Lambeth Council (202312943)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312943

Lambeth Council

28 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 the resident’s report of a repair to a bathroom light.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord which began on 27 August 1984. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the second floor. The landlord said it does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
On 23 April 2023, the resident requested a repair of his bathroom light which he reported was not working following a leak in the apartment above. The landlord’s contractor arranged an appointment for 4 May 2023 to complete the repair. The contractor was running late and had to rebook an appointment for 16 May 2023.
The resident sent a complaint to the landlord on or around 9 May 2023. He said:
1. he was unhappy with the conduct of the landlord and its contractor.
2. he had to take time off work to attend the appointment on 4 May 2023 and he did not receive a call from the contractor to say they were running late.
3. he was unhappy about the missed appointment, lack of contact from the contractor and the amount of time until the next available appointment to complete the repair.
4. he was unhappy as he received no apology.
5. he wanted to know why he had to wait 2 weeks and why his new appointment was not prioritised.
6. he wanted to know why the contractor did not keep the appointment and the contractor’s policy on missed appointments.
7. he wanted to know how the landlord would make sure it would not happen again.
8. he wanted the landlord to monitor the standards and behaviour of its contractor.
The contractor completed the bathroom light repair on 16 May 2023.
The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 6 June 2023. It said:
1. it had contacted the contractor. The contractor confirmed the resident chased them when they were late for the appointment on 4 May 2023. The contractor said they were unable to attend later that day as the resident had to go to work. The contractor said 16 May 2023 was the next convenient appointment for the resident and contractor. The contractor said they would have offered last minute cancellations.
2. it would not pay for the resident’s time off work.
3. it partially upheld the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged the delay and identified that improved communication would have been beneficial.
4. it apologised that the contractor had not called the resident to advise they were running late on 4 May 2023 and for the inconvenience caused. It offered £20 compensation for the missed appointment and the delay in completing the repair. It awarded a total of £30 total as a “goodwill gesture”.
5. a contractor can run late if another appointment takes longer. It said that contractors gave priority to emergency situations. It confirmed the work was completed on 16 May 2023.
6. it confirmed his right to review.
The resident was unhappy with the response and requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 6 June 2023. He said:
1. he disagreed with the landlord only partially upholding his complaint. He felt it implied he had some responsibility for the missed appointment.
2. during the call on 4 May 2023, he disputed that the contractor offered cancellation options. He also confirmed he would not have been able to attend these. He said he asked the contractor for an earlier appointment, but the contractor declined.
3. he felt frustrated because of the customer service and the landlord’s monitoring and management of contractors.
4. he believed it was the contractor’s responsibility to update residents, and he should not have to chase them.
5. the contractor’s actions and omissions had caused him distress and inconvenience. He thought £65 was an appropriate offer of compensation.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 11 July 2023. It said:
1. its complaint procedure reviewed whether it had undertaken its duties in line with policy and procedures. It had discussed the complaint with its responsive repairs team and its contractor.
2. it appreciated the resident’s frustration and his comments about poor customer service.
3. it had reviewed the compensation amount with its contractor. The contractor could not agree to an increase. The planner confirmed they advised the resident they would bring the appointment forward in case of cancellation. The contractor said that all planners adhered to this practice and try to offer the earliest possible appointment.
4. £30 compensation was £10 more than the amount given for missed contractor appointments. It was satisfied it followed the correct policies. It was satisfied with the contractor’s reasons for not increasing their goodwill gesture.
5. it apologised for the distress caused. It provided referral details for this Service.
The resident contacted this Service as he was still unhappy with the landlord’s response because it had only partially upheld his complaint. He was also unhappy that the missed appointment left him without bathroom lighting for a long time and reported this caused inconvenience, stress and a loss of earnings. He disagreed with the amount of compensation offered.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident said he had to take additional time off work to attend the repair appointment. The resident said he wanted compensation for loss of earnings because of this. We are unable to determine negligence or liability in the same way as the courts, or to order damages in relation to these. However, we have assessed whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s compensation request in line with its policy and procedure and followed good practice when reaching its decisions. The resident may wish to obtain independent legal advice if he wishes to pursue damages for losses, such as loss of earnings.

Bathroom light repair

The landlord’s repairs policy sets out its response times for different repair categories. The policy states that “R1” routine repairs should take between 1 and 7 days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it:
1. should pay £20 for each missed appointment when a confirmed appointment is broken at the sole fault of the contractor.
2. should consider applying a remedy when it finds that a service failure occurred that had an adverse effect on the complainant. Service failures include unjustified delays and failure to follow its policies, rules, or procedures.
3. should consider any anxiety, frustration, worry, and uncertainty caused to the complainant as a direct result of its service failure.
4. should consider factors including generally unquantified expenses such as loss of earnings when deciding whether to award compensation for time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.
This Service’s Spotlight Report on Repairs highlights that if a landlord contracts out its repairs service, the obligation to repair remains with the landlord and not the contractor. Landlords need to ensure that they have adequate oversight of their outsourced services. The Spotlight Report on Repairs also outlines good practice. Landlords should agree actions and timescales for responding in line with their policies and obligations and confirm these in writing. Landlords should inform residents of any delays and explain why these are necessary.
The evidence shows that the resident reported the repair out of hours on 23 April 2023. The landlord raised a works order on 27 April 2023 and set a target date for the works of 6 May 2023. It is not clear how the repair was categorised. When responding to the repair, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to raise a works order less than 4 days after the repair was reported, and to have considered its responsibilities to the resident under its repairs policy. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to categorise the repair and agree a timescale with the resident in writing. Based on the evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that the repair to the light was an “R1” 7–day repair.
The resident told the landlord that he was unhappy with the lack of communication from the contractor on 4 May 2023. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to inform the resident of any delays and explain the reason for this. There is no evidence that the landlord did this before the resident contacted it on 4 May 2023. This was a missed opportunity to keep the resident informed and manage his expectations.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it apologised that its contractor did not contact the resident to advise they were running late on 4 May 2023. It was appropriate for the landlord to provide an explanation for the missed appointment in its complaint responses. The landlord offered the resident compensation for the missed appointment. This was appropriate because it was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy which states it will offer compensation of £20 for missed appointments.
On 4 May 2023, the landlord’s contractor offered the resident an appointment on 16 May 2023 to complete the repair. The contractor’s notes show that the resident told them he was not happy with this date as it was too far away. The resident told the Ombudsman that he only has 1 light in his bathroom. He said it was difficult to use his bathroom whilst he waited for the landlord to complete the repair.
In its complaint responses, the landlord said its contractor offered to bring the appointment forward in case of cancellation. The landlord has not provided this Service with any evidence that it, or its contractor, offered the resident any earlier appointments. It would have been good practice for the landlord to have had its repairs policies in mind when overseeing its contractors’ services. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident to address his dissatisfaction with the amount of time until the new appointment.
The resident told the landlord at both stages of his complaint that he had to take additional time off work due to the missed appointment on 4 May 2023. The landlord confirmed that it would not pay for the resident’s time off work. The landlord’s compensation policy does include reference to loss of earnings in the factors to consider when deciding whether to award compensation for time and trouble. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain why it would not consider the resident’s loss of earnings, referring to its relevant policies.
The landlord’s contractor completed the repair on 16 May 2023. This was at 24 days after the landlord was first put on notice of the repair, and 13 days after the landlord’s missed appointment. This is outside repairs priorities guidelines for an “R1” routine repair of 7 days to complete the repair. This was a failure of service.
In summary, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the bathroom light because:
1. there was a lack of communication with the resident.
2. the landlord failed to record the repair in a reasonable timeframe after it was reported.
3. the landlord failed to complete the repair in line with its repairs policy.
The resident told the landlord that the delays caused him distress and frustration. The resident has told the Ombudsman that he had difficulty using his bathroom whilst waiting for the repair. Within its complaint responses it was reasonable for the landlord to address some of its communication failures and some of the delays in its process. However, it did not recognise the initial delay in raising the repair works, the delay in the rearranged appointment and the impact on the resident.
The Ombudsman finds the £30 compensation offered by the landlord was not proportionate to the failings identified and the impact on the resident. The Ombudsman has therefore found service failure in the landlord’s handling of this element of the complaint.
With consideration of this Service’s remedies guidance, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £80 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the above failures. This includes the £30 already offered to the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy states:
1. it will send an acknowledgement of a stage 1 complaint within 2 working days.
2. it will send a stage 1 response within 20 working days of receiving the complaint.
3. it will send an acknowledgement of a stage 2 complaint within 2 working days.
4. it will send a stage 2 response within 25 working days.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that its responses at both stages of the complaint should:
1. address all the issues raised in the complaint.
2. clearly state whether the complaint was upheld or not.
3. apply a suitable remedy.
The 2022 Complaint Handling Code (the Code) stated that landlords must respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. The Code stated that landlords must respond to the stage 2 complaint within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
The Code stated that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
The resident’s stage 1 complaint is undated. From the available evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord received the complaint on or around 9 May 2023. The landlord responded to the complaint around 19 working days from receiving it. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint 25 working days after the resident’s escalation request.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s policy was not in line with the Code. However, the landlord acted within its own policy in its complaint response times and this was reasonable. We also note that the landlord has since updated its complaints policy in line with the current Complaint Handling Code.
The resident reported frustration to the landlord and this Service as he felt the landlord only partially upholding his complaint implied he was at fault. In line with the Code, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with clear reasons why it only partially upheld his complaint. The landlord has not provided this Service with the reasons or evidence for only partially upholding the resident’s complaint. It would have been helpful for the Ombudsman to have had this evidence when assessing the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
It was appropriate for the landlord to apply its compensation policy guidance on missed appointments when awarding compensation in its stage 1 complaint response. However, the landlord did not refer to relevant policies, law, and good practice when it investigated the resident’s complaint in relation to the repairs delay. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider and refer to the relevant policies, including its repairs policy, in its complaints response. This would have helped the landlord to explain its position and reasoning to the resident.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said that it had reviewed the resident’s request for an increase in compensation with its contractor. It said that the contractor could not agree to the request. The landlord said it was satisfied the correct policies were followed and it accepted the contractor’s justification.
The landlord is responsible for responding to complaints involving contractors, and for managing its relationship with contractors. It was therefore not reasonable for the landlord to defer to its contractors to decide an appropriate remedy in its stage 2 response. Instead, the landlord should have considered, applied and referred to its own responsibilities to the resident under relevant policies, law, and good practice.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it appreciated the resident’s “frustration and disappointment” in what he felt was poor customer service. However, it did not respond to the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s monitoring and management of its contractors. It would have been helpful and in line with the landlord’s complaints policy for it to address this issue and to outline any relevant learning in its complaint response. This was a missed opportunity to apply the dispute resolution principle of learning from outcomes and improve the landlord’s services in future.
The Ombudsman finds that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint in that it:
1. did not clearly explain to the resident why it only partially upheld his complaint.
2. did not acknowledge its responsibilities in relation to the repair delay in its complaint response.
3. deferred to its contractor to decide the appropriate remedy.
In line with this Service’s remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord has told this Service that it could not access and/ or provide some of the evidence we requested. The landlord’s record management may have impacted its response to repairs and complaints and contributed to the failures identified in this report. The lack of records has impacted this Service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. For this reason, the Ombudsman has made a recommendation that the landlord reviews its record management, particularly in relation to its contractors.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s bathroom light repair.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. pay the resident a total of £130 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £80 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s bathroom light repair. The landlord may deduct the £30 it offered if it has already paid this.
  2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
  3. The landlord should pay any compensation not already paid, directly to the resident. It should not offset the compensation off against any arrears.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 28 days of the date of this report.

Recommendations

If it has not done so already, the landlord is recommended to review the record management of its correspondence with its contractors, and its contractors’ correspondence with residents, to ensure this is comprehensive and accessible.