Lambeth Council (202319858)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319858

Lambeth Council

28 November 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a repair to his kitchen window and the arrangements for making the appointments.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

The property is a one-bedroom flat on the first floor of a block.
The resident is a secure tenant of a local authority landlord and the tenancy began on 22 February 2016. The landlord has stated that it has no vulnerabilities listed for the resident.
The landlord raised a repair on 25 April 2023 to repair the kitchen window as the resident had reported that he could not lock the window. The landlord’s contractor attended on 5 May 2023 and overhauled the window.
The resident contacted the landlord on 9 June 2023 and said that he was told by the contractor that parts were needed to complete the repair to the window. The landlord spoke to the contractor on the same day and the contractor advised that it had completed the repair. It added that if there was still an issue with the window, the landlord should raise a recall job for the contractor. The landlord therefore raised a recall job on 9 June 2023.
The resident contacted the landlord various times in June 2023 and the landlord booked an appointment for the contractor to attend on 28 June 2023. The contractor attended on 28 June 2023 but could not gain access. It also attended on 30 June 2023 and again there was no access and therefore the contractor cancelled the job. The resident contacted the landlord several times during July and August 2023 and the contractor attended on 5 September 2023. The job notes stated that the window was overhauled and was left in good working order.
The resident complained on 18 September 2023 that his window was “exactly the same” as it had been before the contractor attended on 5 September 2023 and he had been told by the landlord’s contact centre that he was responsible for repairs to the window handle.
In its stage 2 reply dated 9 January 2024, the landlord stated that one of its senior surveyors had tried to contact the resident to discuss his concerns but had not been able to speak to him. The landlord provided the senior surveyor’s details and asked the resident to contact him to arrange an inspection of the window. An internal email dated 23 January 2024 from the senior surveyor stated that the resident had contacted him that day and had refused to provide access for an inspection. The email added that the resident wanted to speak to the person who had sent the stage 2 reply.
The resident contacted this Service on 9 February 2024 and said that his complaint was about a broken window in the kitchen that was causing draughts and cold because of its condition.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a repair to his kitchen window and the arrangements for making the appointments

The landlord’s repairs manual states:
1. Routine repairs will be completed within 7 days or within 28 working days depending on the type and urgency of the repair.
2. The landlord will try its best to give an appointment that suits the resident, however, it asks residents to be flexible so it can complete the repair within the target time.
3. The landlord is responsible for windows frames, sills and vents.
4. The resident is responsible for window handles, window locks and draught excluders around windows.
5. A recharge will occur where the landlord undertakes a repair that is the resident’s responsibility.
6. If the resident is out when the contractor visits, it will leave a card and send the resident a text message to let them know that the contractor has called. It is the resident’s responsibility to contact the contractor to re–book the repair.
7. If the landlord decides that a repair has not been done properly, it can ask the contractor to do the repair again.
The landlord raised an order on 25 April 2023 to repair the resident’s kitchen window as the resident was unable to lock it. The description of the job also stated that the chain had come away from the window and the window itself was old. The landlord’s contractor attended on 5 May 2023 and the job notes state that it overhauled the window. The contractor had therefore attended within 7 working days, which was reasonable as it was well within the landlord’s target of 28 working days for the job.
The resident contacted the landlord on 9 June 2023 and stated that he had been waiting for the contractor to return to carry out further repairs to the window. He said the operative had advised him that parts were needed. The landlord contacted the contractor on the same day and the contractor advised that it had completed the repair and therefore if there were ongoing issues, the landlord would need to raise a job to recall the contractor. The landlord therefore raised the recall job on 9 June 2023 with a 28-working day target.
The contractor had advised the landlord that, based on its records, the repair had been completed. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to raise a recall job on 9 June 2023 as the resident had reported there was still a problem with the window. The recall job would require the contractor to return to the property to address any outstanding issues with the window.
The resident advised the landlord that the operative had told him parts were needed to repair the window fully. The Ombudsman can confirm that the notes in the landlord’s repairs log for the job completed on 5 May 2023 do not mention the need for the contractor to order parts for the window.
The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s statement that he was told parts were needed. However, in situations where there are conflicting accounts about commitments that may have been given, this Service relies on contemporaneous documentary evidence to reach conclusions. In this instance, there is no written record of the contractor agreeing to order parts. Therefore, with insufficient evidence to confirm whether the operative had advised the resident that parts were needed, it would not be possible for the Ombudsman, as an independent arbiter, to establish what the resident was told by the operative.
The landlord’s repairs log shows that the resident phoned the contractor various times during June 2023 to chase the repair. On 27 June 2023, the resident phoned to complain that neither the landlord nor the contractor had contacted him regarding the repair.
As the landlord had raised an order on 9 June 2023 for the contractor to be recalled to the window repair job, it was unreasonable that the landlord had not contacted the resident about the job almost 3 weeks later. This had prompted the resident to make a formal complaint. The landlord accepted in its stage one reply dated 21 July 2023 that it had not adequately communicated with the resident and upheld his complaint.
As a result of the resident’s phone call on 27 June 2023, the contractor made an appointment to attend on 28 June 2023. The repairs log states that the appointment was agreed with the resident while he was on the phone and the landlord also left a voice message for the resident to confirm the appointment.
The contractor attended on 28 June 2023 but was unable to access the property. It therefore left a card and rebooked the appointment for 30 June 2023. The repairs log states that the contractor phoned the resident on 28 June 2023 to advise him of the new appointment.
The contractor attended on 30 June 2023 but once again could not access the property. The contractor tried to ring the resident twice on the day and left messages for him. The contractor left a ‘no access’ card at the property and cancelled the job as it had attended twice and had not been able to access the property.
It is unclear from the evidence why the contractor was unable to access the property on 28 and 30 June 2023. However, based on the evidence seen, it was reasonable for the contractor to cancel the job as it had attended twice and not gained access. The contractor had also left cards at the property and had left voicemail messages for the resident. The contractor’s actions were consistent with the landlord’s repairs manual, which states that it will leave a card and send a text message if the resident is out. In this case, the contractor had left cards on 28 and 30 June 2023 and had left voicemail messages for the resident. Therefore, in accordance with the landlord’s repairs manual, the resident was now responsible for contacting the landlord to re–book the repair.
On 3, 7 and 18 July 2023 the resident phoned the landlord to ask about the window repair, which he said was still outstanding. The resident mentioned again that he had been told by an operative that parts were needed for the window repair. The landlord advised the resident that it had raised a further job on 30 June 2023 for the contractor to be recalled and the target timescale for completion of the job was 9 August 2023.
The resident advised the landlord on 18 July 2023 and on 4 August 2023 that he had received 3 text messages about the repair and appointments. He said he was unhappy that the contractor had not phoned him directly to agree an appointment date.
On 25 July 2023, the resident requested the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 as he said he had received conflicting information from the landlord’s contact centre about how appointments were made.
The landlord explained in its stage 2 reply dated 31 August 2023 that usually the contractor would send a text message to the resident advising them of the appointment time. This would be followed by a phone call to confirm whether the appointment time was convenient. The landlord added that its contact centre staff were unable to reschedule appointments themselves. Therefore, if a resident phoned the contact centre to report that an appointment was unsuitable, the landlord would send a message asking the contractor to ring the resident. It was appropriate that the landlord had explained the process for making appointments as the resident had complained about a lack of clarity with the process.
The landlord’s repairs log shows that on 4 August 2023 it booked an appointment for 16 August 2023. The notes in the repairs log indicate that this date was not agreed with the resident prior to booking it. The resident subsequently left a message for the landlord on 8 August 2023 that the appointment on 16 August 2023 unsuitable. The landlord phoned the resident on 8 August 2023 but the call was disconnected before a new appointment could be agreed. The appointment was left as 16 August 2023 and the landlord sent a message to the contractor to reschedule the appointment. However, the contractor did not change the appointment.
The landlord accepted in its stage 2 reply there had then been a delay in acknowledging the resident’s request for the appointment to be rescheduled after he had phoned on 8 August 2023 to advise that the appointment for 16 August 2023 was unsuitable. The Ombudsman agrees that the contractor or the landlord should have contacted the resident much sooner to agree a new appointment date. It was unreasonable that the resident was not contacted prior to 16 August 2023 and as a result the appointment date was not changed. This created further frustration for the resident in his efforts to agree a suitable appointment.
Although the appointment date of 16 August 2023 was still on the contractor’s system, the contractor was unable to keep the appointment on the day because the operative was delayed on an urgent job. The contractor phoned the resident on 16 August 2023 and left a voice message that it had rescheduled the appointment to 18 August 2023.
The landlord also accepted in its stage 2 reply that the resident had been given less than 48 hours’ notice of the appointment on 18 August 2023. The landlord apologised and upheld the complaint. The Ombudsman agrees that it was inappropriate for the contractor to leave a voice message for the resident giving less than 48 hours’ notice of the appointment. In situations where a contractor wishes to attend a property at short notice, it is important that the resident agrees to the appointment beforehand to ensure it is convenient for the resident.
The contractor attended on 18 August 2023 but was unable to obtain access. The contractor left a card and left a phone message for the resident that it had re-booked the job to be carried out on 4 September 2023.
The resident had previously expressed concerns about the landlord or contractor booking appointments without speaking to him first. Therefore, the view of this Service is that it was unreasonable that the contractor booked a further appointment for 4 September 2023 without speaking to the resident first. Discussing the appointment date with the resident would have given him the opportunity to advise of his availability and reduce the likelihood of further abortive visits by the contractor.
By not speaking to the resident to agree the appointment, this merely served to add to his concerns about the landlord’s communication. The Ombudsman has, however, taken into account that the both the contractor and the landlord tried to ring the resident and left voice messages on each occasion when making appointments.
The landlord’s repairs log states that an operative attended on 5 September 2023, overhauled the window and left it in good working order. However, the resident submitted a further stage one complaint on 18 September 2023 in which he said the window was still defective despite the contractor’s visit on 5 September 2023. He added that the landlord should not have accepted the contractor’s report that the job had been completed. He said the landlord should have sent one of its own surveyors to verify that the window locking mechanism was still defective.
The Ombudsman understands the resident’s frustration that the window was still defective following the contractor’s initial visit in May 2023. However, the view of this Service is that the landlord acted reasonably by recalling the contractor following the initial visit. The recall would allow the contractor to put right any issues with the quality of the work it had previously carried out. The landlord’s repairs manual states that if it decides a repair has not been done properly, it can ask the contractor to carry out the repair again.
The landlord stated in its stage one reply dated 16 October 2023 that its surveyor had attempted to contact the resident but said the resident had not engaged appropriately with them. The landlord therefore provided the surveyor’s details in its letter and requested the resident to contact him to arrange an inspection.
As the contractor had attended twice and the resident was still reporting problems with the window, it was appropriate for the landlord to send a surveyor to inspect the window. This would enable the landlord to understand whether there were any underlying problems with the mechanism for opening and closing the window.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 16 October 2023 and asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2. He refuted the landlord’s statement that the surveyor had tried to contact him.
In its stage 2 reply dated 9 January 2024, the landlord again provided the resident with the surveyor’s details and asked the resident to contact him to arrange an inspection of the window. The landlord repeated that the surveyor had tried on various occasions to contact the resident.
The resident has advised this Service that he had connection problems with his phone during December 2023 and part of January 2024 and therefore accepts that the surveyor may have had difficulty contacting him during these months. The resident also confirmed the following to this Service:
1. He received a handwritten card from the surveyor on 10 January 2024 asking him to contact the surveyor.
2. He contacted the surveyor on 23 January 2024 to advise that he would not give access to the surveyor to inspect the window. Instead, the resident said he wanted to speak to the person who had written the stage 2 reply.
3. The resident confirmed that he had not contacted the landlord after 23 January 2024 to arrange the inspection and as a result the window was still not closing.
The evidence therefore shows that following the contractor’s attendance on 5 September 2023, the landlord made reasonable attempts to inspect the window in response to the resident’s reports of ongoing problems. The landlord advised the resident in its stage one and two replies that he should contact the surveyor to arrange the inspection and the evidence shows that the surveyor made reasonable attempts to contact the resident.
Part of the resident’s complaint is that he was initially advised by the landlord’s contact centre that he was responsible for the window handle. However, the resident has advised this Service that the handle operates a mechanism built into the window to open and close the window. He explained it is this mechanism that is faulty and is preventing the window from closing.
The Ombudsman is not doubting the resident’s statement that he was told by the contact centre he was responsible for the window handle. However, despite this advice, the evidence shows that landlord accepted responsibility for the repair because:
1. The landlord raised orders for the contractor to repair the window and recalled the contractor.
2. The contractor attended twice to carry out repairs.
3. The landlord attempted to inspect the window.
4. The landlord did not suggest in its stage one or stage two replies that the resident was responsible for the window handle.
5. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord said it would recharge the resident for the repair. (The landlord’s repairs manual states that it will recharge residents if it carries out repairs that are the resident’s responsibility).
Therefore, although the advice from the contact centre would have caused the resident further frustration, ultimately the landlord’s actions demonstrated that it accepted responsibility for the repair.
Overall, although the contractor carried out repairs to the window and the landlord made reasonable attempts to inspect it, this Service has found the following failings by the landlord in its handling of the repair:
1. There was a lack of communication with the resident after it raised a recall order for the contractor on 9 June 2023. This prompted him to make a formal complaint on 27 June 2023 about the lack of contact.
2. The contractor had sent the resident text messages on 18 July and 4 August 2023 regarding appointments for the repair without speaking to him first to ensure the dates were suitable. This was despite previous ‘no access’ visits by the contractor and the resident calling to raise concerns about appointments being made without speaking to him.
3. The landlord did not contact the resident to change the appointment scheduled for 16 August 2023, despite the resident having advised the landlord on 8 August 2023 that the appointment date was unsuitable.
4. The contractor did not give the resident sufficient notice of the appointment on 18 August 2023. The contractor left a voice message for the resident giving him less than 48 hours’ notice of the appointment.
5. The landlord also scheduled an appointment for 4 September 2023 without agreeing the date with the resident, despite his previous concerns.
In its stage 2 reply dated 9 January 2024, the landlord acknowledged the time and trouble experienced by the resident in trying to resolve the matter and offered him £75.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In this case, the landlord acted fairly by acknowledging the time and trouble the resident had experienced in trying to resolve the issue. It also acted fairly by apologising in the stage 2 reply that the service the resident received had not met its usual standards and upholding the resident’s complaint. The landlord also demonstrated learning by stating in its stage 2 reply that although there were occasions when the contractor might bring forward appointment times due to cancellations, doing so was not always effective. It therefore said it would highlight the matter to the relevant managers.
In terms of the landlord’s offer of £75, the view of this Service is that the landlord’s offer went some way to address the failings identified in this report and to put things right. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion it did not adequately reflect the time, trouble and inconvenience experienced by the resident in seeking a suitable appointment for the repair during June to August 2023. During this period, the resident made several phone calls to the landlord about the repair and made it clear that any appointment needed to be agreed with him beforehand to ensure it was convenient. Despite this, appointments were scheduled without any prior discussion with him and without sufficient notice.
Taking the various factors into account, including the landlord’s attempts to inspect the window, the Ombudsman has found there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the repair. The landlord’s offer was not proportionate to the failings identified in this investigation and therefore an order has been made for the landlord to pay an additional £125. This makes a total of £200 including the £75 already offered by the landlord.
The resident advised this Service that the window still cannot be closed. However, the resident advised that he had not contacted the landlord to agree a date for the inspection following his call to the surveyor on 23 January 2024 in which he refused to give access for the inspection. Therefore, as the repair is still outstanding, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to contact the resident to agree an appointment for the inspection by the landlord’s surveyor.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

At the time of the resident’s stage one complaint, the landlord had a 2–stage complaints process. It aimed to provide a response to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days and at stage 2 it would aim to respond within 25 working days.
At the time of the resident’s complaints, the landlord’s timescales for responding to complaints were not compliant with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. The code stipulated that landlords should reply to stage one complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. However, the landlord’s current complaints policy has now brought these response timescales into line with the complaint handling code.
During the period from June to October 2023, the resident made 2 separate stage one complaints about the window repair and requested the landlord to escalate both complaints to stage 2.
The resident made an initial stage one complaint on 27 June 2023 and the landlord sent its stage one reply on 21 July 2023. The landlord therefore took 18 working days to respond, which was reasonable because it was within its published timescales for stage one complaints.
The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 25 July 2023 and the landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 31 August 2023. The landlord therefore took 27 working days to respond, which was 2 days longer than its published timescale of 25 working days to respond to stage 2 complaints. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord agreed an extension of time with the resident and therefore it was a shortcoming that the landlord did not respond within its published timescale.
The resident made a further stage one complaint on 18 September 2023 using the landlord’s online complaints form. The landlord sent its stage one reply on 16 October 2023, which was 20 working days after the complaint was made. The time taken by the landlord to reply was therefore in line with its policy at the time.
The resident wrote to the landlord on the same day (16 October 2023) and stated that he was dissatisfied with the stage one reply. He asked the landlord to review his complaint. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 5 December 2023, which was 36 working days after the resident requested the landlord to escalate his complaint. The Ombudsman has not seen any mitigating evidence explaining why the landlord did not acknowledge the complaint earlier. Therefore, the time taken by the landlord to acknowledge the complaint was inappropriate. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code states that complaints must be acknowledged within 5 working days of receipt. The delay in acknowledging the complaint led to a delay in the overall time taken by the landlord to send its response to the stage 2 complaint.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 9 January 2024, which was 58 working days after the resident made his stage 2 complaint. The overall time taken to respond to the complaint was driven by the delay in the landlord acknowledging the complaint as previously highlighted above. The overall time of 58 working days for the landlord to respond to the stage 2 complaint was therefore unreasonable as it was much longer than the landlord’s 25-working day target.
The landlord did not apologise for the delay in its stage 2 reply, nor did it provide an explanation or offer any compensation to put things right. The landlord’s lack of acknowledgement of the delay was unreasonable as it suggests the landlord did not take any learning from its failure to respond to the complaint in a timely manner.
The Ombudsman has also noted that both of the landlord’s stage 2 letters dated 31 August 2023 and 9 January 2024 incorrectly signposted the resident to the Local Government Ombudsman if he was dissatisfied. As the subject of the complaints related to the management of social housing, the landlord should have signposted the resident to the Housing Ombudsman. It was therefore inappropriate for the landlord not to have correctly signposted the resident to the Housing Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman has found there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling because of the considerable delay in replying to the stage 2 complaint, the lack of acknowledgement of this delay and the incorrect signposting to the Local Government Ombudsman in both stage 2 replies.
An order has been made for the landlord to pay compensation of £200 to put things right in relation to the complaint handling failings. The amount ordered is in the range of sums identified in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for findings of maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of a repair to his kitchen window and the arrangements for making the appointments.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £400 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £200 for the handling of the resident’s report of a repair to his kitchen window. The landlord may deduct the £75 it has offered if this has already been paid.
  2. £200 for the complaint handling failures.
3. Contact the resident to agree an appointment for a surveyor to inspect the kitchen window and raise the necessary repairs arising from the inspection.