Lambeth Council (202400611)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202400611

Lambeth Council

26 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:
1. Leaks to the resident’s property.
2. Damp and mould.
3. Damage to the resident’s property.
4. A lack of heating and hot water to the resident’s property.
5. The complaint.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of a 2-bedroom property in a tower block. The tenancy started in June 2023 and the resident lives in the property with her child. Both the resident and her child live with asthma.
The resident raised her complaint with the landlord on 7 September 2023. She said her complaint was because of a reoccurring leak into her property. She said she first reported the issue on 25 August 2023. She explained that she made several attempts to contact the landlord to obtain information from it around the issue. She also raised concerns about damp and mould because of the leak.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident on 23 October 2023. It apologised for any frustration and upset she experienced during her repair request. It partly upheld her complaint due to the inconvenience caused, time and trouble she went through chasing the repair.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint on 24 October 2023. She raised concerns about her living situation. She reiterated the concerns she raised at stage 1 around communicating with the landlord. She told it that the situation had affected her day to day activities with her child and their health. She also raised concerns specifically about her wellbeing. She told it that the leak also affected her boiler and caused her electrics to trip. She said it left her with no hot water or heating for 36 hours between 7 September 2023 and 9 September 2023. She also raised concerns that she still had no central heating, and it offered her no support. She also raised concerns about damage and carpenter ants in her property.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 27 November 2023. It detailed the remedial works its contractor would complete and provided dates. It said she told it that the walls that it recently plastered had started to bubble again, so there may still be an ongoing leak. Its contractor had asked that she provide photos. Following this, it would attend on 28 November 2023 to inspect the outstanding works, advise on whether there was still an active leak, and raise any order for action accordingly. It apologised for the delay in resolving the issue entirely, the time and effort she had spent in escalating the complaint, and for any distress or uncertainty experienced.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised concerns about the effects of the situation on hers and her child’s health. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any impact on health. The courts must decide on personal injury claims, as they can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. However, the Ombudsman will consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident as well as the landlord’s response to any reported impact on hers and her family’s health.
Within the resident’s escalation request, she raised concerns about damage to her property, lack of heating, hot water and the presence of carpenter ants in the property. The landlord did not address these issues within its complaint response. Paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider a complaint where it has not exhausted the landlord’s complaint’s process. This is unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and we believe the landlord has not acted within a reasonable time.
As the resident had raised her concerns, and the landlord did not address them within its response or show that it addressed them in a separate complaint response, the Ombudsman believes that this was a complaint handling failure. This in turn brings these issues into the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The Ombudsman will consider these aspect of the resident’s complaint within this investigation.

Handling of leaks to the resident’s property.

The landlord’s repairs policy says that it operates 5 types of repairs with different timescales. If it offered a routine or planned repair, it would offer the resident a future appointment. These repair types are:
1. Urgent Emergency which it will attend to within 2 hours and fix within 24 hours.
2. Emergency repairs which it will fix within 1 working day.
3. Routine repairs with a 7 day time for fixes (or 2 days for certain qualifying repairs under the Right to Repair regulations).
4. Routine repairs with a 28 working day time frame.
5. Planned repairs which it will complete within 90 days.
The resident said in her stage 1 complaint that she first raised her concerns around the leaks on 25 August 2023. She said she told the landlord that the leak originated from a void (empty) property. She also said that its contractor attended but could not access the void property. They then went into her home, took photographs, went back to the void property, and took a picture of the front door. The contractor then told her that there was nothing they could do as they could not access the property, and they were unsure when they would fix the leak. This was unreasonable as the landlord should have ensured that its contractor was able to access the property. The failure to do so meant that it did not investigate the leak promptly, properly assure itself that it was safe and there would be no adverse effects for the resident.
The resident further explained that following this she had to contact the landlord again on 5 September 2023. This was when it provided her with an update saying it had emailed the relevant housing manager and they would contact her “ASAP”. The resident explained that at the time of making her complaint nobody had contacted her. This raises further concerns with the landlord’s communication.
It was not until 6 September 2023 that the landlord gained access to the void property to find where the leak was coming from. Its contractor tried to attend her property, but she was not home as she was unaware that they were attending. The resident contacted the landlord on the same day, and it told her that it had emailed the housing manager to raise the necessary repairs, but it could provide no estimate on when it would complete them. This was an unsympathetic approach to take and shows a lack of customer focus. The landlord should have taken steps to see if there were any temporary measure it could take around the issue. For example, it could have considered the installation of a tarpaulin to stop any water ingress into the resident’s property.
The landlord’s records show that it did not act between 25 August 2023 and 6 September 2023. Its records detail that its first response to her concerns was on 7 September 2023, the same day she raised her complaint. The resident explained in her stage 1 complaint that she contacted the landlord on 7 September 2023, to report a worsening of the leak as it had become even more uncontrollable.
The landlord has also not disputed the resident’s chronology of events as explained in her complaint. As such the Ombudsman finds it reasonable to conclude these were a correct representation of events at the time. This also raises concerns with the landlord’s record keeping as it has not provided a record of events. The landlord has also not demonstrated that it explained how it categorised the repairs to the resident. This raises further concerns with its communication.
Following the resident’s report on 7 September 2023, the landlord’s records state it attended to complete works to try identifying the leak in September 2023. It marked 2 of these jobs as complete, however the resident said on 24 October 2023 that the leak remained ongoing in her escalation request. The landlord’s records show there were further concerns with leaks in both April 2024 and September 2024. It also told the Ombudsman on 3 October 2024 and 20 November 2024 that the leak remained ongoing.
As such it is unclear if new leaks occurred, or the same issue continued. What is however clear is that the landlord did not take decisive action to investigate what led to the repeated leaks. It has not shown that it completed any surveys of the building to find if there was a wider issue leading to the constant issue. Its inaction is a delay of over 13 months to affect a permanent solution and this was unreasonable. This saw the resident living in a compromised property for a substantial amount of time.
The resident also raised concerns about the fact that she had carpenter ants within the property. She explained that the landlord told her that it was her responsibility to resolve. The landlord has not demonstrated that it investigated the matter to reach this conclusion. The Ombudsman’s research suggests that these ants require an environment rich in moisture to survive such as a leak. However, as there is no direct evidence that the leak in the property led to the presence of the ants in the property, the Ombudsman cannot decide on this matter. However, the landlord should have completed the necessary investigations to ensure the matter was not its responsibility to act on.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider the degree of adversity the failure caused when calculating the level of compensation. It says that it will consider loss of non-monetary benefit such as significant distress caused by a service failure. It will consider the level of service failure and any anxiety, frustration, worry, uncertainty caused to the resident and their household as a direct result of its action. It includes apologies as part of the redress it may offer residents as well as financial compensation. It also considers the time and effort taken by residents, and any inconvenience caused to them.
The landlord considered the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident in trying to get the matter resolved and apologised. The Ombudsman however does not consider this to be sufficient redress.
This is because there were multiple delays, and the issue remained ongoing. There were also concerns with the landlord’s communication and its lack of decisive action saw the resident living in a compromised property for a substantial amount of time. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration. The Ombudsman orders that the landlord pay the resident compensation in line with our remedies guidance.

Handling of damp and mould.

The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould sets out what we expect from landlords where damp and mould are concerned. It says landlords should take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould, carry out proactive intervention, and communicate effectively with residents. It also says that where a landlord may need to carry out significant works, it should consider whether it should move the resident from the property at an early stage. The landlord has not demonstrated that it took such an approach, and this is unacceptable.
The landlord’s records show that the resident raised concerns with damp and mould on 23 August 2023. She explained there was mould in the bathroom and bedroom. The landlord appropriately arranged for an inspection of her property on 29 August 2023, however it was unable to gain access.
Its records then show that the resident reported concerns with damp and mould again on 7 September 2023. The landlord’s notes detail that it provided the resident with a dehumidifier, completed a mould wash, and explored the installation of an extractor fan. These were all reasonable and appropriate actions for it to take to try to address the issue. However, the resident told the landlord on 30 October 2023 that the property remained damp.
Whilst appropriate that it looked to raise works to address the issue, it did not show that it considered the issue around the vulnerabilities of the family. This would have been in line with its responsibilities under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The HHSRS regards, damp and mould as potential category 1 hazards which a landlord is responsible for ensuring a property is free from. The HHSRS also regards damp and mould as more harmful to children 14 years and under. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have risk assessed the situation and used the findings to inform its approach. This was especially important as the resident had identified that both her and her child were asthmatic, making them more vulnerable to health concerns from the mould.
The Ombudsman understands that damp and mould can be difficult to diagnose and rectify. This is especially with an ongoing leak, however the landlord should have taken actions to assure itself that the property remained appropriate for the family, considering all the circumstances.
The landlord’s evidence shows that it continued to raise works to address the issue. Its records demonstrate that as at 16 January 2024, it was arranging for remedial works to be completed in February 2024. On 14 August 2024, its records state that it completed a damp and mould inspection. The notes of the inspection say that the issue was not damp and mould but a leak.
The landlord told the Ombudsman on 3 October 2024 that it had resolved the damp and mould issue. Its records however provided no information on when this was. The resident informed the Ombudsman however that despite 2 mould washes to the property between August 2023 and November 2023, a resolution remained outstanding as at 7 November 2024. This is because despite the actions of the landlord, the issues continue to return.
The resident told the Ombudsman that she told the landlord’s surveyor that the issue continued. However, there is no evidence of these reports. This also means that there is no clear evidence on if the landlord adequately resolved the issue, or if a new issue arose. The Ombudsman is unable to draw a definitive conclusion on the length of time the issue remained outstanding. This is because of the landlord’s poor record keeping and insufficient evidence to support the reports. The landlord also told the Ombudsman on 20 November 2024 that the damp and mould is due to water damage. It provided a repair entry which shows an attempt to trace the leak, but no works in relation to damp and mould.
It is unclear to the Ombudsman what this was meant to illustrate in terms of damp and mould works. What is however clear from the evidence is that the landlord did not complete a mould wash until 1 November 2023. The Ombudsman understands there were access issues on occasion. However, the resident reported the issue again before it took any action. From the evidence, prior to the report, the landlord had taken no action specifically around the damp and mould. This is a delay of over 2 months, and this was unreasonable.
The resident explained in her complaint that on one occasion, the landlord’s surveyor attended and identified works the landlord needed to complete to address the damp and mould. They told her they would raise these works with the landlord. She then had to request an update, and upon doing so, found out that they never raised the works. This was unacceptable and raises further concerns with the landlord’s record keeping practices.
Given the potential impact of the overall situation around the leak, damp and mould on the resident’s family. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider completing a habitability test, linked to the HHSRS risk assessment. It has not demonstrated that it did, and this was unreasonable.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will need to consider the vulnerability of the affected household when calculating compensation. The landlord has offered the resident insufficient redress through its apology. It tried to resolve the damp and mould issues in the property however there was a delay. It has not shown that it considered the impact of the situation in connection to the family’s vulnerabilities in line with its policy. It also has not demonstrated that it acted in line with its responsibilities under the HHSRS. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration. The Ombudsman orders the landlord pay the resident compensation, calculated in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Damage to the resident’s property.

The resident told the landlord in her stage 2 escalation that there was damage to her property. The landlord told the Ombudsman that the resident had not raised concerns about damage to her personal possessions. However, the landlord has not demonstrated that it spoke to the resident to understand what she meant by damage to her property. This would have allowed it to clarify whether she meant her flat or belongings. This was a missed opportunity to assure itself that it was properly considering all aspects of the issue. The resident advised the Ombudsman on 7 November 2024 that there was no damage to her personal possessions. However, the landlord’s failure to be specifically clear about this was inappropriate.
Although the landlord apologised to the resident for its failings, this did not include its lack of consideration of these two concerns. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was a service failure. The Ombudsman orders the landlord pay the resident compensation, calculated in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Heating and hot water

The landlord has provided no information around its handling of the resident’s heating. This raises further questions with the landlord’s record keeping.
The resident reported a lack of heating, hot water, and tripping electrics on 7 September 2023. This was due to water ingress into her boiler from the leak. She explained she was without the amenities and tripping electrics for a period of 36 hours. The landlord was aware that the resident lived in the property with her young child. She had also made it aware that they both lived with health concerns which may leave them vulnerable to the lack of heating and hot water. As such it should have completed a risk assessment in line with its responsibilities under the HHSRS. This would have allowed it to determine if it needed to take robust action against the potential for excess cold as identified under the HHSRS.
The landlord’s repairs policy for 2023 does not provide a time frame in which it aims to address a loss of heating, hot water, and electrical disturbances. The generally accepted position is that landlords must complete repairs such as to a damaged boiler or electrical concerns within a reasonable time. This is because such issues may lead to considerations of a resident’s safety, and as such it must make them safe quickly. The accepted period is usually 24 hours dependent on the repair. The HHSRS also regards such issues as potential category 1 hazards.
The landlord left the resident with the issues for 36 hours and did not respond within the accepted timeframe of 24 hours for emergency repairs. As such, there was a 12-hour delay in it attending to address her concerns and this was unreasonable.
The resident explained to the Ombudsman that the actions taken by the landlord on 9 September 2023 provided her with hot water. The landlord has however not provided any records to demonstrate that it fixed her hot water supply. She identified in her stage 2 escalation on 24 October 2023 that she remained without heating. She also said that the landlord had not provided any temporary solutions around the matter.
Although there is no evidence to suggest the resident reported the issue again, this was a situation which required prompt resolution. The landlord should have appropriate records to reflect the seriousness of the situation and ensured it acted promptly. It has not demonstrated that it did, and this raises further questions with its record keeping.
The evidence suggests there was a delay of over a month in addressing the issue and finding a permanent solution. It has provided no evidence that it explained any reasons for the delay to the resident. The need for appropriate and working heating systems becomes more important as temperatures become colder from around October onwards. The landlord’s inaction was unreasonable, and further shows a lack of customer focus.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will refund appropriate heating charge (multiplier of the weekly charge calculated on a daily basis until it completes the repair). This is if the loss of heating continues for more than 72 hours (where it includes a heating charge in the rent).
The resident told the landlord that she had been without heating between 7 September 2023 and 24 October 2022, a period of 47 days. She confirmed to the Ombudsman that the landlord included the costs of her heating in her rent. The landlord has not shown that it considered whether it needed to compensate the resident or refund any incurred costs as a result.
The landlord did not show that it considered whether it was potentially exposing the resident to a category 1 hazard. It delayed in providing a solution to her concerns around the tripping electrics, lack of hot water, and heating. It did not show that it considered the situation in line with the family’s vulnerabilities, in totality. This also includes in its consideration of redress, and this was not in keeping with its compensation policy. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord pay the resident compensation, for the frustration and inconvenience caused. The Ombudsman calculates this in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The Ombudsman also orders that the landlord provide the resident with a refund of her heating costs during the period of the delay. The Ombudsman calculates this in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and worked out to be £235.26.

Complaint handling.

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It says that it will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledgement. It says it will provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days. Where cases were more complex, and it needed an extension, it would contact the resident to request an extension with 10 working days of acknowledgement at stage 1. It would request an extension within 20 working days of escalation at stage 2.
The resident raised her complaint on 7 September 2023 and the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 23 October 2023. It has not shown that it requested an extension for its delayed response. It however apologised for the delay in its response and the Ombudsman finds this appropriate redress.
The resident escalated her complaint on 24 October 2023 and the landlord’s response was due on 21 November 2023. It provided its response on 27 November 2023 which is a delay of 4 working days. The landlord has not demonstrated that it requested an extension from the resident. It also has not shown that it kept her informed about the reason for the delay. This was inappropriate and not in keeping with its policy.
The landlord also did not address a few concerns raised by the resident in her complaint. For example, it did not address her concerns in relation to the damage to her property. It did not appropriately consider her concerns around her heating, hot water, and electricity. It also did not address her concerns about paying for the heating when she had none. If its intention was to address these issues as separate complaints, it should have explained this to the resident. Its failure to demonstrate that it did so, investigate, and address these issues was unreasonable.
In summary, the landlord apologised for the delay in its stage 1 response, and this was appropriate. There was a delay with its stage 2 response, and it did not address several concerns raised by the resident in her stage 2 escalation. Based on this the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure. The Ombudsman orders that the landlord pay the resident compensation for its identified complaint handling failings, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Record keeping

The landlord was asked by the Ombudsman to provide evidence around its handling of the resident’s concerns. The landlord provided minimal information to show how it dealt with the concerns. It is important that landlords keep detailed, robust and accurate records as this allows them to provide evidence of their actions in addressing residents’ concerns.
The landlord’s poor record keeping also affected its service provision to the resident in this instance. For example, with its handling of the resident’s heating concerns which left her without adequate heating and the damp and mould. It also affected the Ombudsman’s investigation as on occasion we were unable to draw clear conclusions for example with the length of time the damp and mould remained outstanding. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration with the landlord’s handling of leaks to the resident’s property.
2. Maladministration with the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
3. Service failure with the landlord’s handling of damage to the resident’s property.
4. Maladministration with the landlord’s handling of heating and hot water.
5. Service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.
6. Maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with an apology for the identified failings.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £1,235 broken down as:
  1. £500 for its handling of the leak to the resident’s property.
  2. £200 for its handling of damp and mould.
  3. £50 for its handling of damage to the resident’s property.
  4. £150 for its handling of the heating and hot water.
  5. £235 refund of heating costs calculated in line with its policy.
  6. £100 for its complaint handling failings.
3. Evidence that it has arranged an independent building survey to identify the source, and potential remedies of the ongoing leak, damp, and mould issues. It must explain its intention around any potential proposed recommendations and remedies the independent survey may suggest to both the resident and the Ombudsman.

Complete a habitability test of the resident’s property and explain its intentions based on the results.
1. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.