.
Overall, there is insufficient evidence to show that the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports fairly or appropriately, this has led to an ongoing leak and potentially dangerous living conditions for over 2 years in the property. This is a significant delay with little indication of where the leak was coming from and how it could be resolved. There was no sense of urgency on the part of the landlord to resolve the issues despite the damage from leaks growing worse with time and the resident’s increasingly distressed reports. It is also of concern that the landlord has not evidenced that it considered whether the property was safe and fit for human habitation. The landlord should have considered whether the resident and her family needed to be temporarily moved until the risks could be sufficiently addressed.
The Ombudsman has therefore found severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an ongoing leak and the subsequent damage caused. The landlord did not offer any compensation for its failings which was not in line with its complaint or compensation policy. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that a significant level of compensation is warranted to put right the likely distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble caused to the resident.

The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.

The landlord’s damp charter outlines that it will inspect properties with damp to diagnose the issue within 28 days of a report. It continues that if a home has persistent damp, a surveyor will act as the resident’s point of contact. They will arrange the necessary work and stay in touch until the works are completed.
The resident reported damp and mould in her property on 8 November 2022. The resident has told the Ombudsman that someone attended to treat the mould, however, the landlord’s records do not evidence this. It is understood that the treatment did not take place due to the ceiling collapse.
It is acknowledged that without remedying the leaks and ceiling collapse, it may be difficult to complete lasting remedial works to any damp and mould in the property. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have demonstrated proactive attempts to mitigate the risks such as completing a risk assessment, providing dehumidifiers, and carrying out a mould wash. In her complaint the resident said the property was not suitable to live in due to the strong smell of mould. It is a failing that the resident’s reports were left unaddressed.
The landlord’s damp charter states that if a home has persistent damp, a surveyor would be the resident’s point of contact. No survey reports have been provided in relation to the damp and mould. A survey report would have taken into account the extent of the damp and mould in the property and would have assisted the landlord in considering whether the property was habitable for the family. In the absence of such information, the landlord failed to follow its policies and its responsibilities under the HHSRS.
The landlord’s repair records show a repair was next raised on 30 March 2023 to inspect the damp and mould in the kitchen. It said an appointment was booked for 13 April 2023, however, the notes stated that there was no access at the time of visit, and it was unable to leave a visiting card due to the communal entrance. While it is important for residents to ensure they are available when appointments have been arranged, there is no evidence of the landlord following up on this visit or re-arranging the appointment, which was not appropriate.
The next recorded appointment to inspect the damp and mould was for 16 October 2023, 6 months after the previous appointment. There are no records to confirm whether the appointment took place or what action was taken. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot determine whether the landlord’s handling of the issue was appropriate at the time. On 2 November 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and said she did not want her children to die from all the mould she was getting. She said no matter how much she cleaned it the mould would return. The records show that on 17 November 2023 a mould wash and paint was carried out in the kitchen, living room, and bedroom. Again, in the absence of any inspection reports it is difficult to determine whether the actions taken by the landlord at the time were reasonable.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said it appreciated the resident’s frustration on the amount of time it had taken to address her concerns. It outlined a mould wash and paint which was done on 17 November 2023 and said it trusted that those actions provided a resolution to her complaint. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have outlined the action taken since the resident’s first report in November 2022 and whether it had acted in line with its policies. It would have been reasonable for it to have outlined the findings from any inspections and how it reached the conclusion that the mould wash and paint would fully resolve the issue for the resident.
The resident has stated that she still has damp and mould which has spread throughout the property. She said it was now impacting her children’s bedrooms to the point that they can no longer sleep in their bedroom. This investigation has found that there were significant delays by the landlord in responding to the resident’s reports and taking any steps to mitigate the issue. Due to the lack of action by the landlord, and the impact this may have had on the resident over a prolonged period of time, the Ombudsman has found severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.

Record keeping.

As part of this investigation, the landlord was asked for its records relating to the issues, such as a copy of the resident’s reports, repair logs, copies of any survey or inspection reports, and confirmation that the issue has now been resolved and completion dates for any repairs. Some of this has been provided, but the Ombudsman has not seen any survey or inspection reports and it was difficult to determine the exact course of events since the issue was reported. For example, the landlord provided some repair records, however, the records supplied begin in November 2022, 2 months after the resident said she first reported the matter.
The Ombudsman has therefore had to rely on the resident’s version of events to understand some of the action taken and it is a concern that the landlord’s records are lacking the detail required to fully investigate this case. Record keeping is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. An example of this is how the landlord’s records show the need to test for asbestos and then there are no further records in relation to this. The resident said the landlord had no knowledge of the asbestos test when contacted. This suggests that the landlord did not always have oversight of the repairs required in the property.
To conclude, the lack of clear and accurate record keeping would have contributed to the lack of updates to the resident, the failure to meet its obligations, and the protracted delays in resolving the outstanding issues with the leaks and damp and mould. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping. The Ombudsman is aware of recent determinations against the landlord and similar findings in relation to its record keeping. The landlord must provide an update regarding the steps it is taking to address this issue.

The complaint.

The landlord’s complaints policy at the time stated that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The complaints policy describes an “early resolution” as when it wants to resolve complaints straight away. It said it will make contact with the resident and agree actions to resolve the issue and agree timescales. It states that the resident will not receive a written response but if they remain dissatisfied, they can ask for the complaint to be formalised to a local resolution.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it should consider applying a remedy after investigating a complaint where a service failure has occurred which has an adverse effect on the complainant. It says that when considering financial compensation in repair cases, it should consider whether the resident was deprived of the full use and enjoyment of their home and experienced distress by living in those conditions.
The resident’s first complaint in November 2022 was recorded as an early resolution. However, there was no indication that the landlord explained to the resident that it was dealing with her complaint as that, or that actions and timescales were agreed to resolve the issue. In an internal email dated 7 December 2022, the landlord confirmed that it was still working on the early resolution. Given that it had been a month since the resident’s complaint, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider treating the complaint as a local resolution. It is disappointing that the resident had to complain about the same issues again in August 2023, 9 months after her original complaint.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response 38 working days after the resident’s formal complaint, which was outside of the landlord’s timescales. The landlord did however acknowledge that its response was overdue, and it apologised for the delay. It would have been reasonable for it to have also explained the reasons for the delay and how it would ensure it did not repeat the same mistake in future.
The resident contacted the landlord on 2 November 2023 to state that the issues were ongoing, and the complaints team had told her the case was closed. While the landlord’s policy states that requests for a review should be made within 20 days, given that its initial response was delayed and the issue was not resolved at the time of its response, it would have been reasonable for it to have used its discretion to escalate the complaint to stage 2. If this was not an option, it should have explained this to the resident and outlined what the next steps would be for her in the circumstances. The resident had outlined serious concerns but the lack of resolution left her to contact her local MP and the Ombudsman. This likely caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
It is of concern that the landlord’s responses at both stages of its complaint process were reiterations of the most recent contractors notes on its system. While its stage 2 response stated that it had reviewed the background correspondence, there was no evidence to suggest that a wider investigation into the complaint was completed. If the landlord had done this, it may have identified the failings which were present in this case and the impact on the resident. It could have also then offered more appropriate remedies to the resident.
The resident referred to damage in her property and while the landlord would not be obligated to compensate the resident for any damage caused through its complaints process, it should have directed her to make a public liability claim. An order will be made for the landlord to provide the information for the resident to make a claim, should she wish to do so.
It has already been recognised that the landlord did not offer any compensation in recognition of its failures and the consequent detriment caused to the resident. This was not appropriate nor in line with its compensation policy. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £5,196, this is comprised of:
1. £3,946 which is based on approximately 25% of the resident’s weekly rent. This is to take into account the resident’s loss of use and enjoyment of her kitchen from the date of her first complaint (8 November 2022) up until the week of this determination. The percentage was calculated using guidance from the landlord’s compensation policy.
2. £1,000 for the likely distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident in the landlord’s handling of all the damp and mould in the property. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where the circumstances for severe maladministration apply and the redress needed to put things right is substantial.
3. £250 for the landlord’s handling of the complaint. This in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and it accounts for the landlord’s failure to acknowledge its failings and put things right.
Overall, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. An ongoing leak in the property, and the subsequent damage caused.
2. Damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Record keeping.
2. Handling of the complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination and as a matter of urgency, the landlord must carry out a full inspection and asbestos survey within the property. Once this has been completed it must contact the resident to provide the outcome of the inspection and survey, along with a completed risk assessment, and written action plan for carrying out any repairs. The action plan should include an estimated timeframe for the works to be carried out, as well as confirming whether a temporary decant will be required for the household.
The Chief Executive of the landlord must apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
The landlord is to pay the resident a total of £5,196 compensation. This must be paid directly to the resident and not be used to offset any arrears.
The landlord must provide the resident with the details of its insurance, should she wish to make a public liability claim.
The landlord is to provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report and in accordance with paragraph 54.g. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a management review of the resident’s case and provide a copy of the review to the Ombudsman. This should consider:
1. Any missed opportunities between 8 November 2022 and 5 December 2023 in which the landlord could have progressed the repairs and why it did not do so.
2. Its practices regarding how it deals with, responds to, and monitors reports of asbestos. This is to ensure that they are recorded, investigated, and responded to appropriately and in a timely manner.
3. What steps it has and will take to improve its record keeping.
The landlord is to provide evidence of its compliance with this order within 8 weeks of the date of this report.