Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Lambeth Council (202327473)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327473

Lambeth Council

5 December 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

  1. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant and has lived at the property since 29 August 2011. The property is a 3-bedroom semi-detached house. The resident lives at the property with his wife and three dependent children. In this report the resident will be referred to as ‘they’ as both the resident and his wife communicated with the landlord during the period investigated.
  2. On 3 March 2020, the landlord attended the property to complete repairs to the windows. It was discovered that the window frames were rotten, and a work order was raised for new windows. There is no evidence of any internal notes or communication to the resident relating to the windows until 29 September 2021 when the resident reported to the landlord that the windows required replacement.
  3. On 24 April 2022, the resident told the landlord that they had been waiting for the windows to be replaced and they had not received any contact since September 2021. They also advised the landlord that the windows were rotten and could not be opened.
  4. The landlord responded on 29 April 2022 to say that the works were originally delayed due to COVID-19 restrictions. As the restrictions had been lifted, it agreed to chase up the works with the responsive repairs team. A timescale of 10 working days was given for the repairs team to process the request and provide an update. There is no record of further communication relating to the windows until the resident made their complaint on 21 December 2022. This Service has not been provided with a copy of the original complaint.
  5. A stage 1 response was issued by the landlord on 23 January 2023. It stated:
    1. Subcontractors attended the property to measure up for the replacement windows.
    2. Follow on works would be communicated to the resident by the subcontractors.
    3. The process for arranging the works could take 4-6 weeks from the date that the windows were measured and a quote was approved.
    4. The landlord had partially upheld the complaint.
  6. In April 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to say that they were still awaiting renewal of the windows. While 3 separate work reference numbers had been provided to them, no work had been completed. They stated that an operative had attended in March 2023 as the windows would not open, and they were told that the windows would need replacing as they were beyond repair. The resident requested that the windows be replaced and that they be given compensation for the lack of communication and inconvenience they had experienced.
  7. A second stage 1 response was sent to the resident on 21 June 2023. In this response the landlord stated:
    1. It apologised for not issuing a response by 19 June 2023 in line with its policy. It had received another complaint from the resident on 19 June 2023 and had combined it with this one.
    2. It was still investigating whether compensation would be appropriate and would provide an update within 10 days.
    3. The target date for the windows to be replaced was 16 October 2023.
  8. On 21 July 2023, the landlord completed an inspection of the windows and on 25 July 2023 a damp and mould checklist was completed. This checklist highlighted that several windows required renewal and mould had developed under some of them.
  9. A stage 2 response was provided on 23 August 2023. This response stated:
    1. A number of work orders had been raised, and the timeline was provided.
      1. 14 July 2021 – Reglaze single pane in 4mm clear or obscure glass, up to 1.00sm, hack out and glaze with putty, sprigs, clips, or beads at any level, touch up paintwork to match existing, remove waste and debris.
      2. 15 September 2021 – An operative found that the windows required replacement.
      3. 28 September 2021 Window: Renew fitting to timber, metal, PVC window door: renew external hardwood door -1.00 carp window: renew fitting to timber, metal, PVC window”.
      4. 14 October 2022 – work order was raised for replacement kitchen window and UPVC back door.
      5. 20 March 2023 – work order was raised as window in bedroom would not open.
      6. 26 July 2023 – work order was raised to replace all windows with UPVC.
    2. The landlord apologised as there had been a lack of consistency with seeing the work through to completion. It said its contractors were responsible for maintaining 30,000 properties and, at times, could not carry out repairs within a reasonable time.
    3. There was an open work order for replacement of all windows in the property. The subcontractor had received the instruction and provided the measurements of the windows to the manufacturer.
    4. It aimed to begin the works on 25 September 2023 and the resident would be contacted to confirm the date.
    5. It had defined the works as “planned works” rather than responsive repairs, and so it had 90 days to complete them. Reasonable delays were to be expected as the subcontractor was responsible for carrying out repairs to 30,000 properties.
    6. The landlord offered £535 compensation for the delay in completing the repairs.
  10. On 21 December 2023 another complaint was raised and was partially upheld at stage 1. The landlord stated that is acknowledged there had been delays and inconvenience to the resident and confirmed that the schedule of works had been sent to the contractor. An estimate of 4-6 weeks was given for completion of the works. No compensation was offered.
  11. The windows were replaced on 19 February 2024.
  12. The resident has confirmed to the Ombudsman that they remain unhappy with the level of compensation awarded and the landlord’s explanation for the delays in service.
  13. On 29 May 2024 the landlord emailed the resident and offered additional compensation of £890 for stress and inconvenience, bringing total compensation to £1425. It confirmed that the subcontractor no longer worked for the landlord and it was unaware of the reason for the delays.

Assessment and findings

Windows

  1. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair the structure and exterior of the building. This includes the window frames, sills, and vents.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it has a one working day timescale for emergency repairs, and a 90-day timescale for major works, such as window replacements.
  3. The Ombudsman expects landlords to complete repairs within a reasonable time. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances and the nature of the repair. Where there is a delay in completing repairs, the Ombudsman expects landlords to be proactive in:
    1. Communicating the cause of delays to residents.
    2. Explaining to residents what it intends to do about the delays.
    3. Identifying what it can do to mitigate the impact of delays on residents.
  4. In December 2023 the resident reported that a child’s bedroom window on the first floor was at risk of falling out due to the frame being rotten. While the landlord boarded the window, this should have been a temporary measure, particularly as the landlord was already aware that all windows required replacement. In this case, the window remained boarded for a further 2 months. The resident expressed their frustration and concern at this situation, particularly as their child was residing in the bedroom, as they felt it posed a security concern. The landlord did not address these concerns directly. 
  5. The windows in the property were originally found to be in need of replacement in March 2020. The Ombudsman acknowledges the difficulties faced during this period due to the global pandemic, but it remained the landlord’s responsibility to ensure it had robust processes in place to monitor works which were put on hold and communicate with residents to keep them updated. After the initial discovery in 2020 that the windows required replacement, there was a period of approximately 18 months where no action was taken and there is no evidence of communication with the resident.
  6. In July 2023 the landlord took a number of actions including an inspection of the windows, a damp and mould checklist, and approval of a quote for full window replacement. Despite this, the windows were only renewed on 19 February 2024, which was over 3 years and 11 months after the landlord first identified they needed replacement. There were significant and repeated failings in the landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s reports about the windows. These failings included repeated and protracted delays and giving conflicting information about what work it would do. This caused confusion and uncertainty about what it planned to do and in what timescale, and there was an overall failure to effectively communicate with the resident to keep them informed.
  7. In their complaints to the landlord and this Service, the resident explained the impact the delay in replacing the windows had on them and their family. This included:
    1. A lack of natural light due to windows being boarded over.
    2. Experiencing draughts from loose window frames
    3. Concerns that the boarding compromised the security of the property.
  8. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer of £535 compensation made at stage 2 was not appropriate because it did not adequately reflect the impact caused to the resident and their family. As a result of the delays caused by the landlord, the resident was deprived of the use and enjoyment of their home, for which they pay rent.
  9. Considering all the circumstances, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the window repairs, in that it unreasonably delayed in replacing the windows. It provided conflicting and confusing information about when work would be completed and communicated poorly with the resident throughout the period investigated.
  10. The Ombudsman considers that the resident should be compensated for reduced enjoyment of their home to the value of:
    1. 5% of the weekly rent for the period between 3 March 2020 when the original order was raised to replace the windows and 1 April 2021. This reduced amount is in recognition of delays which were outside the landlord’s control during the COVID-19 pandemic.
    2. 10% of the weekly rent between 1 April 2021 and 19 February 2024, when the windows were replaced.
  11. To calculate the compensation due to the resident, the weekly rent figure has been taken from the rent records provided by the landlord.
  12. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £2,484.01 compensation. The landlord may deduct from the total any compensation it has already paid in relation to this complaint.
  13. The Ombudsman previously ordered the landlord to carry out a review of its policy or practice under paragraph 54.f in relation to its handling of window replacements. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the case(s) already determined. The landlord demonstrated compliance with our previous wider order in January 2024 so we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to the landlord. However, as it is almost one year since the landlord completed its review, a learning order will be made for it to assess whether all proposed actions were taken, and whether they have had a positive impact on its service.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy in place at the time of this complaint states that it will acknowledge complaints at stage 1 and 2 within 3 working days and formal responses will be issued within 15 days. If the resident remains unhappy with the outcome it will direct them to stage 3 which is a review by the corporate complaints unit. The written stage 3 response is issued within 20 working days.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code was introduced in 2022 and sets out best practice for landlord’s complaint handling procedures. Under the Code, landlord must have a 2-stage complaints process. At the time of the complaint, following the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code was not a statutory requirement for landlords. At the time of this report, it is a mandatory requirement that landlords follow the Code and the Service has seen evidence that its new policy adheres to this. For this reason, no recommendations will be made in relation to the landlord’s complaints policy.
  3. It is not clear to this Service when the complaint which was responded to at stage 1 on 21 June 2023 was raised, or why a stage 2 escalation was not logged against the previous complaint given it was regarding the same issue. A third complaint was raised in December 2023 for the same issue. The landlord should have followed the policy in effect at the time, which would have required it to escalate the complaint to stage 3.
  4. Compensation of £535 was offered at stage 2 of the complaint process, however neither the resident nor the Ombudsman has been provided with an explanation of how this was calculated. Additional compensation of £890 was offered in May 2024 which it stated was for distress and inconvenience, bringing the total compensation offer to £1,425. The latter offer was made outside of its complaints process.
  5. While it was positive that the landlord awarded the resident more compensation, this Service expects that appropriate remedies are offered within the complaints process. Following contact from this Service, the landlord revised its offer of compensation and increased this by £890 to include distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident. We accept that this compensation offer represented an attempt to put things right. However, it offered this a considerable time after the complaints process was exhausted. Additionally, it appears to have been prompted by this Service’s intention to investigate the complaint. This should have been an outcome and offer of redress identified at the time of the complaints process. Alternatively, and given that at the time that this complaint had completed the complaints process, the windows had not been replaced, the landlord could have included a commitment in its final response to review its position in relation to compensation once all works were completed.
  6. There is no evidence that the landlord offered compensation for its poor complaint handling, as when compensation was awarded it was not clearly broken down.
  7. The Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. It did not escalate the residents original complaint, instead opening 2 new complaints, and whilst it made an offer of compensation it did not offer adequate remedies within the complaints process. It also failed to acknowledge the impact of the poor complaint handling on the resident, which included additional delays, frustration, and potential confusion given the number of complaints which were opened.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that within 6 weeks of this report the landlord must:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this case. This should be provided by a member of the senior leadership team. A copy must be provided to the Ombudsman as proof of compliance.
    2. Pay the resident £2,884.01 which comprises of:
      1. £2,484.01 for reduced enjoyment of the home as calculated above. The landlord may deduct from the total any compensation it has already paid in relation to this complaint.
      2. £400 for inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures.
      3. Proof of payment must be provided to the Ombudsman to demonstrate compliance.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, within 12 weeks of this report the landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with a review conducted by a senior manager to include:
    1. What lessons it has learned one year on from the review dated January 2024.
    2. Confirming whether proposed improvements to its service were implemented.
    3. Potential start dates for any improvements which have not yet been introduced.
    4. Confirmation of whether there has been a positive impact on the experience of its residents who are awaiting replacement windows since its review.