Lambeth Council (202320004)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320004

Lambeth Council

17 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

1. The complaint is about an unannounced visit by landlord staff to the resident’s property. 
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a secure tenant. The property is a 2 bedroom flat. The resident lives at the property with her daughter.
4. On 16 June 2023 the resident complained that a woman called at her door and told her she worked for the landlord. The resident said that the woman asked to speak with a named individual (individual A) who did not live at the property. The woman then asked for the resident’s name in order that the landlord could update its records. The resident asked the landlord to:
   1. investigate the incident.
   2. clarify why it was sending people to doors without prior appointments.
5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 22 June 2023. It said it was writing in response to the complaint that the resident had submitted “on behalf of [her] grandmother”. It confirmed that it was a local neighbourhood housing officer who had called at her door. It said it had spoken with the officer who said they “got the wrong address” and that they had apologised to the resident. It confirmed the resident was listed on the tenancy, not individual A.
6. On 23 June 2023 the resident asked to escalate her complaint. She said:
   1. she did not have a grandmother by the name of individual A and that this was not an “acceptable mistake” for the landlord to make. 
   2. the landlord “turning up at [her] address unannounced” and asking for her details was “not something that should be dismissed so easily”.
   3. the landlord needed to put “data protection and security measures” in place.
7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 26 July 2023. It said:
   1. it had spoken with housing management as part of its complaint investigation.
   2. the housing officer was carrying out visits as part of the landlord’s commitment to visit all properties in the borough and undertake checks to ensure they were up to standard.
   3. management had spoken with the officer involved who said that once she realised she had made a mistake, she apologised to the resident. It asked the officer to ensure that she double checked the system before undertaking these checks to avoid the same thing happening again.
   4. it apologised “for any discomfort caused”.
8. The resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s response and referred her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

Unannounced visit by landlord staff to the resident’s property

9. During its complaint investigation, the landlord spoke to the housing officer who knocked on the resident’s door. The officer confirmed she knocked on the door in error as she had the wrong address. She said that she apologised to the resident and then left the property.
10. The resident’s account of the incident in her evidence to the Ombudsman was that the officer gave her “the third degree” and was “demanding personal details” from her.
11. As we do not have a contemporaneous account of the discussion that took place between the resident and the officer, we are unable to reach a view either way on what was or was not said. However, we note that in the resident’s complaint correspondence, she referred only to the officer “asking” for her name (original complaint) and “asking” for her details (escalation request). The resident did not suggest to the landlord, as she did to the Ombudsman, that the information was demanded or that the conversation was in any way oppressive. The landlord therefore reasonably based its complaint investigation on the information she had provided it with at that time.
12. We are satisfied that the landlord undertook a reasonable and proportionate investigation into the complaint. It spoke to the housing officer and her manager. It reminded the officer and her colleagues of the importance of double checking its system before they visit residents’ homes to avoid making a similar mistake again.
13. The landlord explained its investigation findings to the resident in its complaint responses. In its stage 2 response, it said it had spoken to the officer involved. It apologised to the resident “for any discomfort” the incident had caused her. It said it took complaints very seriously and used them as an organisational learning tool.
14. The resident suggested to the Ombudsman that the landlord breached the tenancy agreement as it conducted “an unauthorised visit” to her home. Our understanding is that the officer knocked on the door but did not enter the property. That the landlord did not give the resident advance notice that it would be calling to her door corroborates its explanation that she was not the intended recipient of the visit. If the resident remains concerned that the landlord has breached the tenancy agreement, she may seek independent legal advice.
15. The resident also told the Ombudsman that an apology from the landlord was “not sufficient”. She told us that she wanted compensation as the landlord had caused her “a great deal of pain and suffering”. She said the landlord’s actions “posed a significant risk and danger” to her and her daughter, and that she was now “extremely fearful” about answering her door.
16. We sympathise with the resident and understand that she has been affected by the incident. However, it was not unreasonable that the landlord did not offer her financial compensation. When making her complaint and when asking to escalate it, the resident did not outline the adverse impact the incident had on her. It was only when referring the complaint to the Ombudsman that she explained the impact. It was therefore not unreasonable for the landlord to consider that an explanation of what went wrong and an apology would provide redress. This was in keeping with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance which recognise that financial compensation will not be offered in all cases where there has been a service failure. Even if the landlord was aware of the reported impact when issuing its complaint responses, it may still reasonably have concluded financial compensation was not appropriate given the service failure involved a one-off incident of short duration.
17. Overall, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s response was appropriate to the resident’s complaint about an unannounced visit. It carried out a reasonable and proportionate investigation into the complaint. It acknowledged it made a mistake, explained to the resident why this occurred, apologised and demonstrated it had learnt from the complaint. While we have taken account of the resident’s comments about how the incident impacted her, we consider the incident was a one-off and the landlord acted promptly to respond to her concerns and provide reassurance. For that reason, we are satisfied that an apology was sufficient and that financial compensation would not be the appropriate remedy in this case.

Complaint handling

18. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord suggested that the resident had submitted her complaint “on behalf of [her] grandmother”. This was incorrect as the resident was the sole tenant of the property. She lived there with her daughter only.
19. Given that the resident’s complaint concerned the landlord knocking at her door looking for someone other than her, this factual error in the stage 1 response was unfortunate. It is evident from her escalation request that the resident read the stage 1 response as meaning the landlord thought her grandmother was individual A. The landlord did not conflate the grandmother with individual A in its response. However, it was inaccurate to refer to a grandmother at all, so it was a misunderstanding of the landlord’s creation.
20. We have seen no evidence that the two errors were connected. We accept, as outlined above, the landlord’s explanation that the housing officer noted down the wrong address from its system. In other words, it was an individual oversight rather than a records or systems failure that led to the unannounced visit.
21. We are unclear, however, why the landlord referred to a grandmother in its stage 1 response. Despite the resident querying this in her escalation request, the landlord failed to acknowledge the error in the stage 2 response. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to rectify its mistake and reassure the resident its records were accurate.
22. The Ombudsman therefore finds that there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. In line with our remedies guidance, we order it to pay the resident £50 compensation for this service failure. It should review all records held in relation to the resident and confirm to her that they accurately reflect she is the sole tenant.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress prior to our investigation in response to her complaint about an unannounced visit by landlord staff to her property.
24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

25. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
    1. apologise to the resident for the service failure in its complaint handling. The apology should follow the best practice set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
    2. pay the resident £50 compensation for the service failure in its complaint handling.
    3. review all records held in relation to the resident. It should then write to her to confirm that the records accurately reflect she is the sole tenant.