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

Lewisham Council (202308862)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308862

Lewisham Council

19 June 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 report of a leak and ceiling collapse and subsequent repair issues.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been considered.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, living in a flat. The resident has autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
  2. On 22 November 2022 the resident told the landlord she had requested a roof repair 2 weeks prior. She had booked an appointment for 18 November 2022, which was the earliest available date, but no one attended. The landlord acknowledged this correspondence as a complaint. The resident subsequently reported on 25 November 2022 that the ceiling had collapsed, and the leak was uncontainable.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 8 December 2022. It said as the resident reported the repair online it had not confirmed the appointment. It completed make safe works on 25 November 2022 and attended on 28 November 2022 but did not complete any roof works as the contractor noted a possible leak from the water tanks. It carried out remedial works to the ceiling after a period of drying and reinstated the electrics. It would attend on 9 December 2022 to complete a survey to identify any further works to the ceiling and kitchen units. It encourages residents to have home contents insurance to claim for damage to personal belongings. It apologised for the delay, inconvenience, and distress.
  4. On 10 May 2023, the resident said she had not been contacted regarding the repairs since the stage 1 response. She said the ceiling had not been permanently repaired, the kitchen had water damage, and it had not repaired the bathroom lighting. She subsequently requested to escalate her complaint on 12 June 2023. She said there was mould, and vermin were entering through the ceiling void. She asked for compensation for her damaged belongings and as she had purchased a new kitchen.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 6 July 2023. It said it would attend on 7 August 2023 to complete works to the ceiling. It asked the resident to confirm her availability so it could reinstate her bathroom light. It would complete a damp and mould inspection on 15 August 2023. It offered the resident £100 compensation.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 3 on 11 July 2023. She said the date for the ceiling repair was not suitable and the landlord had not consulted her before booking. She did not think the compensation offered was sufficient.
  7. The landlord issued a stage 3 response by an independent adjudicator on 6 September 2023. It said it had failed to complete the necessary remedial works. It should have taken ownership to oversee the repairs, rather than relying on the resident chasing them on multiple occasions. It was concerned that the asbestos had not been handled immediately. It recommended to:
    1. Pay the resident £1,600 for the impact of the delay, £250 for the time and trouble, and reimburse the cost of the kitchen units and worktop.
    2. Send a copy of the stage 3 adjudication to the insurance and confirm it would not oppose the resident’s reasonable claim for damaged items.
    3. Assess the asbestos risk and arrange a roof and internal inspection. It should create a schedule of work, send the resident a copy of the inspection report, and provide her with the contact details of a named officer to oversee the works. It should also install the kitchen purchased by the resident once the sub-floor is repaired.
    4. Review its systems to ensure dehumidifiers are offered following a leak, it promptly records and attends remedial work following a leak, and remedial work is identified and promptly attended within the complaint process.
  8. The resident referred her complaint to the Service as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the repairs. She said since the completion of the complaint, she had been decanted from the property twice and she had not moved back into the property. She wanted the ceilings to be completely closed, the kitchen installation to be finished, a signed certificate from a qualified electrician that the property is safe, and the bedroom radiator working before moving back into the property.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak and the subsequent ceiling collapse

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will complete emergency repairs that pose an immediate danger within 24 hours, urgent repairs to prevent damage to the property within 3 working days, and routine repairs within 20 working days. When the resident reported the roof leak, the landlord should have confirmed the status of the leak and whether it was containable to assess how to categorise the repair and appropriately respond.
  2. In its final response, the landlord acknowledged that it failed to appropriately handle the resident’s repair reports. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  3. The resident initially reported a leak on 10 November 2022 and selected 18 November 2022 as the appointment date, but the landlord did not attend. The landlord said that when reporting repairs online, residents provide preferred dates for the appointment, but this is not a confirmation. While this may be a useful tool for the landlord to manage appointments and ensure it is a mutually suitable date, it should take the appropriate steps to ensure it confirms appointments. As it failed to do so, it did not book an appointment within its repair response timeframe. The landlord should have a system to ensure that it correctly raises and records all repairs to prevent delays in completing necessary repairs.
  4. It is of particular concern that the resident was not able to utilise the landlord’s online repair service as the landlord is aware that she struggles with phone correspondence and her contact preference was email due to her ASD. As such, the landlord’s failing caused her additional distress as she had to further pursue this via an alternative method. 
  5. The resident subsequently reported the ceiling had collapsed on 25 November 2022. The landlord attended an emergency appointment to make the property safe as there was water in the electrics. However, it recognised in its stage 3 response that if it had initially responded appropriately, it may have prevented the ceiling collapsing.
  6. The temporary repair consisted of a plastic covering over the ceiling hole. While landlords can implement temporary repairs to mitigate any immediate risks to the resident, it should promptly seek to put in place a full and lasting repair. However, there were significant delays in completing the necessary remedial work following the ceiling collapse. The resident chased the follow-on works on 10 May 2023 and the landlord raised a work order on 6 July 2023 to reinstate the damaged ceiling. This was over 8 months after the ceiling collapsed, which was a wholly unreasonable delay. The resident reported the delay caused damp, mould, and pest issues in the property, due to the lack of insulation.
  7. A contractor attended on 7 August 2023 but was unable to complete the work as he noted asbestos in the ceiling and the landlord raised a work order to complete an asbestos survey on 21 August 2023. The landlord should have assessed whether the ceiling contained asbestos materials when the resident initially reported the ceiling collapse. It is also of concern that it did not handle the matter as a priority once identified by the contractor, as disturbed asbestos can present a health and safety risk.
  8. There were also issues with the electrics in the property, due to the damage caused by the leak. Although the landlord promptly attended to complete make safe works following the ceiling collapse, it failed to complete the necessary follow-on works within a reasonable time. The landlord raised a work order on 9 December 2022 to renew the bathroom light, as the resident said it had isolated the electrics as a temporary fix and she was unable to use it. The landlord recognised the issue remained outstanding in its stage 3 response.
  9. The leak also damaged the resident’s kitchen and caused the units to rot, which she initially reported to the landlord on 28 November 2022. The resident said she was unable to adequately use the kitchen. In line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), the landlord should ensure the kitchen is a suitable standard, so the resident is able to prepare and cook food safely and hygienically. It states that damp and damaged surfaces can support growth of micro-organisms and prevent thorough cleansing.
  10. The landlord raised a work order to inspect the damaged kitchen units on 8 December 2022, but there is no evidence to confirm it attended. The resident had to chase the work on numerous occasions and the repair remained outstanding at the time of the landlord’s final response. It therefore failed to adhere to its repair obligations. The resident had purchased new kitchen units but was unable to install them due to the rotting sub-floor.
  11. The landlord issued its final response on 6 September 2023. It recognised it failed to carry out the necessary repairs when the resident reported the leak or put in place a full and lasting repair when the ceiling collapsed. It offered the resident £1600 for the impact of the delays, £250 for the time and trouble caused, and it reimbursed the cost of the replacement kitchen units that the resident had purchased and agreed to install them. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, awards of over £1000 are warranted when there have been serious failings by the landlord that had a serious detrimental impact on the resident. In this case, the offer was appropriate for the failings identified until the time of the final response.
  12. The landlord committed to completing an asbestos risk assessment, roof inspection, and internal inspection, and creating a schedule of works and appointing a named staff member to oversee the works and liaise with the resident. However, it has failed to complete the required works within a reasonable timeframe, so the report will consider events after the final response and assess whether further redress is required.
  13. On 21 November 2023, the landlord said it had completed an asbestos survey and it would send the resident a copy, which was over 3 months after it identified the issue. The Service has not seen a copy of the report. It then raised work orders on 20 November 2023 to remove the asbestos and on 8 December 2023 to renew the ceilings throughout the flat. It classified both work orders as 20-day priority. It is evident the landlord initially attempted to arrange the appointment but said it was unable to reach the resident. However, the resident then asked the landlord to arrange an appointment on 1 December 2023, but there is no evidence that it did. As such, it failed to adhere to its repair timeframe. The resident chased the work on 9 February 2024 and said she wanted to be moved from the property while the work was completed.
  14. The landlord decanted the resident in March 2024 to complete the works. There is no evidence that it considered decanting her at an earlier date, or that it completed a risk assessment to consider whether it was safe for the resident to remain in the property while the works were outstanding. It is of concern that it took a further 6 months after the stage 3 response to meaningfully progress the repairs, causing a prolonged impact on the resident.
  15. On 31 March 2024, the resident sent the landlord a report detailing several outstanding issues with the property. She said the pipes and wires were not enclosed in the ceiling in several rooms, her bedroom radiator was not working           and the pipe was bent, the kitchen installation was not finished, and the stove was not working. She also raised electrical concerns with the extractor fan, thermostat, exposed wires, and cables hanging from the ceiling. The landlord should have addressed her outstanding concerns, but there is insufficient evidence to confirm whether it has. As such, an order has been made below to address the issues.
  16. The landlord told the resident it inspected the electrics on 5 April 2024, and it was safe to use, so she was able to move back in, but the resident disputed this. Landlords are typically entitled to rely on their appropriately qualified contractors’ conclusions to determine whether it has completed the necessary repairs. However, in this case it has not provided evidence of its inspection report or evidence of how it determined the electrics were safe.
  17. The resident commissioned an independent electrical inspection report on 6 April 2024 as she was concerned with the safety of the property, which found the property was unsatisfactory and identified potentially dangerous conditions. As the landlord failed to provide sufficient evidence to confirm the electrics were safe, causing the resident to pay for a separate inspection, it should reimburse her the cost of the survey and act on the recommendations made in the report.
  18. The resident said the landlord subsequently decanted her as an emergency. She said she experienced increased disruption due to her autism, as she did not have access to food storage or cooking areas, or clothes-washing facilities, which impacted her structure and routine. She told the Service on 4 June 2024 that she is currently still decanted, the kitchen installation is not completed, and she was unsure whether the electrical works had been completed. It is unclear whether she has been provided with a clear schedule of works to manage her expectations of when the work would be completed, but she told the Service the date she was due to move back in had changed multiple times.
  19. The resident requested compensation for belongings damaged by the collapsed roof, including her sofa, TV, entertainment unit, and blinds. She also reported several items had been damaged by damp and mould, due to the delay in completing the necessary repairs to the ceiling. She told the Service that following the completion of the complaint, she had experienced additional damage to her kitchen and appliances, due to contractor’s actions and electrical issues. The landlord’s repairs policy states residents should pursue claims for damaged belongings through their own contents insurance. In this case, due to the landlord’s failings in the handling the repairs, it was reasonable that it referred the matter to its insurers and committed in its stage 3 response to not oppose the resident’s reasonable claim for damaged items.
  20. The resident told the Service that the landlord had not paid any compensation through its insurance and said it would not issue a payment unless she signed to agree it was not liable for the damage. The landlord should not unreasonably withhold compensation awarded under its insurance and it is of concern that the resident’s initial request for compensation for items damaged by the ceiling collapse in November 2022 has not been resolved. The landlord offered £750 compensation on 21 November 2023, which is a substantial amount of money that the resident has not had the opportunity to access to replace her damaged items.
  21. Overall, there were significant failures in the landlord’s handling of the leak, ceiling collapse and the subsequent repair issues and it failed to act with the necessary urgency. The landlord identified in its stage 3 response that it failed to take accountability or ownership for the repairs, however similar issues persisted after the final response indicating it failed to learn from the outcome of the complaint. It also failed to appropriately manage the insurance claim. It is evident the issues had a significant detrimental impact to the resident due to the disruption to her living conditions, time and trouble pursuing the repairs, and distress and inconvenience caused. She also said she lived for 18 months with concerns that the roof would collapse, which caused her considerable emotional impact.
  22. Further compensation is warranted due to the additional impact on the resident following the final complaint response. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, the landlord should pay the resident an additional £900 as its failings had a significant impact on the resident. This has been calculated at £100 for each additional month the repairs were outstanding.

Complaint handling

  1. In accordance with the landlord’s complaint handling policy, it should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied an independent adjudicator will assess the complaint and issue its stage 3 response within 20 working days. The Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the code) states that “a process with more than two stages is not acceptable under any circumstances as this will make the complaint process unduly long and delay access to the Ombudsman”. It is recognised that the landlord has since removed stage 3 of its complaint process in April 2024 to bring it in line with the code.
  2. The resident raised her complaint on 22 November 2022 and the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 8 December 2022, which exceeded its response timeframe by 2 working days. Although the delay was not excessive, the landlord should have advised the resident it required an extension to manage her expectations.
  3. On 10 May 2023 the resident contacted the landlord as it had not completed the works promised in its stage 1 response. The code states that any “remedy proposed must be followed through to completion”, which the landlord failed to do. Although the resident did not explicitly state she wanted to escalate her complaint, the landlord should have confirmed whether she wanted to, as she was clearly dissatisfied with its handling of the matter. This would have prevented further delays. The resident subsequently requested to escalate the complaint on 12 June 2023 and the landlord sent its stage 2 response on 11 July 2023.
  4. The resident further escalated the complaint on 11 July 2023 and the landlord issued its stage 3 response on 6 September 2023. While this was outside of its response time, it managed the resident’s expectations that it would be delayed as the adjudicator was on annual leave.
  5. As highlighted by the stage 3 adjudicator, the first 2 stages of the complaint process did not result in effective actions to put things right, which meant there were significant delays in resolving the substantive complaint issue.
  6. The complaint handling code states “Landlords must have processes in place to ensure that a complaint can be remedied at any stage of its complaints process. Landlords must ensure that appropriate remedies can be provided at any stage of the complaints process without the need for escalation.” This is particularly important in this case as it appears the landlord somewhat relied on the independent adjudicator stage, which has now been removed from its complaint process.
  7. Due to the delays and the 3-stage complaint process, it took over 9 months to complete the process. This was particularly detrimental as the landlord did not take any meaningful steps to resolve the substantive issue until the final stage, despite identifying the necessary repairs at stage 1. Although the landlord recognised some of its complaint-handling failures in its final response, it did not take steps to redress the issues. As a result, it is ordered to pay the resident £250 compensation to recognise the additional detriment.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the way the landlord handled the resident’s report of a leak and ceiling collapse and subsequent repair issues.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the way the landlord handled the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. In addition to the compensation already offered the landlord is ordered to pay the resident:
    1. £900 for the additional 9-month delay in completing the necessary works following the completion of the complaint process and its failures in handling her insurance claim.
    2. £180 to reimburse the electrical inspection.
    3. £250 for its complaint handling failings.
    4. It should provide evidence of the total payment of £1,330 within 4 weeks of the date of this report. It should also provide evidence that it paid the compensation initially offered in its complaint responses.
  2. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has completed the necessary repairs to the kitchen, ceilings, and bedroom radiator. It should then provide a copy of a post-inspection to the resident and the Service to confirm the works are to a suitable standard.
  3. The landlord should provide a certificate from a qualified electrician to confirm the electrics in the property are safe, within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
  4. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should commit to following its insurance process and to provide the resident with regular updates on the progress. It should also contact the resident to discuss the further compensation matters she has raised with the Service and progress them through its insurance process.
  5. The landlord should provide evidence to the Service that it has complied with the orders within the relevant timeframes.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reviews how it handles repair reports to ensure they are appropriately raised and responded to.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its record handling practices to ensure it records when it attends repair appointments and when the work is completed. 
  3. The landlord should review its complaint handling process to ensure it seeks to put a resolution to the substantive complaint issue at the earliest opportunity and it follows resolutions through to completion.