Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Lambeth Council (202226980)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226980

Lambeth Council

5 August 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports regarding outstanding communal fencing and water system repairs.
  2. The Ombudsman has also taken the decision to consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord of a ground floor flat with a rear garden in a communal block. She lives at the property with her child. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident’s household on its systems.
  2. After the resident described purchasing her property and reporting water constantly gushing over her back door and decking from her block’s communal roof water tank’s overflow pipe in 2021, the landlord raised an order to be completed within 7 working days for this in November 2021. It then responded to her report in January 2022 that the block’s rear communal garden boundary fence had fallen so that people were able to climb over this by raising an order in February 2022 for this to be made safe and repaired within 28 working days. However, the resident then made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord in February 2022.
  3. The resident complained that the landlord’s inaction for a number of outstanding repairs she had reported had caused health, safety and security risks, as it had delayed responding to and not attended these. The repairs included the water gushing from the overflow pipe, so that her back door area had to be avoided twice a day and her decking was unstable, which was a risk to her and her child, but that it had not found the cause of or re-attended in 3 months. The resident added that her block’s garden boundary fence was collapsing and only held up by a tree, so that people had entered her garden and vandalised her shed, but she reported the landlord had only attended to say it was not responsible for this after telling her it was.
  4. The landlord therefore acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint in February 2022. She subsequently reported in April 2022 that the rear garden boundary fence was being blown down by the wind and was rotting. The landlord then raised another order in June 2022 to be completed within 28 working days to investigate the cause of water overflowing at the resident’s back door, and it repaired fencing in July 2022. Its subsequent September 2022 stage 1 complaint response apologised that she had to complain and upheld her complaint about outstanding fencing, water system, and other repairs. The landlord explained it had therefore contacted the resident about this, inspected her property, and passed the repairs to its repairs team to complete.
  5. The resident then made a final stage complaint to the landlord in February 2023 about its lack of further action for the garden boundary fence and water system after inspecting these. She described paying to secure the fence on her side that was collapsing into a play park and needed rotten fence posts replaced, rather than its suggested repairs, which was an injury risk if pulled on or climbed. The resident described previously reporting another property’s shower when water overflowed her back door on the landlord’s advice, which it took no action for in nearly a year and a half, affecting her use of her back patio. It subsequently acknowledged the final stage complaint in April 2023 at the Ombudsman’s request, after she contacted us when there was no response.
  6. The landlord then responded to the resident’s final stage complaint in May 2023 by apologising for her dissatisfaction, stress, and inconvenience and confirming its surveyor had inspected her property on the same date, when it also raised an order to complete garden boundary fence repairs within 90 working days. It explained it previously replaced part of the fence at the front of her block in 2022, but that it had now ordered rear fencing repairs. The landlord additionally acknowledged the water overflowing the resident’s back door was due to another leaseholder’s plumbing fault, who it agreed to write to and instruct them to repair this. It added it had found the affected areas to be dry, but that it would clear and waterproof her block’s roof as a result of the overflow.
  7. The landlord subsequently raised another order to repair the garden boundary fence within 28 working days in May 2023. It also contacted the neighbouring leaseholder in September 2023 to seek to arrange a plumbing inspection, when it additionally inspected the block’s loft and the resident’s and other properties’ plumbing. The landlord’s inspections initially suggested a damaged communal water tank valve caused the overflow, but a later attendance found this was still likely to be due to a neighbour’s plumbing. It therefore inspected 3 neighbouring properties in October 2023 without finding a fault, but it was unable to access 2 others, and it repaired the fence. The landlord then unsuccessfully attempted to access the 2 neighbouring properties again in November 2023.
  8. The landlord subsequently arranged a plumbing inspection at the neighbouring leaseholder’s property in January 2024, when it was once more unable to access this, while it awaited confirmation from its voids team that the remaining uninspected property was safe for it to attend. It also discussed replacing the garden boundary fence with the resident in February 2024, and it arranged a surveyor’s inspection of this at that time, as she considered this still needed replacing after its repairs. She nevertheless complained to the Ombudsman that her fencing and water system reports were not responded to, the repairs were delayed and a safety risk, and she had not received the updates on these she had requested, so she sought for the repairs to be completed.

Assessment and findings

Fencing and water system

  1. The landlord’s leases make it responsible for residents’ properties’ and blocks’ structures and exteriors, who must permit it entry to inspect or repair communal plumbing with at least 48 hours’ written notice, and to complete repairs it finds them responsible for within 3 months. It is required to repair communal plumbing and boundary fences that are not part of properties. The landlord’s repairs and damp policy states it will do routine repairs within 7 and 28 working days, and finish planned non-urgent repairs to prevent future problems within 90 working days. The Ombudsman’s January 2024 inspection report on the landlord’s complaint handling recommends it reviews its process for recording completed repairs to ensure it has clear repair records residents agree with.
  2. The resident described reporting water constantly gushing over her back door and decking from her block’s communal roof water tank’s overflow pipe to the landlord in March and October 2021. It is therefore of concern that no evidence was provided of this until it raised an order on 8 November 2021 to repair the overflow within its repairs and damp policy’s 7-working-day routine repair timescale by 17 November 2021. It would have been appropriate if the landlord had then done so, as this would have been in line with the policy and its leases, which made it responsible for such communal plumbing repairs. However, it provided no records of any attendances for the overflow at that time, or of their outcomes, which was unsuitable and contrary to its policy and leases.
  3. The resident did subsequently indicate that the landlord arranged to attend the overflow 3 months prior to 7 February 2022, but that it took no further action for this after inspecting and being unable to find a fault with the water tank served by the overflow pipe. This is particularly concerning because she explained on that date that the water gushing from the overflow pipe meant her back door area had to be avoided twice a day and her decking was unstable, which was a risk to her and her child. The landlord then took over 4 months to raise another order on 13 June 2022 to investigate the cause of the overflow again within its repairs and damp policy’s 28-working-day routine repair timescale by 21 July 2022, which was another unreasonably excessive delay.
  4. Moreover, there was again no evidence that the landlord subsequently took any action for the above overflow investigation, or of what the outcome of this was, and its subsequent 21 September 2022 stage 1 complaint response only apologised for and upheld the resident’s complaint about this. Its handling of her reports about the overflow up to that date was therefore completely inappropriate. While the landlord’s stage 1 response then confirmed it had contacted the resident about this, inspected her property, and passed the repairs to its repairs team to complete, it provided no records of these actions or their outcomes, which was unsuitable and meant this could not be verified.
  5. It is of concern that the resident’s subsequent final stage complaint of 6 February 2023 reiterated that the landlord had still not taken any action to resolve the overflow. She did describe it as having previously inspected this again, and as suspecting a plumbing fault from an appliance at a neighbouring property as causing the overflow, but that it advised her to monitor this and ask her neighbours if they were using such appliances when the overflow occurred. However, the resident reported that the landlord then took no further action when she told it a neighbour was using their shower when the overflow occurred, which was unreasonable. It is also concerning that she explained that this affected her use of her back patio, as the overflow occurred without notice.
  6. The landlord’s final stage complaint response on 16 May 2023 apologised for the resident’s dissatisfaction, stress, and inconvenience and confirming its surveyor had inspected her property on the same date. It also acknowledged that the overflow was caused by a plumbing fault in another leaseholder’s property, who was therefore responsible for this in accordance with its leases, and so it agreed to write to instruct them to repair this. There was nevertheless once more no evidence provided that the landlord took any action for this at the time, or of the outcomes of this, which was inappropriate. It instead took almost 4 months to confirm with the neighbouring leaseholder on 13 September 2023 that it would arrange to inspect their property with their tenants.
  7. It is especially of concern that there are indications that the landlord only began to take further action for the overflow almost 2 years after it first raised a 7-working-day repair order for this on 8 November 2021, which was extremely unsuitable. It did subsequently raise another 28-working-day repair order for the overflow on 15 September 2023, when it also inspected the resident’s and an upstairs neighbour’s properties, as well as her block’s loft area, which initially suggested a damaged communal water tank valve caused the overflow. However, the landlord’s 20 September 2023 attendance to repair the valve found no fault with this, and so its water quality officer advised on 21 September 2023 that this was still likely to be due to a neighbour’s plumbing.
  8. It was reasonable that the landlord eventually arranged the above actions to try and resolve the overflow, and that it continued to seek to do so, but it is concerning that it took another 1 and 2 months to attempt to resolve this and was still unable to. This is because it appropriately inspected 3 neighbouring properties where it could not find plumbing faults on 19 October 2023, when it could not access 2 others that it unsuccessfully tried to access again on 13 and 20 November 2023. It was understandable that the landlord was unable to access a void property where other contractors were working, but it is of concern that the remaining uninspected property was the neighbouring leaseholder’s property that it had previously arranged to inspect.
  9. It is noted the landlord described being unable to obtain an answer to either its calls or its attendances to access the neighbouring leaseholder’s property on the above dates, and there was no access when it attended the appointment it subsequently booked there on 16 January 2024. However, it was unsuitable that, while it explained on 21 February 2024 it was awaiting another available appointment date to inspect the property, no records were provided that it sought to enforce its leases’ obligations for the neighbouring leaseholder’s access issues from at least October 2023 to February 2024. This is because they were required by the landlord’s leases to give it access with 48 hours’ notice, and to complete any repairs they were responsible for within 3 months.
  10. It is therefore extremely concerning the landlord had still not resolved the overflow in February 2024 over 27 months after it first raised a repair order for this in November 2021, and no evidence has been provided it has since done so. This was very unreasonable, and so was the lack of evidence it updated the resident on the repair during this period, of it keeping appropriately accurate, detailed, or accessible records for this that were clear and that she agreed with, or of it offering her any remedies other than its apologies for this. It is nevertheless noted that the events in her overflow case occurred before the landlord could respond to the Ombudsman’s January 2024 inspection report on its complaint handling recommended it review its repair recording process.
  11. With regard to the resident’s block’s rear communal garden boundary fence, it is of concern she described the landlord as previously twice inspecting and finding the fence needed to be replaced for rotten posts in spring and summer 2021, but there is no indication this occurred. It then initially raised 28-working-day repair orders on 26 January and 1 February 2022 to make safe and repair the fallen and broken fence she reported could be climbed over, but it is concerning it cancelled these and did not raise another order until 18 February 2022. The landlord gave no evidence of its reasons for cancelling, which was unsuitable, and it is of concern the resident said on 7 February 2022 her shed had been vandalised but it told her it was not responsible for the fence.
  12. The landlord’s remaining uncancelled repair order nevertheless required it to remedy the rear garden boundary fence by 30 March 2022, but no records were provided of any actions or outcomes for this, which was unreasonable. It instead raised a further 28-working-day repair order on 12 April 2022 for the resident’s report of the fence being blown down by wind and rotting, but it also did not take action for or indicate the outcome of this, despite the latest order being due to be completed by 24 May 2022. The landlord told the Ombudsman it eventually completed works under its second repair order in February 2022 to repair the fence in July 2022, but it gave no evidence of this and it apologised to the resident and agreed to repair the fence on 21 September 2022.
  13. Moreover, the resident subsequently told the landlord on 6 February 2023 that the rear garden boundary fence was collapsing into a play park and needed rotten fence posts replaced rather than its suggested repairs, being an injury risk if pulled on or climbed that she had paid to secure on her side. This is particularly concerning because she explained the fence repair was still outstanding more than a year after it first raised a repair order for this on 26 January 2022, and that this had since become a safety risk after she previously reported the security risk that this could be climbed over. However, the landlord still took over another 3 months to confirm on 16 May 2023 that its July 2022 fence repair was only at the front of the block, which was inappropriate.
  14. It was therefore suitable the landlord also raised an order on 16 May 2023 to remedy the rear garden boundary fence, which it described its surveyor as attending on that date and receiving the resident’s report it should replace instead of repair this. It was also reasonable it apologised on the above date for her dissatisfaction, stress, and inconvenience from this, but it is of concern its latest repair order was for the fence to be addressed as a planned repair under its repairs and damp policy within 90 working days, unlike its previous orders. The landlord then appropriately raised a 28-working-day repair order for the fence on 25 May 2023, but it did not complete this until 27 October 2023, which was 109 working days later, exceeding both timescales contrary to the policy.
  15. This additionally meant that the landlord took over 21 months to repair the fence after it first raised an order for this in January 2022, which was a very excessive delay. Moreover, no records were provided that it updated the resident on this, kept suitably accurate, detailed, or accessible clear records for this that she agreed with, or offered her any remedies other than apologising. However, as outlined above, it is noted that the events in the resident’s fencing case occurred before the landlord had the opportunity to respond to the Ombudsman’s January 2024 inspection report on its complaint handling recommended it review its repair recording process. This is therefore addressed in the following section of this report about its complaint handling.
  16. The landlord’s repeated extended delays, lack of updates and remedies, and poor record keeping for the resident’s outstanding communal fencing and water system repairs meant its apologies were not proportionate to put things right or learn from outcomes. This was contrary to the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to do so, and so it was unsuitable it did not consider exercising its discretion under its compensation policy in recognition of its failings with proportionate compensation. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to pay the resident £600 compensation to recognise her distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble from its poor handling of fencing and water system repairs, as our remedies guidance recommends for failures that adversely affected her.
  17. The landlord has also been ordered below to write to the resident to apologise for the further failings in its handling of her outstanding communal fencing and water system repairs identified by this investigation. It should accept responsibility for these, acknowledge the impact on her, and outline exactly why these occurred and how it proposes to prevent them from occurring again in the future. The landlord has additionally been ordered to contact the resident to update her on the status of her property’s overflow, if it has not done so already. It should describe exactly how it will resolve any outstanding overflow repairs, including by enforcing lease obligations on her neighbours, as well as its timescale to do so, regularly updating her on this until there is a resolution.
  18. It is noted that the landlord outlined it discussed replacing the resident’s block’s rear communal garden boundary fence with her, and that it agreed that its surveyor would inspect the fence’s current condition to consider replacing this on 27 February 2024. It has therefore been further ordered below to provide her with the outcome of its inspection and consideration, if it has not done so already. Moreover, the landlord has been recommended below to review its staff’s and contractors’ training needs in relation to the application of its leases, repairs and damp policy, compensation policy, and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance to long-term outstanding communal repairs. This is to seek to ensure its failures in the resident’s case do not recur in future cases.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s corporate complaints policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) oblige it to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It is required to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and to final stage complaints within 20 working days. The landlord is only permitted to extend these timescales by more than 10 and 20 working days, respectively, with good reason. It is obliged to contact the resident within its original response timescales with the reasons for any extension and the expected timescale for its full complaint response.
  2. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 7 February 2022 in line with its corporate complaints policy’s and the Code’s 5-working-day timescale for it to do so by acknowledging this on the same date. However, it then issued its stage 1 complaint response 145 working days later than the policy’s and the Code’s 10-working-day response deadline on 21 September 2022, which was an unreasonably excessive delay. Moreover, the landlord did not give the resident or the Ombudsman either good or any other reasons for extending its stage 1 response timescale, or a new expected timescale for its full response, contrary to its policy and the Code, which was inappropriate.
  3. The landlord went on to acknowledge the resident’s subsequent 6 February 2023 final stage complaint 43 working days after its corporate complaints policy’s and the Code’s 5-working-day deadline on 17 April 2023. This was also only after the Ombudsman asked it to at her request on 5 April 2023, which was unsuitable and would have caused her unnecessary further time and trouble by contacting us to progress the complaint. The landlord then responded to the resident’s final stage complaint on 16 May 2023, which was 47 working days after the policy’s and the Code’s 20-working-day final stage response deadline. This was another unreasonably excessive delay, which again occurred without reasons or a new timescale to her for this, contrary to its policy and the Code.
  4. It was therefore inappropriate the landlord did not remedy its above complaint handling delays and lack of updates by apologising to and considering offering the resident proportionate compensation for this, contrary to its compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. This also meant it did not take suitable steps to follow our dispute resolution principle to put things right. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to pay the resident £100 compensation to recognise its poor complaint handling, in line with the up to £100 recommended by our remedies guidance for delays in getting matters resolved. It has also been ordered to apologise to her for this. Our dispute resolution principle to learn from outcomes is addressed by the following steps.
  5. In February 2022, the Ombudsman issued a special report about the landlord, highlighting concerns with its complaint handling. The report recommended the landlord review its complaint handling procedures to reduce the risk of similar failures in the future. We continued to identify problems with the landlord’s performance, reaching findings of maladministration and severe maladministration following investigations into 20 separate complaints from residents.
  6. In June 2023, we told the landlord of our intention to carry out an inspection to find out the reasons for its ongoing failures in complaint handling. In January 2024, we issued a report setting out our findings with further recommendations for service improvement.
  7. 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 January 2024.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports regarding outstanding communal fencing and water system repairs.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident compensation totalling £700 within 4 weeks, which is broken down into:
      1. £600 to recognise her distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble from its poor handling of her fencing and water system repairs.
      2. £100 to recognise its poor complaint handling.
    2. Write to the resident within 4 weeks to apologise for the further failings in its handling of her outstanding communal fencing and water system repairs and the poor complaint handling identified by this investigation. It should accept responsibility for these, acknowledge the impact on her, and outline exactly why these occurred and how it proposes to prevent them from occurring again in the future.
    3. Contact the resident within 4 weeks to update her on the status of her property’s overflow, if it has not done so already. It should describe exactly how it will resolve any outstanding overflow repairs, including by enforcing lease obligations on her neighbours, as well as its timescale to do so, regularly updating her on this until there is a resolution.
    4. Provide the resident with the outcome of its February 2024 surveyor’s inspection of her block’s rear communal garden boundary fence, and of its consideration as to whether this should be replaced, within 4 weeks if it has not done so already.
    5. Consider the findings highlighted in this investigation against the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s inspection report on its complaint handling of January 2024. It should provide us and the resident with the outcome of its consideration within 8 weeks.
  2. The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within 4 and 8 weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders and whether it will follow the below recommendation.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord review its staff’s and contractors’ training needs in relation to the application of its leases, repairs and damp policy, compensation policy, and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance to long-term outstanding communal repairs. This is to seek to ensure its failures in the resident’s case do not recur in future cases.