Lambeth Council (202318349)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318349

Lambeth Council

22 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. reports of leaks from the roof and windows of the resident’s building, and the resulting damp and mould.
2. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a 1 bedroom second-floor flat. The resident’s flat is located on the top floor of the building. She purchased the lease on 3 June 2021. The landlord is the freeholder for the flat and the other properties in the building.
The resident stated that shortly after she moved in serious leaks developed in the property from the roof and window frames and she first raised a repair request with the landlord in September 2021.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 20 December 2022. In this she stated:
1. the landlord had originally told her the repair work would be started by 22 December 2021 but this did not happen
2. when she checked the landlord’s repair portal on 30 May 2022 to check on progress this inaccurately recorded that it had completed the repairs in January 2022. She contacted the landlord’s repair team to review this.
3. on 17 October 2022 after chasing for further updates the landlord told her the roof repair had been passed to its section 20 team and a surveyor would attend to inspect the windows
4. following the surveyor’s attendance on 27 October 2022 the landlord provided no further updates about the window repairs and it closed the request for the roof repairs
5. due to the landlord’s lack of repairs there had been significant damp and mould in the lounge of the property since September 2021, which was still ongoing. She stated that the damp and mould had caused damage to the internal decorations, difficulty heating the property and that it had affected her health.
The landlord issued a complaint response on 22 December 2022. As part of this the landlord stated it had passed the resident’s complaint about the lack of repairs to its repairs team to provide a response to. The resident said she did not receive a further response after chasing for updates several times. On 24 July 2023 she contacted this service for assistance.
Following an intervention by this service the landlord issued a stage 2 response on 26 October 2023. The landlord’s response to the complaint about the repairs stated its responsive repair team have advised this work is on hold because of the section 20. It did not offer any remedy to the resident.
The resident remains unhappy with the response and told us that, as of the date of this report, the landlord has still not carried out repairs to address the leaks from the roof and windows.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Under paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) we may not consider events that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. The current Scheme defines a ‘reasonable period’ as normally being within 12 months of the matters arising.
The resident told us that though she originally raised the roof repair in September 2021 she did not complain formally to the landlord until 20 December 2022. She said she understood there may be delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic at the time she first reported the issue and she assumed that the landlord would act in good faith and resolve the repair request. We acknowledge this explanation; however we do not consider this is sufficient to apply our discretion under paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme. Therefore, whilst the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, this investigation focuses on the events from December 2021 onwards which is 12 months prior to the resident making the formal complaint to the landlord.
The resident’s initial complaint to the landlord on 20 December 2022 also included a complaint about the landlord’s administration of the service charge for the property. The resident has confirmed to us that the landlord has resolved this part of her complaint since its stage 2 complaint response and she does not want the Ombudsman to look into this further. As such this investigation has focused on the outstanding issues with the repairs to the property and the landlord’s handling of that complaint and we have not considered the service charge.
In her complaint to this service the resident told us that the damp and mould in the property from the landlord’s failure to repair the leaks had worsened her physical health and caused her to develop chest problems, including bronchitis and asthma. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s testimony concerning her health. Often when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of medico-legal reports. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This will be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation as the courts can make legally binding decisions. If the resident wishes to pursue the impact on her health further, she should seek independent legal advice. The Ombudsman will still consider distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s actions as well as the way in which it responded to the resident’s concerns about her health.

The landlord’s record keeping

The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts, repairs and services provided. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
The landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, which has impacted this service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.

The landlord’s handling of leaks from the roof and windows and the resulting damp and mould

Under the terms of the lease the landlord is required to repair and maintain the whole of the external structure of the building, which includes the roof and window frames.
Under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, a landlord is required to consult with leaseholders before it undertakes any work which will cost any leaseholder more than £250. This includes repairs, maintenance and improvements to the building, and the estate the property is situated in. Under certain circumstances a landlord can apply to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) for dispensation from the need to consult leaseholders.
The landlord’s repairs and damp policy sets out 4 categories of priority it assigns to a reported repair:
1. emergency repairs (e.g. lift breakdown, total loss of water/power), to be fixed within 1 working day
2. routine (R1) repairs (e.g. repairing a leaking bath, extractor fan not working), to be fixed within 7 working days
3. routine (R2) repairs (e.g. repairing a ceiling, repairing a pram shed), to be fixed within 28 working days
4. planned repairs (e.g. clearing gutters, plasterwork following repairs), to be completed within 90 days
The landlord’s repair and damp policy also states that it has a ‘damp charter’. This includes the following commitments that the landlord will:
1. prioritise the removal of mould and arrange an initial wash and treatment within 7 days of being reported
2. arrange an inspection to diagnose the cause of the damp within 28 days, or sooner in emergency situations
3. it will agree an action plan with the resident including timeframes to resolve the damp
4. allocate a surveyor to be the resident’s point of contact if there is persistent damp in the property. The landlord states the point of contact will arrange necessary work, update the resident and provide advice on minimising condensation and how to get support with energy bills.
The landlord outlined in a letter of 23 April 2024 that it received repair requests from the resident on 24 October 2021 and 10 November 2021 about flashing falling away from the roof. The landlord has not provided this service with copies of any repair logs for this work. Due to a lack of adequate records we have seen no evidence of what action the landlord took in response to these. We have not considered these events in detail in line with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme as the landlord’s handling of these repair requests were not brought to its attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable timescale. However, we have noted these in the context of later events.
We have not received any evidence from the resident or landlord about their correspondence from December 2021 until October 2022. Though we acknowledge the resident has said she was in contact with the landlord about the progress of repairs during this period we are not able to reach a view on if the landlord’s communication with her at this time was appropriate.
As set out previously the resident stated that after she had chased up the repairs on 17 October 2022, the landlord told her that it had passed the roof repairs to its section 20 team and she said a surveyor attended on 27 October 2022. This was appropriate as it was consistent with the landlord’s repairs and damp policy. However, due to a lack of adequate records it is not known what the surveyor’s findings were, what action the landlord planned to address the leaks or what information the landlord gave the resident about this. This is a failing by the landlord.
The landlord told the resident that it had raised a work order on 25 November 2022 in response to the resident’s repair request about the flashing on the roof falling away. The landlord says it completed this on 15 February 2023 but provided no details of what work it carried out. Due to a lack of adequate records it is not known what action the landlord took in response to this and what information was given to the resident. In addition, considering the landlord states the resident made identical repair requests in October 2021 and November 2021, in the Ombudsman’s opinion this indicates that any action taken by the landlord following these was not effective as a long‑lasting repair. These were failings by the landlord which may have caused confusion to the resident about what the landlord was doing to address the repair and for her to have to live with damp and mould over a longer period.
On 28 February 2023 the landlord logged the following works for the property:
1. a repair order with a priority of 28 days consisting of:
  1. scaffolding and roof repairs
  2. renewal of the lead flashings
  3. renewal or application of torch-on-felt to the roof
2. a section 20 submission for roof repairs to dormers and flashings in response to a roof leak.
There are no records to show how the landlord assessed that it would need to have followed the section 20 process to resolve the resident’s repair request from 17 October 2022. As set out previously, the resident said in her complaint the landlord told her before 20 December 2022 the section 20 team had closed the repair request. Though the landlord told the resident a work order was raised on 25 November 2022 it has not provided this service with the repair logs to show how this was handled. Due to a lack of adequate records it is not known what action the landlord took. However this indicates either:
1. the landlord took a total of 93 working days to begin the section 20 application following the resident’s report of a roof leak, and 64 working days from when it stated it had raised the work order. Either way, this is a failing as it is not consistent with the landlord’s repairs and damp policy and would have meant the resident was living with a leaking roof for longer than she should have been.
2. the landlord closed the previous repair request without repairs taking place but reopened this following the resident’s formal complaint. This should not have been necessary and is a failing as it is not in line with the landlord’s repairs and damp policy.
The next record of the section 20 application is a comment received by the landlord on 10 May 2023 from another leaseholder in the building. Due to a lack of adequate records it is not known when the landlord began consultation with the affected leaseholders or when it requested comments to be provided by. This was 49 working days after the landlord’s submission for section 20 works, and the landlord has not provided any evidence to show why there was a delay in starting the consultation process. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was not reasonable considering the length of time since the resident had first reported the leaks, damp and mould.
The resident contacted the landlord on 1 June 2023. She stated she had heard nothing further since the landlord had served the section 20 notice. She requested an update from the landlord. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident.
When the resident first contacted this service on 24 July 2023 she told us she understood that the landlord had cancelled the section 20 process since it did not meet its consultation requirements. Though the landlord said in its stage 2 response of 26 October 2023 that the section 20 process was ongoing it provided no further explanation or evidence to support this. Due to a lack of adequate records there is no evidence about what the outcome of the section 20 consultation was or that the landlord took further action to address the leaks from the roof and windows until the resident submitted another repair request on 1 March 2024. This is a serious failing by the landlord which left the resident not knowing whether a section 20 process would be carried out or how long this process would take.
The Ombudsman also considers that from the start of the section 20 process until 1 March 2024 there is no evidence the landlord:
1. assessed the severity of the leaks and resulting damp and mould, or the impact this was having on the resident. From this the landlord could have decided whether to apply to the First-tier Tribunal for dispensation from the requirement to consult freeholders due to the urgency in addressing the ongoing leaks. However, there is no evidence it considered this.
2. considered whether it would be possible to make temporary repairs, that would not require section 20 consultation, to mitigate the impact on the resident whilst the section 20 process was ongoing.
3. made arrangements for the removal of mould from the property in line with its damp charter, considering this damage was caused as a result of leaks which were its responsibility to resolve under the lease.
4. communicated with the resident about the section 20 process or about its action plan to resolve the damp and mould in line with its damp charter.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion these were substantial failings by the landlord.
On 1 March 2024 the resident reported that the leak from the roof had become worse due to a missing roof tile. The landlord created a repair request noting there was ‘a bad leak from the roof into the living room’. It prioritised that it would complete this repair request within 28 working days.
Due to a lack of adequate records, it is not known how the landlord assessed the severity of the leak or how this was communicated to the resident. The landlord’s prioritisation of the repair was not reasonable considering the description of the leak, compared to the examples given in its repairs and damp policy, and the amount of time the leaks in the property had been ongoing.
On 26 March 2024 the resident’s father contacted the landlord on her behalf. He stated they had been told the landlord did not consider the roof leak an emergency repair and the only action that had been taken was that a surveyor had attended to inspect around 2 weeks ago. He asked the landlord to provide a proposed schedule of works to his daughter.
The landlord responded on the same day. It described that it had authorised scaffolding and had decided not to recharge the leaseholders for the cost to prevent further delays. It stated it would specify the works required once it had erected the scaffolding. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s decision not to recharge for works was reasonable considering the delays that had already occurred in addressing the leaks from the roof and the impact these delays had had on the resident.
On 8 April 2024 the resident contacted the landlord stating:
1. though it had told her it would complete the repair within 28 days this has not happened yet
2. she placed plastic sheeting over the hole in an attempt to mitigate the impact of the missing tile on the roof and she was unhappy that the landlord has not done anything further
3. the latest leak was causing black mould to grow in her living room and she needed to keep a dehumidifier running constantly to reduce this which was causing her expense.
Due to a lack of adequate records, it is not known how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns. This is a failing by the landlord. Though addressing the leaks was a complex repair in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord should have:
1. assessed whether a temporary repair was possible to replace the missing roof tile whilst it was waiting for scaffolding and a full survey of the roof. As the landlord also did not do this during the previous section 20 work this repeated failing added to the impact that leaks had on the property.
2. arranged for the mould to be removed as a priority in line with its damp charter. As the landlord also did not do this during the previous section 20 work this repeated failing is increase the amount of time that the resident was living with untreated mould in the property.
3. provided the resident with advice on what support was available to assist with her energy bills in line with its damp charter.
On 10 April 2024 in response to a further email from the resident’s father the landlord stated that the leaks from the windows would be handled separately from the repairs for the leak from the roof. It stated it had referred this to a different contractor.
On 13 May 2024 the scaffolding was erected. The landlord records that on 3 June 2024 it would complete repair work to the roof without proceeding to a section 20. The landlord prioritised that it would complete the following work within 28 working days:
1. removal and refixing of lead flashing
2. removal and reapplication of damaged plaster/render on the external wall
3. renewal of roof dormers
4. renewal and/or refixing of lead soakers
5. repair of slates/tiles on the roof where these have slipped so the area is weatherproof
6. renewal of felt roofing.
As set out previously the resident told us that, as of the date of this report, no repairs have taken place and the problems with leaks, damp and mould at the property are still ongoing. Though we recognise the repairs were likely to be complex, after the landlord established the scope of work on 3 June 2024 and recorded that it would complete this within 28 working days it has not done so 58 working days later. This was not appropriate as the landlord did not act in line with its responsive repairs policy, and what it said it would do. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this is a significant failing, particularly given the previous substantial delays in responding to the repair request.
With the repairs to the windows the landlord has provided no evidence of how it handled this repair request after 10 April 2024. Due to a lack of adequate records it is not known what action the landlord has taken in response to this repair request or what information has been given to the resident. This is a failing by the landlord.
The landlord did not acknowledge the impact its actions had on the resident or offered any remedy to put this right in its stage 2 response. The resident has informed this service that, following a pre-action letter by her solicitor, the landlord made an offer of £3,700 to settle her complaint in August 2024. This compensation offer occurred outside of a satisfactory timeframe for it to be considered a genuine attempt to put things right with the resident. In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, the Ombudsman expects landlords to try to resolve complaints through their complaint handling procedures. We assess the landlord’s handling of a complaint based on its responses through its complaints process. The resident has told us she does not intend to accept the landlord’s offer of settlement, if the resident wants to pursue a legal claim against the landlord she should seek independent legal advice about this.
In terms of the impact of the resident she has described that as a result of the landlord’s actions she has been living in a property with leaks, damp and mould. The resident says this has prevented her enjoyment of the property, caused damage to the internal decorations and caused her additional expense in heating and dehumidifying the property. Whilst we cannot comment on whether the damp and mould caused an injury to the resident, our view is that the impact on the resident in terms of distress and inconvenience was likely considerable.
The Ombudsman has also taken into account the length of time that the roof and window repairs have been outstanding and that the landlord has repeated some of the failings this service has seen across multiple repair requests. In line with our guidance on remedies (published on our website) this was an aggravating factor in the impact that the landlord’s actions had on the resident.
There was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks and the resulting damp and mould. In line with our guidance on remedies we have ordered that the landlord provide the resident with compensation, as detailed below. This compensation reflects the landlord’s repeated failure to provide effective and timely repairs to the leaks the resident reported over the approximately 32 months this investigation has considered as well as the significant impact the damp and mould had on her.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complains process. Its complaints policy says that it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of it logging the complaint. It will respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of the resident escalating the complaint.
Following the resident’s original complaint on 20 December 2022 the landlord responded on 22 December 2022. However, the landlord did not specify whether it was its stage 1 response or what she could do if she was not satisfied with the response. This was inappropriate. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) published on our website, sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices. In line with the Code at the completion of stage 1 landlords must clearly set out in their written response the current complaint stage and how the resident can escalate their complaint to stage 2 if they are not satisfied.
As set out previously the landlord responded to the service charge issue on 22 December 2022. The response did not address the complaint about the repairs and said it was not in its remit to address but told the resident it had referred this part of the complaint for its repairs team to respond to.
From the available records the resident asked the landlord for an update on when she would receive a response from the repairs team on several occasions from January 2023 to June 2023. The landlord sent her an email on 3 April 2023 which said it was looking to start a section 20 consultation for the repairs. However, there is no evidence its repairs team provided a written response to the resident’s complaint explaining its handling of the repairs since she first reported the leaks in September 2021. In effect, this means that the landlord did not provide a stage 1 response to the complaint about the landlord’s lack of repairs to the leaks from the roof and windows. This was a significant failing by the landlord.
The resident contacted this service on 24 July 2023 for assistance. This should not have been necessary. On 1 October 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord stating that she wanted the complaint to be escalated as the leaks, damp and mould had not been resolved since September 2021 and it had not responded to her complaint. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to define her complaint so it understood why she remained unhappy with its response and what she was looking for as an outcome. This was inappropriate as it was not consistent with the Code.
Following intervention by this service the landlord provided a stage 2 response on 26 October 2023. In relation to the resident’s complaint about the repairs the landlord’s response:
1. stated that the repairs were on hold because of the section 20 but provided no further explanation of this. The response was brief and lacked detail about the points the resident raised in her original complaint about the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
2. incorrectly advised her to escalate her complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman if she was unhappy with the response. This did not affect the resident bringing her complaint to us in this case as she had been in contact with this service before the landlord issued the stage 2 response. However, the landlord should ensure that it refers complainants to the correct service in the future.
This was not acceptable. It took the landlord 10 months to issue a response to the resident’s complaint about its handling of the reports of leaks into the property. The response provided did not meaningfully address the complaint the resident had raised. The resident told us that the landlord’s complaint handling caused her additional distress and frustration at a time where she was already experiencing a significant impact from having to live in a property with leaks, damp and mould.
In summary there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the complaint. In line with our guidance on remedies we have ordered that the landlord provide the resident with compensation as detailed below that reflects that its response to the complaint exacerbated the resident’s distress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of leaks into the property and the resulting damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

The landlord must, within 28 days of this determination:
1. provide a copy of this decision to its Chief Executive and ask them to issue the resident with a written apology. This must recognise the landlord’s delays in completing the repairs and the impact this had on the resident.
2. complete the repairs to the roof and windows of the property that it has agreed. The landlord must pay the resident £25 per day for the period these repairs remain unresolved beyond 28 days of this determination. This will be to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by living in a home where damp and mould is present due to delays in repairs which are the landlord’s responsibility.
3. pay the resident a total of £1,950 in compensation comprised of:
  1. £1,500 for the resident’s distress, inconvenience and loss of enjoyment of her home caused by the significant delays in handling the repairs to the leaks in the property.
  2. £250 for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor record keeping
  3. £200 in recognition of the time and trouble of pursuing a complaint and the frustration caused by the significant failures in the landlord’s complaint handling.
4. contact the resident to assess the damage caused by the leaks, and resulting damp and mould, to the interior of the property as well as the necessary works to redecorate the property. The landlord should remove any mould still present in the property in line with its damp charter and should pay the resident the reasonable cost of the materials to redecorate the property in line with its compensation policy.
5. contact the resident for details of her energy bills from October 2022 until the date of this report. The landlord must consider whether it is reasonable to further reimburse her for the additional costs of heating and dehumidifying the property during this period. The landlord should confirm its decision regarding the heating bills to the resident in writing.
6. provide evidence to this service of compliance with these orders.
Within 10 working days of the completion of the repairs to the roof and windows the landlord must complete a post works survey to confirm that it has completed all the works and resolved the leaks. The landlord must provide a copy of the survey to the resident and this service within 10 working days of the property inspection.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord must carry out a management review of the resident’s case. This should consider:
1. how the delays in responding to the repair requests occurred in this case and its practices regarding how it deals with, responds to and monitors repair requests. This is to ensure that they are recorded, investigated and responded to in a timely manner. In doing so the landlord should have regards to the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (published on our website).
2. how the complaint handling failings occurred and how the landlord will make improvements to reduce the likelihood of a reoccurrence
3. any staff training that may improve its future response to similar cases.
The landlord must provide a written report to the Ombudsman setting out its findings to the management review specified in paragraph 55 of this report. The landlord must provide this report within 56 days of the date of this determination.