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

Lambeth Council (202401763)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202401763

Lambeth Council

25 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

  1. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
    1. Structural issues with the staircase due to damp and crumbling walls.
    2. Cracks to the hallway ceiling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the property owned by the landlord.
  2. The landlord’s records show that the resident contacted it on 5 occasions between July 2019 and August 2023, to report damp and mould to the staircase wall. The resident said the wall was crumbling, causing structural problems with the staircase itself.
  3. The landlord updated its records on 21 July 2023 to state that the resident had reported cracks to the hallway ceiling. The landlord needed to conduct an asbestos survey before the inspection. It then scheduled the inspection for 27 November 2023, however the resident reported that it had failed to attend this appointment.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord on 14 December 2023. She said the landlord had not resolved the problems she reported regarding the staircase area and ceiling cracks.
  5. The landlord ultimately carried out the inspection on 5 January 2024 and completed the repairs on 13 January.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 18 January 2024. It apologised, confirmed that it had repaired the ceiling cracks, and said an inspection for other issues was due to take place that day. It advised the resident to contact it again if the contractor did not address the staircase during the visit.
  7. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 21 January 2024. She said new ceiling cracks had appeared, the staircase was structurally unsafe, and there was mould on the wall. She added that damp and mould had rendered her second bedroom unusable and requested compensation.
  8. The landlord’s surveyor visited the property on 13 February 2024. They found no damp or mould and said that the staircase was safe.
  9. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 5 March 2024. It confirmed the surveyor’s findings and declined to pay compensation. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman as she was not satisfied with the response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Investigation

  1. Paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
  2. The resident told the landlord and the Ombudsman that the repairs have been outstanding since 2017, but she did not raise her formal complaint until 14 December 2023. In accordance with paragraph 42.c. this investigation will consider the events which took place between 28 December 2022 (when the resident made a fresh report about the staircase) to 5 March 2024 (the landlord’s final response). Reference to earlier periods is for context only.
  3. Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
  4. The resident has told the Ombudsman about further repair issues which were not part of her complaint in December 2023. Because of that and in line with paragraph 42.a. she has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, therefore this report will not consider these issues. It is open to the resident to contact the landlord and raise a separate complaint. If the resident does this and is not satisfied with the landlord’s final response, she can ask the Ombudsman to open a new investigation.

Issues with the staircase

  1. The resident contacted the landlord on 28 December 2022 to report that the staircase wall was damp and crumbling. The landlord’s records state that a contractor visited on 20 January 2023 but was unable to gain access.
  2. There is no evidence of further action by the landlord or contact by the resident until she contacted it on 5 April 2023 regarding a visit booked for that day. The resident understood this visit was to inspect the staircase, however the landlord said it was to conduct “works”. The nature of the planned works is unclear. The landlord rearranged the appointment for 30 April 2023 at which point it carried out a mould wash to the staircase wall. The evidence does not show any other work to inspect or assess the staircase and wall’s condition.
  3. The resident reported the staircase issue again on 14 August 2023. The landlord arranged an inspection for 12 September 2023, but due to a communication error the surveyor was unable to access the property. This is the last evidence of action by the landlord prior to the resident raising her complaint.
  4. When the resident complained in December 2023, the landlord had already had one year to respond to her reports. There is evidence that it tried to attend on at least 2 occasions and had been unable to gain access. The only clear action recorded is when it carried out the mould wash. The landlord has not provided evidence of it inspecting the problem, and without such an inspection the landlord could not reliably assess the resident’s reports. Accordingly, its handling of the issue to December 2023 was not reasonable.
  5. The landlord arranged for its surveyor to attend on 13 February 2024, as part of its investigations into the resident’s complaint. The surveyor said they did not believe the staircase was unsafe but there were signs of movement due to natural use, exacerbated by a window leak. They identified the need for other works, unrelated to this complaint, and suggested that once the landlord had completed these, a structural engineer could inspect the staircase again.
  6. The landlord conveyed the surveyor’s findings in its final complaint response and explained the further actions it would take. Its explanation was reasonable because it reflected the survey findings and showed that, while it found no immediate problems, it acknowledged the value of a deeper investigation at the appropriate time. However, its response did not acknowledge it had taken over a year to reach that stage or explain why that had happened.
  7. When the resident requested to escalate her complaint she also reported that one of the bedrooms was unusable due to the issue with the staircase and mould growing on the wall. She did not explain how the staircase was affecting the bedroom, or whether she was making a new report about mould in the bedroom itself. However, the landlord asked the surveyor to comment on the condition of the entire property. The surveyor reported there was no mould in the bedroom and, in their opinion, the bedroom was usable. The landlord explained this in its response. Its surveyor inspection and explanation of the inspection’s outcome were a reasonable response to the resident’s complaint.
  8. Overall, while the landlord’s inspections in 2024 were appropriate and showed no specific concerns in relation to the resident’s complaint, it did not acknowledge or explain why it had taken so long to address the report originally made by the resident at the end of 2022. That left the complaint unresolved and was a failing.

Cracks to the hallway ceiling

  1. The resident reported cracks to the hallway ceiling on or around 21 July 2023 (it is unclear from the landlord’s records when the resident made the report, however it logged the report on this date). The landlord’s repairs policy states that routine repairs will be fixed within 28 working days. The contractor needed to conduct an asbestos survey before it could carry out an inspection, and also needed to accommodate the resident’s availability. The landlord’s records are unclear about when it carried out the asbestos survey. It scheduled the inspection for 27 November 2023, approximately 4 months after the resident’s report. There may have been valid reasons for the delay. If so, it is not clear what these were, and the landlord did not investigate or address the delay in its complaint responses.
  2. The landlord’s records show that the resident reported that its operative did not attend the 27 November 2023 appointment, or the one it rearranged for 2 January 2024. There is nothing in the evidence to explain these failed appointments, which inevitably caused delays with resolving the resident’s report.
  3. The landlord apologised for the resident’s experiences in general in its complaint response and acknowledged the concern this had caused her. However, there had already been one failed appointment when the resident raised her complaint, and the landlord did not address this in its responses.
  4. The resident said the contractor had repaired the specific cracks she had reported, but new ones had appeared. The surveyor’s inspection on 13 February 2024 found new cracks and the landlord explained it would be addressing those. In those circumstances the landlord’s commitment to resolve the new cracks was reasonable. However, it did not address or acknowledge the amount of time it had taken since the resident first reported the issue, which was what she originally complained about, or offer any explanations or remedies. Accordingly, while the landlord resolved the immediate issue with the cracks, its overall handling of the matter was poor.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure regarding the landlord’s responses to the resident’s reports of structural issues with the staircase due to damp and crumbling walls.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure regarding the landlord’s responses to the resident’s reports about cracks to the hallway ceiling.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears, the sum of £350. This is broken down as follows:
    1. £200 for the time taken to respond to the resident’s reports of structural issues with the staircase.
    2. £150 for the time taken to repair the cracks to the hallway ceiling.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this investigation.