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

Lambeth Council (202402474)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202402474

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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks and associated damage at the property.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder. The property is a 3-bedroom first floor flat in a building for which the landlord is the freeholder. The resident has a neighbour living above them who is a tenant of the landlord. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. On 4 June 2023 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. He said he had a leak in his property which the landlord had failed to fix. He said the issue had been ongoing since 2021 and had “numerous appointments since”. Despite the landlord stating the problem was fixed this “turned out not to be true.” The resident said his roof had “gotten worse” and other parts of his flat were affected. He asked the landlord to fix the leakage and damage inside his property.
  3. On 8 August 2023 the landlord attended at the flat above. It found a tiling issue was causing a leak to the resident’s flat. It booked a job for 13 September to complete repairs to the upstairs flat’s bathroom. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 9 August 2023. It said it was unable to “locate any failure” and considered the resident’s correspondence as a “service request.” It did apologise for its late complaint response and said it was “putting in measures to ensure it did not happen in future.” It confirmed it attended the previous day and needed to “attend again to complete follow-up works at the end of the month.” As the resident was a leaseholder it directed him to its insurer for damage caused to the property.
  4. On 13 September 2023 the landlord attended at the flat above for further repairs. It repaired a leak under the bath and renewed the bath panel and skirting. The resident escalated his complaint on 18 October. He reported there was still a leak within his property. Therefore, he assumed the landlord had not attended to complete a repair at the flat above. However, he “understood” he may not be aware if the landlord had attended, but it had not checked his property to see if the issue was resolved. He asked the landlord to arrange a “damp and mould specialist” to test the wall and air in his property. He also asked if it was correct he had to pay the costs of the insurance claim to remedy any damages.
  5. On 16 January 2024 the landlord raised a job to complete repairs to the tiling at the flat above. It had not previous completed this upon identified tiling was an issue on  8 August. . The landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 complaint response on 31 January 2024. It apologised for the delay in responding. It provided details of 3 jobs at the flat above, these were the jobs of 8 August and 13 September 2023. The other job it stated was completed to “renew sealant” to prevent leaks to the property. It is unclear when the landlord completed this job. The stage 2 response did not clarify the dates it completed each of the above jobs to the resident.
  6. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 15 April, 26 June and 24 July 2024. He said the landlord never inspected his property to see if repairs remedied the leak. Furthermore, he confirmed the leak was ongoing, affecting the ceilings and walls. He was “unable to use” his shower and bath and had to go to his mother’s house to use her wash facilities. He wanted the landlord to “buy back” his property as a resolution to his complaint. The Ombudsman asked the resident to raise this remedy with the landlord directly and accepted his complaint for investigation on 2 August 2024.
  7. On 2 October 2024 when providing information to the Ombudsman the landlord took further action regarding the leak. It confirmed that on 8 October it would complete a “full bathroom replacement” to the flat above. It also confirmed it would “visit” the resident on 8 October. It is unclear if either of these things took place. The landlord also spoke internally about repairing a leak from the flat above in “January”. The Ombudsman can find no evidence relating to such a repair.

Assessment and findings 

Scope of investigation.

  1. The resident had mentioned information regarding the landlord’s insurance company and the decisions taken by it. The Ombudsman is unable to consider complaints about insurance claims. This is because the insurance company is a separate organisation from the landlord and the landlord is not responsible for the insurer’s actions. The Ombudsman will however assess the standard of communication between the landlord and the resident on the matter. It is also relevant that the Ombudsman does not have the authority to make binding decisions as to possible ‘negligence’ in cases such as this.

The resident’s reports of leaks and associated damage at his property.

  1. The covenants in the leasehold agreement confirm the landlord is responsible for ensuring appropriate building insurance is in place. It must also maintain, repair, and keep in good working order: exterior walls, joists, ceilings and floors of buildings, the whole structure of the roof, stacks, and gutters. The landlord’s Repairs Policy confirms leaseholders are “normally responsible for repairs inside the property.” It states the landlord “will undertake all repairs to the outside of the building and common areas.”
  2. The Repairs Policy classifies repairs under 5 different priorities determining how quickly it will respond. These are detailed as follows:
    1. Urgent emergency repairs (EO1) which it will attend to in 2 hours and fix in 24 hours. Emergency repairs (EO2) which it will fix within 1 working day. Examples in the policy include both urgent emergency and emergency. They include a toilet not working or total loss of mains water supply.
    2. Routine repairs (R1) which it will fix within 7 days. Examples for a fix between 1 and 3 days include a tap which cannot be turned on or a blocked sink, bath or basin. Examples for a repair between 1 and 7 days include repairing a leaking bath.
    3. Routine repairs (R2) which it will fix within 28 working days. Examples for a fix between 7 and 28 days include repairing a ceiling or pram sheds.
  3. In his stage 1 complaint response the resident stated the leak in his property had been ongoing since 2021. He said the landlord had been out to rectify the issue on several occasions, but this had not been successful. He would later state he had no evidence of the report he made to the landlord in 2021. It is unclear if the landlord has failed to provide evidence related to the leak before June 2023 or if this information is unavailable. As such the Ombudsman is unable to assess the landlord’s handling of the leak before June 2023.
  4. However, as the resident raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of the leak since 2021 the landlord had the opportunity to investigate. It failed to investigate this in its complaint responses. Instead at stage 1, it suggested the resident’s issues were a “service request”. As such it focused only on recent actions it had taken to rectify the issue and not its historical approach. This was an inappropriate course of action and failed to fully address the resident’s concerns. Furthermore, it denied the landlord the opportunity to address its approach and learn from it. If it was unable to investigate to 2021 it should have made this clear to the resident to manage his expectations.
  5. The resident made the landlord aware of the ongoing leak coming from the flat above in his complaint of 4 June 2023. The landlord failed to communicate with the resident, and he chased its response to the matter on 6 July 2023. The landlord raised a repair to the flat above on 21 July. It is unclear how the landlord prioritised the repair. However a leak fits within “routine repairs (R1) in its policy. By the time it raised the repair 47 working days had passed which was an inappropriate timescale. It attended the flat above on 8 August, taking 65 working days to do so, exceeding its policy by 58 days. This was an inappropriate timescale to leave the resident to attempt to rectify the issue. This left the issue unresolved without a plan to rectify the issue over a prolonged period.
  6. The landlord identified on 8 August 2023 the requirement for further work at the flat above, including tiling repairs. It reattended on 13 September 2023 to complete the work, which was completed in an appropriate timescale. It failed to complete tiling repairs at this appointment, which it identified as a cause of the leak. It would acknowledge its failure to do this internally on 16 January 2024, where it would raise the tiling repair. It is unclear if and when the landlord completed this repair. However, its failure to raise the repair for over 5 months meant the issue was unresolved, prolonging the impact on the resident. As the landlord has confirmed in October 2024 it is “replacing” the bathroom in the flat above, an order will not be made regarding the tiling as it is reasonable to conclude that the full replacement works will resolve any tiling issue that remains.
  7. Other than its complaint responses, there is no evidence of the landlord corresponding with the resident about the work it was completing to rectify the leak. The resident admitted in his complaint escalation of 18 October 2023 that he would be “uncertain” if the landlord had completed work on the flat above. The landlord should have used this as an opportunity to update the resident at the earliest possible opportunity. He would then have been aware of its approach and had some confidence it was dealing with the matter. It did not do this until its stage 2 response over 3 months later. 
  8. Despite the resident telling the landlord in February 2024 the leak was ongoing. There is no evidence of it taking any further action to communicate with the resident or complete further repairs. This was the case until 2 October when the landlord confirmed it would be “replacing” the bathroom in the flat above. An order will be made to keep the resident and Ombudsman updated on works to complete this. It must then investigate the issue at the resident’s property to ensure the issue is fully resolved.
  9. The landlord’s stage 2 response was poor, and this is further assessed in the ‘complaint handling’ section below. Its response was ineffective in managing the resident’s expectations. In his complaint escalation of 18 October 2023, the resident said the leak was continuing. The landlord’s stage 2 response of 31 January 2024 provided details of repairs it had completed prior to the resident’s escalation. It failed to provide the dates of the repairs, causing uncertainty to the resident. The last repair it listed was completed on 13 September 2023.  This was an inappropriate response to the leak continuing from 18 October 2023 and did nothing to address any ongoing concerns. It provided no details on how it would manage the ongoing leak moving forward. This caused much frustration to the resident, concerned that the landlord was doing little to resolve the issue.
  10. There is no evidence at any point of the landlord attending at the resident’s property to assess the leak at the property. It would have been appropriate for it to have done so to investigate the issue when it was first reported by the resident. It should also have done this to ensure the leak at the property was fully resolved after it had completed repairs at the flat above. Its failure to do this, combined with its failure to communicate with the resident meant he was left uncertain about what it was doing. He raised this in his complaint escalation and further correspondence with the landlord in February and March 2024. The landlord failed to address these points in its complaints process causing further uncertainty and inconvenience to the resident.
  11. The resident reported the damage to his property on 4 June, 6 July, 18 October 2023 and 14 February 2024. There is no evidence of the landlord investigating the damage caused to the property. The property covenant states the resident is responsible for the interior of the property. However, it should have considered the damage alongside any investigation of the ongoing leak. This would have dictated how it could support the resident. For example, the resident told it he was unable to use his wash facilities due to the leak. The landlord should have considered further support, such as alternative wash facilities whilst it remedied the root cause. Its failure to do so caused much inconvenience and uncertainty to the resident over a prolonged period.
  12. The only time in which the landlord communicated with the resident about the damage was in its stage 1 complaint response. It appropriately directed him to make a claim to its insurer. The resident followed up on this with the insurer but was uncertain about the payments to the insurer. He raised this in his complaint escalation. However, the landlord failed to respond to his point in its stage 2 response. It also did not direct him to its insurer for further damage reported in his property.
  13. The resident reported to the landlord in his complaint escalation on 18 October 2023 that there was damp and mould in his property. The property covenant states the resident is responsible for repairs within the property. The landlord should have completed a root cause analysis so to establish its responsibility for any damp and mould issues. It should also have used this example of the serious impact on the resident to expedite any work. Furthermore, the resident asked for the landlord to provide a mould specialist to test the wall and air in the property. Although the landlord may not have been obliged to provide this, it never responded on the matter.  This caused uncertainty and confusion to the resident on its approach and what action he should take.
  14. In correspondence with the Ombudsman in July 2024 the resident stated he wanted the landlord to “buy back” the property. This request was made outside of the landlord’s complaint process and there is no evidence it had the opportunity to respond to the request. As such this request has not been assessed nor can an order be made. This is relevant to addressing the resident’s concerns however. Therefore, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to provide more information about and consider the “buy back” opportunity for the property.
  15. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response found no failures with its approach to the reported leak. It offered no apology and did not consider compensation to the resident. The Ombudsman considers a compensation award to be relevant for the total detriment caused to the resident plus the following reasons:
    1. The landlord failed to address a number of points raised by the resident in its complaint responses. This includes:
      1. The resident’s concerns about the landlord’s handling of the leak from 2021 to June 2023.
      2. Its failure to answer the resident’s concerns about insurance or further direct him to its insurer in its stage 2 response.
      3. The impact the leak was having on the resident, including his ability to use wash facilities.
      4. It failed to address the resident’s concerns about damp and mould in his property. It failed to use this as further evidence of the impact on the resident and should have expedited further repairs. It should have acted proactively to investigate the reports, establish responsibility and resolve any issues for which it was responsible.
    2. The landlord failed to appropriately handle repairs to the leak at the flat above. It took 47 days to raise a repair and 65 days to attend. It completed some repairs in September 2023 but failed to complete the tiling repair it identified as a root cause. It failed to raise this until January 2024 over 5 months later, and it is unknown if it has since completed this. It failed to address the resident’s concerns from February 2024 that the leak persisted.
    3. The landlord failed to communicate with the resident about the action it was taking, other than its complaint responses. Its stage 2 response was ineffective. It provided details of previous repairs and did nothing to confirm how it would address the ongoing leak.
    4. The landlord never investigated the issue at the resident’s property to confirm if repairs were successful and assess the impact on the resident. It failed to consider supporting the resident for the impact on his wash facilities.
  16. In summary the landlord failed to act in accordance with its Repairs Policy and for the repairs required at the building. It failed to investigate its approach back to 2021 when the resident stated he first raised the leak. Following this it was delayed in raising repairs at the flat above. When it completed repairs it failed to raise or complete repairs to the tiling. This was highlighted during its initial visit to be a root cause of the leak. It did not raise this repair for over 5 months, and it is unclear if this was completed. Its failure to complete this caused the leak to persist at the resident’s property.
  17. There is also no evidence of the landlord communicating with the resident to update him on the progress of the repair. This along with the landlord’s poor record keeping exacerbated the failings. There is no evidence the landlord considered the resident’s further concerns about damp and mould or damage to his property at any point. Although it did refer the resident to its insurer initially, it failed to address his concerns about the process or signpost him again for the further damage he reported.
  18. The landlord in accordance with the lease agreement is required to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property. It failed to do so over a prolonged period which caused distress, inconvenience, and deterioration in the relationship between it and the resident. In all the circumstances of the case, a determination of maladministration has been identified. Compensation of £700 has been awarded as the landlord failed “promptly and effectively” to complete repairs. It failed to fully consider the time and trouble, anxiety, stress, and uncertainty it caused to the resident through its poor handling of the repairs to the property. Its failure to consider compensation was inappropriate and failed to acknowledge the failings identified by this investigation.
  19. The Ombudsman’s Special Report on the landlord was published in February 2022. The report included findings of the landlord failing to adhere to timescales and keep residents informed. Both failings were present in this investigation. It is of serious concern that the failures in this investigation took place after the publication of the Special Report the Ombudsman asked the landlord to review its policies and procedures for repairs. However, this investigation has found this information still to be unclear. The landlord was recently asked to review this in report reference 202304116. As such a further review will not be ordered. However the landlord will be ordered to complete a case review to identify the failures detailed in this report.

Complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s Complaints Policy confirms when things do not meet the “desired standards” it will “make sure to quickly put them right” and “learn from (its) mistakes.” It aims to handle complaints “promptly and effectively” to resolve issues to the satisfaction of the resident. In doing so it will listen to concerns, take them seriously and commit to “excellent customer service” It will also provide a “quality approach to investigating complaints” that is “fair and equitable.
  2. The landlord classifies a service request as a request that “the organisation provides/improves a service, fixes a problem or reconsiders a decision.” It aims to resolve a service request to a resident’s satisfaction before it becomes a complaint. The landlord has 2 stages of its complaint process as follows:
    1. The first stage is local resolution where the investigation and response will be completed by the “service who are best placed to resolve simple complaints.” It will acknowledge complaints in 5 working days and respond in 10 working days. It can extend its response time by 10 working days with good reason. It must confirm this with the resident.
    2. The second stage is final review where the landlord’s corporate complaints team carries out a full review of the complaint. This is independent of the service complained about. It will respond within 20 working days of acknowledging the complaint. It can extend its response time by 20 working days with good reason. It must confirm this with the resident.
  3. The resident raised his initial complaint on 4 June 2023. The resident would later say the landlord contacted him on 6 June. He said it told him his complaint was “withdrawn” and “housing management would contact him directly.” This caused uncertainty for him.  Following this the landlord acknowledged the complaint in an appropriate timescale on 8 June. This rectified any confusion it caused on 6 June.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 9 August 2023. In total, it took 47 working days to provide its response. This exceeded the timescale in its policy by 37 working days. There is no evidence of the landlord contacting the resident to agree on an extension to its timescale. As such the delay in the response and the landlord’s failure to communicate caused much uncertainty to the resident. This caused him to believe it was not taking his concerns seriously.
  5. In his initial complaint of 4 June 2023, the resident said the leak and the landlord’s attempts to complete repairs, had been ongoing since 2021. There is no evidence of the landlord investigating the matter from this date. It only advised of its attendance at the flat above the day prior (8 August 2023). This caused uncertainty to the resident on whether its investigation was comprehensive and considered all of his concerns.
  6. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it stated it was “unable to locate a failure” and the resident’s correspondence was “considered as a service request.” This would confuse the resident as the rest of the landlord’s response referred to his “complaint” and the landlord’s “complaint response.” The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) asks landlords to differentiate between complaints and service requests. However, the landlord applied that inappropriately here, in what was the resident’s dissatisfaction with the handling of the leak at his property.
  7. The resident escalated his complaint on 18 October 2023. The landlord’s Complaint Policy has no timescale for it to acknowledge stage 2 complaints. However, in accordance with the Code, it must do this within 5 working days. There is no evidence it did this for some time, causing uncertainty to the resident whether it had raised the complaint. The following took place after this:
    1. The landlord raised the complaint for investigation on 22 November 2023. By this time 25 working days had already passed, which exceeded its timescale for response by 5 working days.
    2. On 29 December 2023 the landlord told the resident its response was “delayed” as it was “awaiting further comments.” This took 50 working days to provide. It confirmed it would respond by 5 January 2024
    3. It failed to respond, as agreed by 5 January 2024, causing further frustration to the resident. It provided its stage 2 complaint response on 31 January 2024. This took it 72 working days to provide. This exceeded the timescale in its policy by 52 working days.
  8. In its stage 1 response the landlord apologised for the delay in its response. It said it had put “measures in place to ensure (this) did not happen in future.” It is uncertain if the landlord had put such measures in place by the time it received the resident’s complaint escalation. However, it failed to abide by its commitment to delays “not to happen in future.”
  9. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was poor and showed no empathy towards him. The response failed to show the landlord completed a comprehensive investigation into the resident’s concerns. The landlord listed 3 repairs that had been completed at the flat above. It failed to provide dates on which these repairs had been completed. The resident had already raised in both complaints his concerns if repairs had actually taken place. The landlord’s failure to clarify the details of when it completed repairs at the upstairs flat failed to address this.
  10. Furthermore, the landlord’s complaint response failed to address a number of points raised by the resident in his complaint escalation of 18 October 2023. This caused much frustration and concern about whether it was resolution focussed. The points the landlord failed to address include:
    1. The resident said the leak was ongoing. Although the landlord failed to provide dates for the repairs it completed, the Ombudsman is aware the last repair was completed on 13 September 2023. This was over a month before the resident’s complaint. As such this wholly failed to address the resident’s concerns that the leak was ongoing.
    2. The resident reported damp and mould in his property, asking the landlord to arrange for a specialist to test the wall and air. The landlord neglected to address this point in its response. This caused the issue to remain unresolved.
    3. The resident raised concerns about the damage in his property and that he was unable to use his bath. The landlord failed to direct the resident to its insurer as it had done so at stage 1. It also failed to investigate if the resident had alternate wash facilities and consider further support.
    4. The resident asked for clarification about paying for the cost of an insurance claim. The landlord failed to address this point, leaving the resident uncertain on the matter.
  11. The landlord failed to consider compensation in either its stage 1 or stage 2 complaint response, related to its complaint handling. The Ombudsman is considering compensation for the resident for the total detriment caused by the landlord plus the following reasons:
    1. It failed to acknowledge the stage 2 complaint response in a reasonable timeframe. It was delayed in responding in accordance with its policy, at stage 1 by 37 working days and at stage 2 by 52 working days. It failed to manage the resident expectations on both responses on when it would reply.
    2. The landlord failed to abide by agreements it made with the resident. It failed to provide its stage 2 response by 5 January 2024. It also failed to manage its complaints process to ensure further delays in responding would not take place.
    3. Both of the landlord’s complaint responses were ineffective. At stage 1 it did not investigate its approach to handling the leak from 2021. The stage 2 response failed to address how it would handle the ongoing leak at the property.
    4. The landlord failed to address all points raised by the resident. It also failed to address the ongoing leak from October 2023. No further reply was given to the resident’s further concerns about the landlord’s insurer or the damage in his property. It did not consider if it needed to support the resident with wash facilities and did not investigate his reports of damp and mould.
  12. A landlord’s complaint process enables them to learn from issues and identify trends so it can take preventative action and learn from this. The landlord failed to adhere to its own complaints policy in its stage 1 and 2 complaint response time and its communication with the resident. Both complaint responses failed to acknowledge all points raised by the resident. It failed to effectively resolve the complaint and did not consider awarding compensation to the resident. A determination of maladministration has therefore been determined. To reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s failures, £400 compensation has been ordered. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance in relation to cases where maladministration has occurred over a protracted period with moderate impact to the resident throughout that period.
  13. In February 2022, the Ombudsman issued a special report about the landlord, highlighting concerns with its complaint handling. The report recommended the landlord review its complaint-handling procedures to reduce the risk of similar failures in the future. We continued to identify problems with the landlord’s performance, reaching findings of maladministration and severe maladministration following investigations into 20 separate complaints from residents. In June 2023 we told the landlord of our intention to carry out an inspection to find out the reasons for its ongoing failures in complaint handling. In December 2023 we issued a report setting out our findings with further recommendations for service improvement. In this investigation, we have identified failures similar to those that led to our special report in 2022 and subsequent inspection in 2023. We therefore order the landlord to consider the findings highlighted in this investigation against the recommendations in our inspection report of December 2023.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks and associated damage at his property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord shall carry out the following orders and must provide evidence of compliance within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. A senior member of staff to write an apology to the resident for the failures in its service.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £1100 compensation. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
      1. £700 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s unreasonable and inappropriate handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and associated damage at his property.
      2. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s delays and unreasonable complaint handling.
    3. The landlord must update the resident and Ombudsman with its plans and timescales for repairing the root cause of the leak at the flat above. As part of this, it must complete an inspection of the resident’s property before and after any work is completed.
    4. In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord must carry out a senior management review of why the failings identified by this investigation occurred and provide a report back to its senior management team, the Ombudsman and the resident on this. This should include:
      1. Its lack of consideration of the impact the situation had on the resident, including its failure to communicate and update him.
      2. Why it was delayed in completing all work raised within its timescale in its Repairs Policy.
      3. Consideration of the findings in this investigation against the recommendations in our inspection report of the landlord in December 2023.
    5. The landlord must address the resident’s concerns with payment of costs on its insurance policy. If it is unable to do this, it must direct the resident to be able to obtain this information.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should provide the resident with details about its ‘Buy Back’ scheme or equivalent and whether the resident has the opportunity to take this up.