Lambeth Council (202311160)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202311160
Lambeth Council
26 February 2025
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:
- A leak from the property above in December 2022 and water damage, damp, and mould caused by this.
- Repairs to the front room door.
- The formal complaint.
Background
- The resident is the secure tenant of the property, which is a 3-bedroom, ground floor, flat. The landlord is a council. The resident’s daughter has a medical condition, but the landlord says it does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
- On 20 December 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to report a leak from the property above, which was empty. She called and emailed it again on 30 December 2022 to report the leak was ongoing and leaking into the property. She also called it that day to report damp and mould. The landlord’s records say it requested an inspection but then cancelled this due to her ongoing disrepair case. The resident emailed her MP on 12 January 2023 to ask for help and said she had a repairs appointment the previous day, but the landlord did not attend. The MP emailed the landlord, which replied that it had booked a damp and mould appointment for 15 February 2023.
- The landlord inspected the property, regarding the resident’s disrepair case, on 14 February 2023. It attended again the following day, did not complete any damp and mould works, but booked a follow-on appointment. The resident emailed her MP again on 19 February 2023 to ask for further help. She said the property was in a bad condition, there was mould on her children’s beds, the sofa and her flooring had been ruined by the leak. She also said her daughter had a medical condition which was being affected by the mould. On 28 February 2023 the resident used the landlord’s online complaints form to make a stage 1 complaint, which was about:
- The leak from the property above and that it took 2 calls to the landlord for it to stop the leak, but it did not inspect the property for water damage. The leak had damaged her walls and flooring and caused black mould to grow.
- Having to chase the landlord repeatedly for it to inspect, and when it did on 15 February 2023, it did not do any work but booked a new appointment for 6 March 2023.
- The water, damp and mould, had damaged her furniture, clothing, and was affecting her daughter who had a medical condition.
- On 20 March 2023 the MP emailed the landlord. It replied that it had booked a mould wash for 14 April 2023. On that date it completed a mould wash in the bedrooms, living room, bathroom and kitchen. It booked a follow-on appointment to strip wallpaper in the bedroom. The resident called the landlord on 18 April 2023 to complain that its contractor had broken a bed by standing on it, and had not used dust sheets, during the mould wash. It returned the following day, stripped the wallpaper and completed the mould wash. The landlord replied to the MP on 2 June 2023 and said it could not comment further as the matter was part of an active disrepair case.
- The resident emailed the Ombudsman on 28 June 2023 and asked to make a complaint. She said she had reported a leak in December 2022, but the landlord told her to use a towel to mop it up. After she called it again, she said it stopped the leak approximately 10 to 12 days after she first reported it, but it failed to inspect the property for water damage. She said she had complained to the landlord in March 2023 and via her MP but had not received a response. Between 24 and 26 July 2023 the resident called the landlord several times to ask about her laminate flooring. She said it had removed this during repairs related to her disrepair case, and had told her it would replace it, but had failed to. The landlord’s record says it would not replace laminate flooring. The Ombudsman emailed the landlord on 4 August 2023 and asked it to provide a complaint response. It replied that day and said it would raise and respond to a stage 2 complaint.
- On 11 August 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response, in which it:
- Said the resident had recently asked to escalate her complaint, which it received on 4 August 2023.
- Apologised for its handling of her “original complaint” and outstanding repairs.
- Confirmed all repairs would be completed and post inspected by 25 August 2023.
- Regarding her flooring it said it would normally “take it up” if it were deemed a health and safety issue, which it had done as there was water sitting underneath it which could not escape. It denied that it had said it would replace this and said she should raise it with her solicitor as special damages.
- Provided a copy of the survey report from her disrepair case and said it had completed “much more works than identified in the report” as the condition of the property had changed since the inspection.
- Said it would investigate her reports that it had damaged her possessions and not used dust sheets when it post inspected the works.
- Explained it could not discuss financial settlement as she had a disrepair claim and so this would need to be done via her solicitors.
- The landlord’s records state that all works for the disrepair case, and repairs from the leak, were completed by 22 August 2023. The resident has told the Ombudsman that she paid to replace her flooring between August and December 2023.
Assessment and findings
Jurisdiction and scope of investigation
- What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
- On 31 March 2022 the resident’s solicitor sent a letter of claim to the landlord alleging disrepair. The landlord and the solicitor agreed to a single joint surveyor’s report and the surveyor inspected on 11 July 2022. A settlement was reached on 29 July 2022 and the landlord agreed to pay damages to the resident and complete the repairs, as per the report, by October 2022. On 13 February 2023 the resident’s disrepair claim was issued at the county court. On 15 August 2023 the court ordered the landlord to complete repairs detailed in the original survey report from July 2022 by 24 October 2023.
- The resident has asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint about repairs to the front room door. As the resident issued a claim for disrepair in the county court, which included repairs to the door, the Ombudsman is not able to consider this element of her complaint. This is because, under paragraph 41.c of the Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters that are the subject of court proceedings or were the subject of court proceedings where judgement on the merits was given.
The landlord’s handling of a leak from the property above in December 2022 and water damage, damp, and mould caused by this
- The resident reported a leak from the property above several times in December 2023. This was after the date of the disrepair survey, and a separate independent repairs issue which affected the property. The resident’s solicitor, in an email the resident has provided to this Service, also confirmed that the disrepair claim related solely to the items of disrepair identified during the inspection and detailed within the surveyor’s report.
- Under the tenancy agreement, and its repairs policy in use at the time, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the building. It is also responsible for keeping in repair installations for the supply of services including water and sanitation. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Under its repairs policy the landlord has categories of repairs based on priority. These range from emergency repairs (repair within 24 hours), to repair within 2, 5 or 30 working days, but the policy does not state which types of repairs fall into these categories. At the time of the complaint the landlord did not have a damp and mould policy, but did implement one after the stage 2 response in this case.
- When the resident reported the leak from above the landlord was slow to act. While it has not provided any evidence of its repair to stop the leak, the resident said it took over 10 days to stop the leak. This was in excess of its emergency or 2-to-5-day repairs timeframes, which would be the most appropriate response timeframes for a leak, and therefore a failing. Positively the landlord did raise an inspection for damp and mould, after the resident reported this following the leak, but it then cancelled it. It took intervention from the resident’s MP for the landlord to rebook damp and mould works, but this was booked for 15 February 2023, which was almost 2 months after the resident reported the leak. On that date the landlord failed to complete a mould wash. While it was reasonable to book a follow-on appointment for more time, it could have completed a partial mould wash during the appointment.
- The resident said in her stage 1 complaint that the follow-on appointment had been booked for 6 March 2023, but there is no evidence of this appointment or that it was attended. After further intervention from the MP the landlord booked a new appointment for 14 April 2023, which was nearly 4 months after the leak occurred. Positively it did complete a mould wash on that date and further works on 19 April 2023 to remove the mould. However, it did not carry out the repairs within its policy timeframes or a reasonable time and that was a failing. The resident had clearly explained the effect the damp and mould was having on her daughter, who had a medical condition, which meant she was being negatively affected by the conditions. She also explained the damage caused to her possessions, including her children’s beds, but the landlord did not appear to consider this or demonstrate any urgency in resolving the issue, which was a significant failing.
- The resident reported the leak straight away, chased the landlord, and reported damp and mould, and water damage, as a result. She had to contact her MP for assistance multiple times and made several complaints. She had clearly explained her daughter had a medical condition, and the damage being caused to her furniture and possessions. She had been left with damp and mould which is a hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System. Landlords need to make sure their homes are safe and free from hazards. When a resident reports a risk, the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards and must determine if the home is safe and fit to live in.
- On 18 April 2023 the resident made a further complaint about damage caused to a bed by the landlord’s contractor, and that they had not used any dust sheets to cover her possessions. Within its stage 2, and only, complaint response the landlord said it would investigate the complaint elements, but there is no evidence it did which was a failing.
- The resident also made a further complaint about the landlord removing and failing to replace her laminate flooring. Within its stage 2 response the landlord said it would normally remove flooring where it was a health and safety risk but would not replace it. There is dispute between the resident and the landlord about whether it told her it would replace her flooring at the time. The landlord’s repairs policy is silent on the subject of laminate or wooden floor coverings. Its stage 2 response said she should raise the issue with her solicitors under her disrepair claim, which was incorrect advice, as the damage was not related to the disrepair claim. Given its delay in responding to the leak, it should have replaced the water damaged flooring.
- Throughout the landlord appears to have confused itself about the nature of the repairs which were required following the leak, which caused the damage, damp and mould, with the resident’s earlier disrepair claim. While the timeline for repairs relating to both matters overlapped, the matters themselves were independent as stated above. The landlord failed to appreciate that it needed to carry out repairs following the leak independently of its overdue disrepair repairs. This was evident in it cancelling the initial damp and mould inspection in December 2022 due to the disrepair claim. It is also seen in it referring to special damages related to her disrepair claim in response to her complaint about her flooring, which it said it removed because water was trapped underneath, clearly from the leak. The landlord also states in its stage 2 response that it had completed more repairs than in the disrepair surveyor’s schedule of works, as the condition of the property had changed.
- While there may be an industry practice of waiting to complete repairs for a disrepair claim until the claim has been settled, or judgement made by the court, this does not mean that a landlord should delay repairs unconnected with the claim. In addition, in this case, the works from the disrepair claim had been agreed and settled, so there was doubly no reason to have delayed the repairs following the leak. Positively the landlord did apologise for its handling of repairs, but it said it could not offer compensation due to her disrepair claim. This was incorrect. The complaint was separate to the disrepair claim, and the landlord failed to realise this, or offer any remedy for its significant failings.
- Overall, there was severe maladministration. To reflect the significant distress, inconvenience, frustration, time and trouble caused to the resident an order has been made that the landlord pay £1,000 compensation. This amount is in line with our guidance on remedies.
The landlord’s handling of the formal complaint
- Under its complaints policy in use at the time the landlord defined a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction by a housing resident…where an initial response to their problem has not proven satisfactory”. At that time the landlord operated an informal stage and then a 2 stage complaints process. Its policy says it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints and respond within 20 working days. It will acknowledge stage 2 complaints but does not give a timeframe for responses.
- The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 28 February 2023, and it was a clear expression of dissatisfaction. The landlord failed to acknowledge it or respond to it. This was in breach of its complaints policy and paragraph 5.1 of the Code. When she made further complaints about her possessions and flooring, the landlord failed to raise these. When the Ombudsman asked it to respond, the landlord replied that it would provide a stage 2 response which it did within 5 working days. However, there was no reason for it to do so, and it should have responded at stage 1. By responding at stage 2 the landlord had further breached its complaints policy and denied the resident the opportunity to escalate her complaint within its process, which was a significant failing. It had also breached paragraph 5.11 of the Code and incorrectly said she had asked to escalate the complaint within its response.
- The resident had waited 114 days for a complaint response, against a policy timeframe of 20 working days, and in breach of the 10 working days allowed under paragraph 5.1 of the Code. This was an unacceptable delay and failing.
- Within its stage 2, and only, response the landlord did not fully respond to the complaint and so did not meet the expectations of the Code. While it is positive that the landlord apologised for its complaint handling, it failed to provide an explanation, say how it had learnt from the complaint, or offer any remedy. The landlord did not demonstrate the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
- There was severe maladministration, which caused further inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident, who felt like she was not being heard. To reflect the impact an order has been made that the landlord pay £400 compensation, which is in line with our guidance on remedies.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of:
- A leak from the property above in December 2022 and water damage, damp, and mould caused by this.
- The formal complaint.
- In accordance with paragraph 41.c of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the front room door is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Orders
- Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
- Provide a written apology to the resident, from the chief executive, for the severe maladministration detailed in this report.
- Pay directly to the resident £1,400 compensation made up of:
- £1,000 for the significant distress, inconvenience, frustration, time and trouble caused to the resident by its failings in handling the leak and repairs.
- £400 for the further inconvenience, time and trouble caused for the resident by its complaint handling failing.
- Reimburse the resident for the cost of her replacement flooring, provided she can provide receipts or invoices for this to the landlord.
- Update its records to include details of the resident’s daughter’s medical condition on the tenancy record.
- Confirm compliance with these Orders to this Service.
Paragraph 49 investigation and special inspection
- 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.
- In June 2023 the Ombudsman 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. As the current complaint completed the landlord’s complaints process before our report was issued, no further orders have been made regarding complaint handling.