Lewisham Council (202216774)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216774

Lewisham Council

4 October 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 repairs, including structural repairs, a broken doorbell, a leak in the kitchen, a broken bathroom tap and the associated request for adaptations, and its investigations into insulation in the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
1. Complaint handling.
2. Record keeping.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since 5 June 2000. The property is a flat in a converted house. The resident has Ehlers-Danlos syndrome which causes arthritis in her joints as well as Dupuytren’s contracture in her hands. This limits her mobility and causes chronic pain.
The Ombudsman investigated a previous complaint related to structural repairs and insulation in 2021. As a result, we ordered the landlord to confirm the action it would take to address these issues.
The resident later reported a leak in the kitchen on 9 March 2022. It is unclear how the landlord responded. On 27 May 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm it would monitor the situation in regard to insulation and the structural repairs at the rear of the property and would seek advice from a structural engineer. It also said it would schedule other works to the rear bay for after 13 June 2022.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 28 June 2022 as she had not heard anything further from the landlord. We chased the landlord for a response. On 14 September 2022 the resident reported that one of the bathroom taps was broken. She also asked the landlord to replace both bathroom taps with lever taps as she stated her disability made it difficult to use the current ones. The landlord made an appointment for 25 October 2022 but the resident later asked to rearrange it and the landlord did not respond.
On 31 October 2022, the resident logged a new stage 1 complaint (via the Ombudsman) based on her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s communication and progress with the structural repairs, and a repair that she said had been incorrectly recorded as complete. We also told the landlord that the resident had recently reported a broken window and bathroom tap, a leak in the toilet, and some plastering work that needed doing and asked it to respond to these repair requests.
The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 24 November 2022. The response did not address the structural repairs. It acknowledged its failure to act on the resident’s request to rearrange the bathroom tap appointment. Regarding the request for lever taps, the landlord said the resident would need to log her disability with her housing officer before it could consider the request. The resident was dissatisfied with the response as she said the landlord should have been aware of her disability.
On 5 December 2022 the resident reported that the doorbell on the communal door was broken which had caused her to miss a repair appointment. The landlord did not respond to the repair request. On 14 December 2022 she reported a leak in the kitchen again. The landlord attended that day but the resident missed the visit due to the broken doorbell. The landlord rearranged the appointment for late January 2023 but the resident’s kitchen flooded on 27 December 2022. The landlord attended to make it safe then followed up with a visit on 3 January 2023 but was unable to resolve both the kitchen leak and the bathroom taps as it needed to order the correct taps. The landlord made a follow up appointment for 9 February 2023.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 3 April 2023. It said that the resident’s disability had not been recorded on the landlord’s systems so it had had to ask her for evidence that she required lever taps. It said that it had not had the correct taps when it attended on 3 January 2023 as the original operative had been on leave. The landlord accepted that the timeframe for the follow up appointment was unacceptable but it was the earliest date available. It said it attended on that date but had been unable to gain access. It apologised and made a new appointment for 14 April 2023. It also offered the resident £100 compensation.
The resident escalated the complaint to an independent adjudicator for a stage 3 review on 10 April 2023. She complained that the bathroom taps were not the only issue and said that the broken doorbell, the leak in the kitchen, a broken window catch and the structural repairs were all outstanding. She complained that the landlord had not investigated insulation in the property as it had previously claimed to and that the lack of insulation meant there was no soundproofing in the property, which had led to neighbour disputes. She also asked the landlord to provide information about asbestos, roof and guttering maintenance, and routine external paintwork.
The landlord repaired and replaced the bathroom taps on 14 April 2023. The independent adjudicator sent the stage 3 response on 18 May 2023. It acknowledged that the repairs had taken too long, except for the doorbell which it said was the resident’s responsibility. It said that it was not unreasonable for the landlord to ask for further information about the resident’s disability to ensure that lever taps were justified, however, the fact that the landlord did not have any disability on record for the resident was a failure. The independent adjudicator ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident, provide a schedule of works within 2 weeks, pay her £500 compensation, and provide the information she had asked for.
The landlord did not provide a schedule of work. It did pay the compensation and it resolved the kitchen leak on 1 June 2023. The resident has replaced the doorbell herself. She escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman as she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the issues, the structural repairs remain outstanding and the landlord has not provided the information she asked for. She also asked us to investigate the landlord’s handling of a broken heating pipe which damaged her carpet, and the replacement of her shower which the landlord removed as part of damp and mould works. The Ombudsman is unclear exactly when these issues occurred.
As a resolution the resident would like the outstanding repairs to be resolved and for the landlord to confirm what insulation the property has, including whether there is a damp-proof membrane in the floor at the rear of the building, with a view to improve it.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

As well as the repairs listed in the complaint definition, the resident asked us to investigate the landlord’s handling of a broken heating pipe and associated carpet damage and the replacement of her shower, which the landlord removed as part of damp and mould works. The resident has advised that she has made separate complaints about these matters but not yet received the landlord’s final response.
Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
As such, in accordance with paragraph 42.a., the Ombudsman has not investigated these matters as they have not yet exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident is aware that she can ask us to intervene if the landlord’s response to those complaints is not forthcoming.
The resident asserted that the issues complained about have affected her health, which was supported by a letter from her GP. While the Ombudsman does not doubt her account, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s action (or lack thereof) and the impact on health and wellbeing.
Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health concern, the courts are able to rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or effect on health and wellbeing. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should do so via this route. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.f. which states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern matters where we consider it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
What we will consider is the general distress and inconvenience the resident suffered and whether the landlord acted fairly and in accordance with its policy and legal obligations.
Some of the issues the resident complained about have been going on for some years. This investigation will only consider events from 31 October 2021, which was 12 months prior to the resident’s stage 1 complaint, up until the landlord’s stage 3 response. Any mention of events outside this period is for context only. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a n reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
The Ombudsman has already investigated a complaint related to the structural repairs at the rear of the property and insulation. As such, this investigation is focused on the landlord’s actions following the previous determination and will not re-investigate the same issues. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.l. of the Scheme which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman, has already decided upon.

The landlord’s handling of repairs

Although this investigation provides a determination on the landlord’s handling of the repairs as a whole, this section considers each repair issue part by part. This is necessary to understand how the landlord dealt and responded to each issue, and the impact it had on the resident. The overall determination and compensation order will be detailed at the end of this section.

Structural repairs

In our determination of case 202015015 on 30 November 2021, the Ombudsman ordered the landlord to:
1. “Confirm in writing to the resident its position in respect of the stabilisation of the rear bay. This should include specific reference to the stone piers of the rear bay and the crack to the brickwork above the rear window. The landlord should also explain whether it will carry out further works or monitoring and whether it will be seeking further advice from a structural surveyor”.
To comply with the order, the landlord firstly inspected the property on 20 May 2022. The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts, repairs, and services provided. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance the landlord’s ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. We also expect landlords to share the outcomes of repairs and inspections with residents. This gives residents confidence in the landlord’s diagnosis and gives clarity around the next steps. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of the inspection aside from a reference to it in a letter the landlord sent the resident on 27 May 2022. The landlord should have kept an independent record such as an inspection report and shared this with the resident.
The landlord’s letter confirmed that it would schedule works for after 13 June 2022. This would include erecting scaffolding to finish off works to the rear bay window. Regarding the stabilisation of the rear bay, the landlord said it would continue to monitor the situation and engage a structural engineer to carry out a survey. It said an independent contractor would contact the resident to arrange an appointment and that, once completed, the landlord would share the report and act on the recommendations. At this point, the landlord had fully complied with the Ombudsman’s order.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will complete routine repairs within 20 working days. However, it may not be able to meet its stated response times in cases where the landlord needs to:
1. Coordinate works involving multiple trades or contractors.
2. Engage a specialist contractor.
3. Monitor an ongoing and complex repair such as a structural issue.
When the landlord is unable to complete a repair in a single visit or within expected timeframes the repairs policy says it will proactively keep the resident updated with progress, including arrangements for repeat or rearranged visits.
The resident contacted this Service on 29 June 2022. She said she had not heard anything further from the landlord or contractor about the rear bay works. We chased the landlord on her behalf 3 times until it eventually attempted to contact her on 6 October. This was more than 4 months after the landlord had promised to schedule the works. This was an inappropriate delay.
The landlord also failed to follow its repairs policy by keeping the resident updated. The previous complaint, which resulted in an Ombudsman finding of maladministration, had already damaged the resident’s trust in the landlord. The lack of communication would have made the resident feel the landlord had not learned any lessons from the previous complaint.
The landlord attended the property on 10 October 2022. On arrival the resident said she was unaware of the appointment and, in any case, the landlord had another phone number and 2 email addresses for her which it had not tried to contact her on. She was busy and unable to allow the landlord access.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to give residents a choice of appointment times rather than sending one of their choosing. This puts the onus on the landlord to contact the resident to establish what might be convenient, and where necessary, to rearrange appointments that are not. With this in mind, the landlord should have been more understanding of the resident’s need to reschedule the appointment, given that it was only able to reach her voicemail and so had not agreed a time or date. The resident later explained to the landlord that as she can be called on for work at short notice, it was important that the landlord called her to agree mutually convenient appointments rather than turning up unannounced.
The Ombudsman asked the landlord to log a new stage 1 complaint on 31 October 2022. On 11 November 2022 the resident told the Ombudsman that the contractor attended on 8 November 2022 and said it would consult with the landlord on what works should take place at the rear of the property. There is no record of this visit in the evidence the landlord provided which raises concerns about the completeness of the landlord’s repair records.
The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 24 November 2022. The response did not address the structural repairs at all. This is discussed further in the complaint handling section of this report. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response in relation to a separate repair and escalated the complaint to stage 2 on the same day.
On 27 March 2023 the resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate the landlord’s failure to fully comply with our 2021 orders, including the one related to the structural repairs. It is important to note that the landlord had complied with the orders by confirming its position in writing. Although it had not completed the work, the order only required it to confirm what work it would do. It’s failure to follow through on what it promised to do was a separate issue.
The landlord sent the stage 2 response on 3 April 2023. As there was no progress with the outstanding works and the response did not address them, the resident escalated the complaint to stage 3 on 10 April 2023.
The independent adjudicator responded to the stage 3 complaint on 18 May 2023. They accepted that the structural repairs had taken too long which had cost the resident time and trouble, caused distress and prevented her from being able to relax properly in her home. They ordered the landlord to apologise for the delays, provide a schedule of works within 2 weeks and to pay the resident £500 compensation. This amount was the total paid for failures that the response identified for 5 separate complaint grounds. The independent adjudicator did not break down how they had calculated the compensation, therefore we have divided the £500 by the 5 separate issues where they found failures and concluded that £100 was awarded for each one. This was disproportionate to the landlord’s failure.
The resident accepted the compensation and the landlord could have prevented the complaint from escalating to the Ombudsman had it fully complied with the independent adjudicator’s orders. It paid the compensation, however, it failed to provide a schedule of works and this Service has not seen evidence that it apologised for the unacceptable delays.
Evidence shows that the landlord attended the property unannounced on 26 June 2023 and 7 November 2023, despite the resident previously telling it not to. Both times the resident was busy. The landlord said it had been trying to contact her to arrange an appointment, however the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of these attempts. A surveyor attended on 16 November 2023 and the resident asked the landlord 8 days later for an update on what works would be scheduled but there has been no further contact and the works remain outstanding.
There were inappropriate delays and a lack of communication in regard to the structural repairs. After confirming in May 2022 that it would schedule the required works the landlord failed to take any action or to keep the resident updated of progress, or lack thereof. It only attempted to contact the resident after the Ombudsman chased it multiple times, and then it failed to communicate effectively to make a mutually convenient appointment. When it attended and the resident was not home, it failed to follow up with her to rearrange the visit. It then failed to address the structural issues at all in its stage 1 response and finally, it failed to comply with the orders made in the stage 3 response.
The resident reported that there are cracks from the top to bottom of the building, the warped back bay piers and crumbling render allow water ingress into the fabric of the building and through the window seals, which makes it almost impossible to close them. This has affected the resident’s enjoyment of her home, caused distress and inconvenience and she has also spent significant time and trouble chasing the landlord over a long period of time.
The landlord failed at every stage to follow through on its promises by completing the repairs which are now 2 years overdue. As such there was maladministration in relation to this repair. We have made orders for the landlord to resolve the repairs and compensate the resident.

Broken doorbell

The resident shares a communal front door with her neighbour. Each resident has a doorbell located on the communal door. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairs related to communal areas. Usually, a doorbell would be the resident’s responsibility but, in this case, the doorbell is part of a communal area. Therefore, any repairs are down to the landlord to resolve.
On 5 December 2022 the resident raised a repair request for a broken doorbell. The request made it clear that the property was a converted house and that there was no entry phone system. The landlord should have responded to this routine repair within 20 working days but there is no evidence that it responded at all. This was inappropriate. The resident had missed a separate repairs appointment that same day due to the doorbell not working, and then missed another one on 14 December 2022 for the same reason. Each time the resident told the landlord she had a sign on the door advising visitors to knock on the window and she was frustrated that the landlord had apparently not followed those instructions. The landlord’s decision to then ignore her request to repair the doorbell would have exacerbated her frustration even further.
The broken doorbell was not raised in the complaints procedure until the stage 3 complaint on 10 April 2023, when the resident told the independent adjudicator it was outstanding. In the stage 3 response on 18 May 2023 the independent adjudicator said repairing or replacing a broken doorbell is the resident’s responsibility. This was incorrect. Additionally, the independent adjudicator did not appear to give any consideration to the fact that the doorbell was located on a communal door.
The resident has now purchased a doorbell herself which has cost her money. She experienced distress and inconvenience when it caused her to miss at least 2 repair appointments and she has also missed deliveries. This is particularly inconvenient due to her disability. The landlord handled the repair request poorly which amounts to maladministration and we have made orders for it compensate the resident.

Leak in the kitchen

The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours. If it is unable to complete the repair at that time then it will make the situation safe and complete any follow-up work as an urgent or routine repair. Emergency repairs include those to prevent flooding. It says the landlord will response to urgent repairs within 3 working days. Urgent repairs include those where there is a possible health and safety risk or a partial failure of water supply.
On 9 March 2022 the resident reported that a kitchen tap had fallen off and caused a flood in the kitchen. In her online report she said the landlord had attended out of hours on 1 March 2023 to make it safe and had told her it would need to replace the tap to prevent it happening again. There is no record of the landlord’s response to this report or of the out-of-hours visit. This is another instance of poor record keeping which means we are unable to determine whether the landlord responded in line with the repairs policy.
On 14 December 2022 the resident reported that the kitchen tap had fallen off again, causing water to spurt all over the kitchen. The resident had to turn the water off completely to stop the leak so she now had no water in the kitchen and only 1 working tap in the bathroom, which she had also reported. She highlighted in her report that she was disabled.
The resident emailed the landlord later that day to say she had waited in all morning and no one had attended. The landlord responded and said it had attended but no one was home so it had rebooked the appointment for 31 January 2023. The resident said she had been home but the doorbell was broken and there was a note on the door asking people to knock on the window. Again, there is no evidence in the repair logs of the landlord booking the appointment or what happened when they attended.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to make all reasonable efforts to gain access to complete repairs. This was an emergency repair involving a disabled tenant who had a partial loss of water. This would have made it difficult for her to maintain personal hygiene and to keep the property clean. We cannot say for sure that the landlord would, or should have, seen the note on the door. However, it should have tried to call the resident when she did not answer the door. Had it done so it would have been able to complete the repair as planned. We also expect landlords to leave ‘no access’ cards when a resident is not home, so the resident knows that it tried to attend and how to rearrange the appointment. As with all repairs, they should also keep records of no access visits so that they, as well as the Ombudsman, can effectively investigate and respond to complaints.
Offering a follow up appointment for 31 January 2023 was unreasonable. As an emergency repair it should have been completed within 24 hours. The landlord believed the resident had not been home but she responded to explain about the doorbell, which the landlord was aware of and had not arranged to fix, and the landlord did not acknowledge her explanation. It did not make enough effort to gain access to the property and the resident gave a reasonable explanation for not answering the door. Failing to offer another appointment within good time was inappropriate. It was particularly inappropriate considering the resident’s disability. Even if the landlord felt the resident had been at fault for missing the appointment, the new one was not for another 31 working days, meaning it was still outside of the response times given in the repairs policy.
On 3 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord. She said the kitchen had flooded on Christmas Day due to a leak under the sink. She said the landlord attended out of hours on 27 December 2022 but afterwards, the leak had worsened. She said she had reported it again and the landlord arranged to attend that day to repair it as well as the bathroom taps. When the landlord arrived, the resident said the operative was not aware of the leak but agreed to look at it when pressured. The operative said he would have to order a new tap and, in the meantime, the resident would either have to put up with the leak or turn the water off completely.
Again, there is no record of any reports over Christmas, any appointments or the outcomes of any repair visits. However, the resident discussed these events in emails with the landlord so it is reasonable to accept her account of what happened given that the landlord did not challenge this. It is possible that the landlord’s poor record-keeping led to the operative not being aware of the required works. The resident had told the landlord the tap needed replacing, which she had apparently been told by the landlord’s operative, so the landlord should have been prepared to do this at the appointment or could have at least reduced the resident’s frustration by being aware of the leak.
The landlord apologised to the resident and made a follow-up appointment for 9 February 2023. Again, this fell outside of the appropriate timeframes. As an urgent repair it should have been completed within 3 working days but the appointment offered was 27 working days later. The landlord said this was the first appointment available due to staffing issues so the delay was not due to having to order the tap.
The Ombudsman understands that staffing issues can affect service delivery on occasion. However, the landlord is responsible for managing this so that it can deliver a service in line with its policies. If it is unable to, it should look at other options. The leak had been ongoing for 3 weeks at this point and this was exacerbated by the fact that the bathroom taps were also in need of repair. In order to have the water turned on the resident had to clear out the cupboard under the kitchen sink and place bowls there which she explained she had to continuously empty. The landlord could have engaged an independent plumber to do the work rather than leaving her in this situation for another month.
There is no record of the landlord attending the appointment on 9 February 2023. The resident told the independent adjudicator in her stage 3 complaint on 10 April 2023 that it remained outstanding. This indicates that the repair either did not go ahead or that it was not effective. There is also no evidence of the landlord contacting the resident to explain any delays or attempt to make arrangements to attend. It is concerning that the landlord did not give the repair the appropriate priority and made no attempts to resolve the situation.
The independent adjudicator responded to the stage 3 complaint on 18 May 2023. They accepted that the leak had taken too long to resolve and ordered the landlord to apologise for the delays, provide a schedule of works within 2 weeks, and to pay the resident £100 compensation. This was not an appropriate offer.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 2 June 2023 and confirmed the landlord had replaced the kitchen tap. There was no record again of this appointment or the work that was done.
There were unreasonable delays in this case. It is unclear whether the landlord responded to the initial report in March 2022. It unreasonably recorded a missed appointment after the second report and failed to offer a new appointment within an appropriate timeframe. It was then unprepared when it did attend and did not arrange a follow up appointment within an appropriate time. It only resolved the issue once it had been subject to a stage 3 complaint which found fault with the landlord’s actions.
The record keeping for this repair was also poor and likely contributed to the delays. While we have not seen evidence of the out-of-hours visits, on balance and considering the resident’s communication about them with the landlord it is likely that they happened as she said they did. There is no evidence, however, that follow on works were then arranged. The out-of-hours operatives should have communicated with the relevant team who should have taken responsibility for arranging these works.
The leak caused the resident distress and inconvenience. She had to manage the leaking water and had periods where the water had to be turned off. She spent time and trouble and was frustrated by chasing the landlord to resolve the issue. The landlord should have resolved the leak within 3 working days, according to its policy but, from the evidence available, it took 15 months. This amounts to maladministration and as such we have made orders for it to compensate the resident.

Broken bathroom tap and the associated request for adaptations

The landlord has a duty under the Equality Act 2010 to have due regard to the need to:
1. Remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics.
2. Take steps to meet the needs of people with certain protected characteristics where these are different from the needs of other people.
The landlord’s adaptations policy states that it can often undertake minor adaptations without the need for an occupational health referral. It says it will work with the tenant directly but may require information from other professionals to ensure it can meet the resident’s need with an appropriate solution. It says that residents should contact their housing officer to make a request and they will liaise with the repairs team and keep the resident updated with progress. The council’s website says that the landlord must provide minor adaptations without delay.
On 14 September 2022 the resident reported that the cold bathroom tap was broken and the flow was minimal. She also asked for the landlord to replace both bathroom taps with lever taps because her disability made it difficult to operate the current ones.
The landlord responded on 18 September 2022 and offered an appointment 28 working days later on 25 October 2022. This was an inappropriate timeframe as routine repairs should be completed within 20 working days. The landlord did not specify whether the appointment was just for the repair or for the adaptations as well and the resident asked the landlord to clarify this. She also asked the landlord to explain why the appointment was over a month away when she had no working cold tap. She told the landlord she had serious problems with her hands and the normal taps were difficult and painful to use.
The resident also expressed her frustration with previous repair visits where she said operatives had arrived unprepared and without the correct parts and wanted the landlord’s reassurance that this would not happen again. The landlord failed to respond to all of the resident’s queries, which was inappropriate. Effective communication is an essential part of all aspects of a landlord’s service delivery and it should ensure it responds to all communication from residents so long as it is made in an acceptable manner. The resident’s trust in the landlord had clearly been damaged in the past and the landlord did nothing to try to change that.
On 13 October 2022 the resident asked the landlord to rearrange the appointment as she was no longer available. The landlord did not respond to this request and turned up to the appointment anyway. The resident was on her way out and could not grant access. This was another instance of poor communication. The resident had given the landlord 12 days’ notice to rearrange the appointment and the landlord failed to act on it. Not only did this cause further delay, but it was also a waste of the landlord’s resources which could have been put to use elsewhere.
On 31 October 2022 the Ombudsman asked the landlord to log a stage 1 complaint. The landlord responded on 24 November. The response acknowledged that the landlord had failed to action the resident’s request to rearrange the appointment. In regard to the adaptations, it said the resident would need to contact her housing officer to log her disability with them as the landlord did not currently have a record of it.
One of the underlying principles of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code is that complaints should be resolved at the earliest opportunity. The landlord could have contacted the housing officer to pass on the details of the resident’s disability but instead, it redirected her to the housing officer which only delayed the process more. This was not a customer focused approach.
The resident was dissatisfied with the response and escalated the complaint to stage 2. She said her housing officer had recently confirmed that her disability was logged and that the landlord had previously visited with social services to confirm her need for a shower instead of a bath. She also said she was housed in the flat in the first place due to her disabilities and need for a ground floor flat.
The landlord made an appointment on 28 November 2022 but the resident had to cancel it as she was unwell. There is no record of when this appointment was arranged, but this Service can see that it was cancelled from the resident’s emails. On 29 November 2022, the resident provided evidence of her disability. Her GP’s letter also said that the incomplete repairs were negatively affecting the resident’s physical and mental health. The landlord attended on 14 December 2022 but was unable to gain access due to the broken doorbell. The lack of records means it is unclear whether the landlord intended to do any work on the bathroom taps at that visit.
The landlord contacted the resident on 23 December 2022 confirming an appointment for 3 January 2023. On the day, the resident contacted the landlord to say that the operative had arrived but did not have the correct taps with them. The resident expressed her frustration at having waited so long for the appointment only for the work not to go ahead. She also said the landlord should have known what type of taps were needed as it had attended the property many times and seen the type of taps that were required. Yet again, there is no record of the appointment in the landlord’s records and we only know what happened from the resident’s emails.
The landlord apologised and said that although it had attended previously the operative had to ensure the lever taps required were the correct ones. It had now ordered them and it booked a new appointment for 9 February 2023. Due to staff shortages this was the first appointment available. This timeframe was inappropriate. One of the taps was broken therefore the repair should have been handled in line with its repairs policy and resolved within 20 working days. Additionally, while there are no specific timeframes for adaptations, they should be done without delay which would indicate they should be treated with similar, if not more, urgency. The landlord showed no commitment to preventing or minimising delays in this case.
On 14 March 2023 the resident emailed the landlord. She said the landlord had attended on 9 February 2023 but the operative had not been aware that they needed to fit lever taps. She said the bathroom taps were loose under the sink and with her difficulty turning them off, it was causing floods. It is very concerning that after 2 complaints and a visit where the landlord said it would order the correct taps, that the operative did not know what taps were required. This is another consequence of the landlord’s poor record-keeping and internal communication. The resident has a disability, a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, for which she had requested a reasonable adjustment. The landlord did not seem to take this into account at all when dealing with her request, nor did it show any regard to the fact that the resident was struggling to use the current taps, which she said caused her physical pain.
The landlord sent the stage 2 response on 3 April 2023. The landlord explained that it needed to ask for information about her disability to ensure that lever taps were justified. This was reasonable and is outlined in the adaptations policy. However, while the landlord may have needed information on the specifics of the resident’s condition, the fact she is disabled and the general nature of her disability should have been recorded on the landlord’s system. There is evidence of the resident telling the landlord that she has a disability causing chronic pain and mobility issues in emails going back several years. The response did not acknowledge this failure.
The Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight report on knowledge and information management, ‘On the record’, made a number of recommendations to landlords about recording residents’ vulnerabilities. This is important so that any staff dealing with the resident are aware of any issues that might affect the way it needs to deliver its service to them. For example, vulnerabilities can be relevant to how repairs are prioritised and how the landlord communicates with the resident. It can also be relevant how to how the landlord responds to complaints, as vulnerabilities can exacerbate the adverse effect of any failures on the resident and mean a different level of redress is required.
The landlord accepted it had taken too long to complete the adaptation and made a new appointment for 14 April 2023. It apologised to the resident, which was positive, and paid her £100 compensation. Considering it had been 7 months since the resident raised the request, the impact on her and the issue was still outstanding, £100 was not a reasonable offer of redress.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 3 on 10 April 2023. On 15 April 2023 she contacted the landlord. She said they had replaced the taps the previous day and this morning she found the bathroom flooded by a leak coming from underneath the hot water tap. Further emails show an emergency plumber attended on 15 April 2023 and resolved the issue. Yet again, the landlord did not provide any records of these visits.
The stage 3 response on 18 May 2023 accepted the landlord had taken too long to replace the taps. It also acknowledged that the landlord should have had the resident’s disability recorded. It ordered the landlord to pay £100 compensation for failing to record the disability, which was reasonable, and £100 for the delay. Again, £100 for the delay was not proportionate to the length of the delay and the impact on the resident. Considering this and the clear identified failures, there was maladministration in relation to this repair and adaptation request.

Investigations into insulation in the property

In 2021 the Ombudsman investigated the landlord’s response to concerns regarding the property’s insulation, particularly in the cellar. We found there had been a service failure as the landlord did not take any action after it identified high moisture readings in the cellar. We ordered the landlord to confirm to the resident what action it would take in respect of the high moisture readings in the cellar floor and the timber upstand of the staircase.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 May 2022 and said it would continue to monitor the situation and engage a structural engineer to undertake a survey. The landlord’s action was reasonable and meant it had complied with the Ombudsman’s orders. However, it failed to follow up on what it promised to do. This was inappropriate, particularly considering the issue had already been subject to an Ombudsman investigation which found service failure.
The resident raised the issue in her stage 3 complaint on 10 April 2023. Her complaint said that there was no underfloor insulation between herself, the floorboards, and the half-earth cellar, which was prone to flooding. The resident also alleged that this broke government guidelines for insulation over a void and that, to her knowledge, there was no loft insulation either. She said the lack of insulation meant the soundproofing was poor between hers and her neighbour’s flats, which had led to disputes between them and the landlord had referred that matter to an antisocial behaviour management service. It also meant the neighbours had a lack of privacy in their homes and the property was very expensive to heat. She wanted the landlord to confirm what action it was going to take on the issue.
The independent adjudicator responded to the stage 3 complaint on 18 May 2023. They ordered the landlord to provide the information the resident had asked for within 2 weeks. Considering the landlord had already been ordered to confirm the action it was going to take, and had then failed to follow up on it, in the Ombudsman’s view, the independent adjudicator could have gone further by ordering the landlord to follow through on what it had said it would do.
The landlord eventually had an independent survey done in November 2023. The resident told us that she disagrees with the findings and she is still experiencing damp in the property. The landlord told us that the property has thermal board insulation on the rear bedroom and living rooms’ external walls and that there is no issue with this but it has no record of the damp proof membrane or whether it needs improving.
There were failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to investigate insulation in the property. It failed to follow up on what it promised to do in May 2022 and then failed to comply with the independent adjudicator’s findings. While a survey has now been done, it is not clear what further action the landlord intends to take, if any. This amounts to maladministration and we have made orders in relation to this.

Overall findings for the landlord’s handling of repairs

In summary, there were numerous, extensive failures in relation to the landlord’s handling of the various repairs. This, taken together with the impact they had on the resident, constitutes severe maladministration.
The landlord has already paid £100 compensation for each of the repairs which we have already said the Ombudsman does not find sufficient. We consider £2,600 to be an appropriate sum. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends compensation starting at £1,000 for severe maladministration where any of the following apply:
1. The landlord’s response to the failures (if any) exacerbated the situation and further undermined the landlord-resident relationship.
2. The landlord repeatedly failed to provide the same service which had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident, demonstrating a failure to provide a service, put things right and learn from outcomes.
3. The failures accumulated over a significant period of time.
This amount is broken down as follows:
1. £1,000 in relation to the structural repairs, minus the £100 the landlord has already paid.
2. £100 in relation to the broken doorbell.
3. £600 in relation to the leak in the kitchen, minus the £100 it has already paid.
4. £600 compensation in relation to the broken bathroom tap and associated request for adaptations, minus the £100 it has already paid.
5. £600 compensation in relation to investigations into insulation in the property.
We have also had regard to the landlord’s compensation policy which states that it will pay:
1. £51-250 where the resident has suffered a level of inconvenience and/or distress because of a service failure that exceeds what a reasonably tolerant person could be expected to accept.
2. £251-1,000 where the resident has suffered inconvenience and/ or distress because of a serious or repeat service failure.
The Ombudsman considers the amounts awarded to reflect each separate repair to fall into the corresponding category from the landlord’s compensation policy.

Complaint handling

The Code defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord or those acting on its behalf which affects a resident.
The Code states that landlords should acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 calendar days and respond within 10 working days. It does not specify when they should acknowledge stage 2 complaints but the landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days. Both say they should respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. At the time, the resident operated a 3 stage complaints procedure. Its policy said that it would respond to stage 3 complaints within 20 working days. If the landlord cannot meet the deadline at either stage, then the Code states the landlord should notify the resident, explain why and give a revised due date.
The Code also states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. The response should also set out any actions that the landlord has taken, or intends to take, to put things right.
When the Ombudsman asked the landlord to log a stage 1 complaint on 31 October 2022, we defined it as being about:
1. The landlord not making enough effort to inform the resident of the appointment on 10 October 2022.
2. The recent steps taken by the landlord and communication about the rear bay structural issues.
3. The landlord’s contractor reporting that a communal repair had been completed when the repair in question was neither communal nor complete.
In the same letter we also told the landlord that the resident advised us she had reported a broken window and bathroom tap, leaking toilet and that plastering repairs were needed and had not yet been given an appointment. We asked the landlord to bring this to the relevant team’s attention.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 4 November 2022 which was within the appropriate timeframe. However, it did not respond until 24 November 2022, which made it 4 working days overdue. While the delay was minimal, it would have been frustrating for the resident considering the overall context of the complaint.
The response also did not address all the points in the complaint. It did address the toilet leak and the bathroom tap repair and replacement request. While we had not asked the landlord to investigate the recently reported repairs as a complaint, it was reasonable that the landlord did so since the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to these issues by the time of the stage 1 response.
The response did not address the plastering repairs or broken window. The evidence indicates that the landlord resolved the plastering issue prior to the stage 1 response and this may be why it did not address this in the response. It would have been good to have formally closed this off, nevertheless. The window not closing appears to be related to the structural issues which were also not addressed. This was inappropriate, the structural repairs formed the main part of the complaint and the stage 1 response completely ignored the issue. It was also silent on the resident’s complaint about a repair being incorrectly recorded as communal and complete.
The resident escalated to stage 2 on 24 November 2022 and the landlord acknowledged it on the same day, which was positive. However, the resident contacted the Ombudsman on 27 March 2023 as the landlord has still not responded. We wrote to the landlord the same day and asked it to respond by 3 April 2023. Our letter said that the resident had told us the complaint was about the bathroom taps, damp and mould, an issue with the toilet and the request for a new shower. It said that if the landlord was not accepting any of these concerns as a stage 2 complaint, then it should confirm this in the response and give the reasons why.
The landlord sent the stage 2 response on 3 April 2023, which made it overdue by more than 3 months. The landlord had not notified the resident of the delay at any point or advised her of a new deadline. The response mistakenly said the resident had made the complaint in January 2023. It also failed to address the damp and mould, the toilet issue and request for a new shower. It is not clear whether the toilet issue was the leak that was covered in the stage 1 complaint or something new.
The landlord was not obligated to address any new issues in the stage 2 response as they had not been raised in the stage 1 complaint. However, it should have explained this to the resident and logged a stage 1 complaint for the new issues.
The resident escalated the complaint on to stage 3 on 10 April 2023. She raised some new issues in the stage 3 complaint that had not formed part of the stage 1 complaint or stage 2 escalation. These were the broken doorbell, kitchen leak, investigation into insulation and asbestos and the roof and guttering maintenance. The independent adjudicator responded to these issues in the stage 3 response.
When a resident raises new issues during the complaints procedure the Ombudsman expects the landlord to log them as a new complaint. Failing to do so meant the resident did not have the benefit of her complaint being investigated and reviewed by the landlord at stage 1 and 2. It effectively meant they were subject to a 1 stage complaints process and her only recourse afterwards was to escalate to the Ombudsman, which has taken longer than the landlord’s complaints procedure would have.
In addition to the new issues raised, the resident also asked the independent adjudicator to provide the following information in the stage 3 response:
1. When the postponed routine painting of external windows and sills would take place.
2. Whether or not the roof tiles contain asbestos.
3. The landlord’s future strategy for cleaning the roof and clearing the guttering at the front and rear of the property, where it causes water ingress in the walls.
The independent adjudicator responded to the stage 3 complaint on 18 May 2023, which was 6 days overdue and would have added to the resident’s overall frustration with the landlord’s service.
The Code explains that an effective complaints process enables a landlord to learn from the issues that arise for residents and to take steps to improve the services it provides. The stage 3 response acknowledged the landlord’s failure to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe and to record the resident’s disability. However, there was no investigation into why the failures happened. Without identifying why things went wrong the landlord will not be able to learn from its mistakes and prevent the same thing from happening again.
The independent adjudicator ordered the landlord to:
1. Apologise for the delays.
2. Provide the information the resident had asked for within 2 weeks.
3. Provide a schedule of works within 2 weeks.
4. Pay £500 compensation.
The landlord paid the compensation but failed to provide the requested information or a schedule of works. There is also no evidence that it issued an apology. This is highly concerning. The Ombudsman does not recommend 3 stage complaints procedures, however, the landlord chose to operate one at that time. Having an independent adjudicator review the complaint and give an objective view should have been an opportunity for the landlord to identify where it could improve and learn from its mistakes. The landlord seemingly took no notice of the stage 3 response in this case. Aside from paying the compensation, it did nothing to resolve the issues at hand and show the resident it was willing to do better.
There was maladministration in regard to the landlord’s complaint handling. The delays at each stage meant the resident was delayed in being able to bring her complaint to this Service by more than 3 months. The complaints procedure would also have been confusing for the resident. The landlord did not address all points in the stage 1 complaint and then the stage 3 added new, unrelated issues. The evidence indicates that the resident had other complaints going on around the same time which may be the reason for the confusion, but the landlord should have kept sufficiently good records to prevent that from happening.
The landlord should pay the resident £200 compensation in recognition of these failures. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends compensation of this amount for complaint handling failures.

Record keeping

The landlord’s record-keeping was poor throughout the period covered in this investigation. There were at least 11 repairs appointments that did not have outcomes recorded. Were it not for the resident emailing the landlord it would have been extremely difficult for the Ombudsman to piece together what had happened.
Additionally, there were at least 2 repairs that the resident reported where there is no record of how the landlord responded to them, or even whether it did. There were 2 occasions where the resident attempted to cancel or rearrange appointments and the landlord did not keep a record of it, again, we only know this from the resident’s emails.
The landlord also failed to keep records of communication with the resident or its internal communications about the repairs and to record the resident’s disability on its system.
We have outlined in the sections above why robust, accurate records are important. In this case they contributed to delays, wasted repairs visits, missed appointments and a convoluted complaints procedure. This undoubtedly added to the overall impact on the resident and left her severely frustrated with the landlord’s failure to manage the various repairs. The failure to keep sufficient records in this case amounts to maladministration.

Review of policies and practice

Although this points to a clear need for the landlord to take steps to address its record keeping, similar failures have already been brought to its attention in case 202124577. As such, we have not made any further orders for the landlord to improve this. This is because a wider order was made as part of case 202124577 which the landlord has now complied with. We expect the landlord to take forward the lessons and improvements it shared with this Service following the wider order and will monitor the progress of this.
Moreover, the Ombudsman is currently undertaking a special investigation into the landlord. This is conducted under paragraph 49 of the Scheme and allows the Ombudsman to investigate beyond an individual complaint to establish whether there is evidence of systemic failings. The findings of this report will therefore contribute to the outcome and action needed following the completion of the investigation

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme:
1. There was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the repairs, which included the structural repairs, a broken doorbell, a leak in the kitchen, a broken bathroom tap and the associated request for adaptations, and its investigations into insulation in the property.
2. There was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. There was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the identified failures. The apology should come from a senior member of staff and be mindful of the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
2. Pay the resident £2,800 compensation broken down as follows:
  1. £2600 in relation to the repairs.
  2. £200 in relation to complaint handling.
3. Undertake a survey in relation to the stabilisation of the rear bay which should be carried out by an independent structural engineer and complete any works that are recommended.
4. Finish off the works to the rear bay window.
5. Provide the resident with a copy of the November 2023 damp and mould survey, if it has not already done so.
6. Undertake a survey of the damp proof membrane and the loft and underfloor insulation, if it has not already done so, and provide the resident with a report of the findings. The survey should be carried out by an independent specialist. The landlord should then complete any work that is recommended.
7. Confirm in writing that it will abide by any longer-term recommendations from both surveys, such as monitoring or follow up inspections. The landlord should appoint a named member of staff to oversee this work, ensure it is done and that the resident is kept regularly updated until completion.
8. Ensure the resident’s disability is clearly recorded on the landlord’s and contractor’s systems.
9. Confirm in writing when the routine painting of external windows and sills will take place.
10. Confirm in writing whether the roof tiles contain asbestos. If the landlord does not have this information, it should carry out an inspection to find out.
11. Confirm in writing its future strategy for cleaning the roof and clearing the guttering at the front and rear of the property.

Recommendations

117. It is recommended that the landlord checks if the resident has made complaints about the broken heating pipe and carpet damage and the shower replacement and if so, ensure it has responded.