Lewisham Council (202313134)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313134

Lewisham Council

31 May 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s request for repairs to his windows, bathroom, pipes and guttering.
2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy for a ground floor flat, which began in 2006. The flat has timber-framed windows.
The resident has long-term health conditions which affect his mobility.
Under the Equality Act (2010) the landlord has a responsibility to ensure that it does not cause direct or indirect discrimination to the resident, in relation to the protected characteristics set out by the Act. This means it must not disadvantage the resident by its actions, or failure to take actions, and must put in place reasonable adjustments where appropriate.
The landlord’s complaints policy sets out its complaint process. It includes an informal “initial expressions of dissatisfaction” stage, which risks a lack of clarity between a complaint and a service request and is not in line with our Complaint Handling Code. The policy says that if it has not resolved the issue at this initial stage, it will log a stage 1 complaint and aim to respond within 10 working days, and if the resident remains dissatisfied it will then escalate the complaint to stage 2 and provide a response within 20 working days. The landlord has a third stage, in which an “independent adjudicator” will seek to identify a suitable remedy to put things right. It does tell residents that they can approach this Service at any stage of the complaint process, however the overall use of the complaint stages does not comply with our current complaint handling code.
The landlord’s reimbursement and remedies procedure provide guidance to its staff on the circumstances in which they can offer goodwill gestures and discretionary compensation, with guide figures provided dependent on the impact on the resident.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it will carry out emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within three working days, and routine repairs within 20 working days. It defines urgent repairs as those where there is “a possible health, safety or security risk”. It says that where it is not possible to complete repairs within these timescales, it will “proactively keep the tenant updated with progress”.
The landlord has an aids and adaptations policy, which says it will work with its occupational therapy service to undertake instructed work “in a timely way”.

Summary of Events

The resident contacted the landlord on 13 September 2022 to request repairs to the tiles and a grab rail in his bathroom. The landlord attended on 20 September 2022, to assess the works that would be required. It then booked a repair for 11 November 2022, which was subsequently rescheduled for 23 January 2023 after it identified that the repairs would take a full day and require some materials to be ordered.
The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 28 November 2022, via an online webform. He explained that:
1. He had reported that his grab rail in the shower had come away, he was still waiting for a repair and had been told the earliest it could be done was 25 January 2023. He had since slipped in the shower.
2. He had an operation for his legs scheduled on 27 January 2023, and needed the grab rails and a stool. He expressed his frustration at the delays he had experienced waiting for the repair, and the difficulty he had had chasing it through its customer service phone number. He asked the landlord to ensure that the repair was completed before his operation.
3. The fire panel in his building had been showing a fault light for at least two months, indicating an issue with the sensor in his flat. He had been unable to report this as he had been cut off each time he tried calling and waited on hold.
4. The situation was “most stressful” and not helpful for his health.
5. He wanted the landlord to repair the bathroom, so it was “safe for a disabled person”, repair the kitchen roof “before water starts to come in”, and to “sort out” the fire alarm system.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 1 December 2022. It told him that he could contact this Service “for guidance and support” at any stage of the complaints process.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 15 December 2022. It:
1. Apologised for the delay in resolving the bathroom repairs. It confirmed the delay was due to “operative availability” and advised that it had arranged an interim repair to make the grab rail safe, after it had initially tried to arrange this at short notice for that afternoon.
2. Apologised for “other repairs outstanding in the block”. It said that it had spoken with its contractor and established that it had not received the works order the landlord had sent for the repair to the roof tiles. It explained it did not know if this was due to a system fault or human error but had sent another order that day. It confirmed the contractor would contact the resident to arrange access.
3. Said it had also asked its fire alarm contractor to contact the resident to arrange access to address the fault on the fire panel.
4. Acknowledged that the resident had complained about the difficulties he had in calling it, with long wait times, and calls being disconnected. It said its contact centre was “short staffed” and advised that it had recruited new staff which it anticipated would reduce call waiting times. It advised it had also asked its IT team to investigate the cause of the calls becoming disconnected.
5. Apologised for “any delays and failure in service and … the inconvenience and distress” to the resident.
6. Explained how the resident could escalate his complaint to stage 2 if he remained dissatisfied.
On 22 December 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that two tiles had fallen off and nearly hit his foot whilst he had been showering. He acknowledged that the landlord had told him the repair was scheduled for 23 January 2023, due to “lack of availability of workforce”.
The landlord attended on 24 January 2023, installed an extra grab rail, and put down a plastic sheet in the shower. The resident later reported to the landlord that it had cancelled a full repair originally scheduled for that day and told him this was because it did not have the materials it needed. It rescheduled the repair for 6 February 2023. The resident chased several other outstanding repairs, and on 25 January 2023 he expressed his frustration at the time the repairs were taking, and the fact that he had taken a day off work before his sick leave, only to find that an appointment was cancelled.
The landlord carried out repairs to the roof on 2 February 2023.
On 7 February 2023 the landlord confirmed it had rearranged the bathroom repairs for 11 April 2023, and the work to seal the shower doors on 17 March 2023. It advised the resident that its fire alarm contractor would attend that day to repair any faults with the alarm panel or detectors.
The landlord’s contractor carried out repairs to the boiler condense pipe on 9 February 2023.
On 13 February 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2, and expressed his dissatisfaction that the works were not yet complete. He:
1. Explained that the shower repair was “even more important” to him after his surgery, and the landlord had told him that it could not carry out a repair before 11 April 2023 after and appointment for 6 February 2023 had been cancelled “with no notice or reason”. He did not feel that the landlord had regard to his safety.
2. Noted that an appointment to repair the shower doors had been booked for 17 March 2023, but that he could not see the point in this as the wall they needed to be attached to still needed to be re-tiled.
3. Confirmed the roof repair had been completed, but noted that the guttering had not been cleared, so would still overflow.
4. Confirmed that the condense pipe from the boiler had been repaired but was still leaking and causing damage to the external wall so a further repair had been scheduled for 16 February 2023.
5. Advised that he had not been contacted about the window repair, and that he still wanted to understand why windows at some neighbouring homes had been repaired, but his had not.
The landlord responded to the resident shortly afterwards and confirmed that it had asked its repairs schedulers to check the issue he had raised about the order of the bathroom repairs, and to let the resident know if it could bring them forward. It advised it had raised a new works order for its contractor.
On 21 February 2023 the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had escalated his complaint to stage 2.
The landlord is a local authority, and the resident referred himself to its occupational therapy service on 24 February 2023.
The landlord’s window contractor contacted the resident on 6 March 2023, and left an answerphone message for him. The landlord’s internal records show that on 7 March 2023 its staff discussed that they could repair the windows, but any replacement would be needed to be done as part of a major works project due to take place on his estate. Its staff noted that the windows were “rotten”, that they leaked, and that there was a build up of condensation on them, due to the windows being single-glazed and insufficient ventilation. They said there was “not much” that could be done to improve the current windows, and that they had taken measurements that day.
On 10 March 2023 the resident and the landlord corresponded after the resident expressed his frustration that a short-notice appointment to inspect the shower that morning, arranged the day before, had been missed. He explained he had no bathing facilities and that he was worried about the possibility of an infection after his recent operation. After further emails, the landlord arranged for an operative to attend and make the shower area waterproof, which it said it was “happy” to hear would enable him to use the shower until it returned to complete the repair on 13 March 2023.
The landlord’s internal correspondence shows that it had bought a grab rail and was in the process of sourcing the parts it needed for the bathroom repairs, including correctly sized shower doors and a shower seat on 20 March 2023.
The same day, the landlord issued it stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It said:
1. It had completed the tiling repair in the bathroom, and still needed to install a grab rail, shower seat and shower doors. It had tried to install the shower doors but there had been “complications”, so it would reattend on 21 March 2023 to install the grab rail and shower seat and attempt to resolve the issue with the doors.
2. Its window contractor had confirmed that the resident’s windows were beyond repair and needed to be replaced. Its major works team had confirmed that his property was included in a planned programme of window renewals, which was “currently under discussion” with the local authority.
3. Its contractor had repaired the leaking pipe on 2 March 2023.
4. Its roofing contractor had provided it with a “scope of works” regarding the guttering repair, which it needed to review and confirm approval for. Its surveyor was “working through a backlog of approvals”.
5. The resident could contact it by email if he had any queries regarding the repair.
6. It upheld his complaint due to the delay in completing the repairs the resident had reported. It apologised that the resident “had cause to complain” and that he was experiencing “ongoing issues”. It said it appreciated this would have caused the resident inconvenience and distress.
7. Its stage 2 complaint process was complete. The resident could ask for his complaint to be reviewed by an “independent adjudicator” if he considered his complaint to be unresolved.
8. The resident could contact this Service “for guidance and support at any time”.
The resident contacted the landlord on 24 March 2023 and expressed his frustration that another appointment had been missed that day. He told the landlord that there was a “limit” to the number of days he could take off.
The resident chased an update from the landlord on 5 April 2023. He confirmed the leaking pipe had been repaired and asked to be kept informed regarding the other outstanding repairs.
The occupational therapy service carried out an assessment of the resident’s needs in his home on 26 April 2023. On 2 May 2023 the occupational therapist asked the landlord to supply and fit a rail in the communal hallway, and to consult with the resident to confirm the best location, length and height for it. They asked the landlord to complete the outstanding repairs to the shower screens, and to install an automatic door opening system to the resident’s home, to replace the communal door handle to an easier one for the resident to grasp, and to change the timing on the motion sensor lighting in the communal area.
On 15 May 2023 the landlord issued what it called its “stage 3 adjudication” to the resident. It accepted that the repairs to the bathroom and windows had taken too long, and that it should be able to provide an expected timescale for the works to the roof. It explained it had identified the following steps for the landlord to put things right:
1. Apologise.
2. Pay £300 compensation.
3. Replace the windows which were out of repair, outside of its major works programme.
4. Advise the resident of the schedule of works and expected timescales for the roof repairs and commit to updating him with information about “major milestones”.
The landlord advised the resident in its stage 3 response that he could “pursue [his] complaint” with this Service if he was dissatisfied with the outcome, or it did not complete the recommendations “within a reasonable time”.
The landlord issued an apology letter to the resident on 26 May 2023, in which it said it was sorry for the way his complaint was handled, that it took all complaints seriously, and it valued his feedback. It told him that it would repair his shower screen and grab rail on 5 June 2023. It confirmed it would replace his windows and advised him that it could take between six and eight weeks for them to be made.
On 7 July 2023 the landlord advised the resident that its “OH team” (understood to be the occupational therapy team), had arranged for an inspection of the building entrance door to assess it for an automatic door opening system on 1 September 2023, as well as fitting the handrail in the communal hallway, changing the door handle. It said it would inspect the area outside his flat, to assess whether it could install a light, on 11 July 2023.
The resident reported a further missed appointment on 11 July 2023, and explained to the landlord that when he had rung in was told it had been moved to the following day. He asked why he was not notified of this, and for an update regarding the windows and other actions identified in its stage 3 response. The resident explained that the work carried out by the occupational therapist to the front step did not meet his need and was “proving difficult for others”. He said he had not had a response in relation to “rails by the toilet”.
An email from the window contractor to the landlord shows that the windows were still being made on 12 July 2023. The landlord contacted the resident on that day and apologised for not keeping the resident informed of the changes to the repairs planned. It advised him to contact the occupational therapist in relation to works carried out by them and told the resident that it had booked for “toilet rails” to be installed on 19 September 2023.
The resident contacted this Service in July 2023, and explained that the works to the bathroom had been completed in June, but he was awaiting the replacement of the windows, a “full apology”, and payment of compensation.
The resident has advised us that the landlord attended to fit the replacement windows, and to complete the bathroom repairs, in late 2023. He explained that there had been an additional delay after the contractor had originally brought windows which did not open.
The resident has advised us that, as of May 2024, he is still awaiting payment of the compensation. He also told us that two of the new windows were faulty and had condensation between the panes, and he found some of the windows difficult to open. He advised us that no action had been taken regarding the building front door. He explained that his main concern was the landlord’s handling of his case and the difficulty he had in contacting it.
The resident has also explained to us that there was “an environmental survey” done of his building in late 2023, which he understood to have identified the need for insulation to be fitted. He understands that the landlord’s contractor has advised it to replace all the guttering, and that some repairs to the roof may ne needed.

Assessment and findings

The windows

We have seen photos of the wooden windows to the resident’s home, which do show that they needed repair. We note that they are on the ground floor, at the front of the building, which added to the importance of making sure they are secure.
The landlord did not demonstrate it had given the replacement of the windows sufficient urgency. Whilst it is welcomed that they have now been replaced, the overall delays, repeat visits, and poor communication with the resident constitute maladministration.
The landlord should now check whether the windows have any faults and carry out any necessary repairs in a timely way.

The bathroom

The resident explained the risks the bathroom presented to him, both due to his instability on his feet and his later concerns about preventing an infection after his operation. It was particularly concerning to see how long it had taken the landlord to carry out what were straight-forward repairs to the bathroom.
The landlord said this was partly due to a lack of available staff, which is especially concerning, as it did not demonstrate an ability to meet its obligations to keep the property in repair (as is required under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985)).
The landlord did not appear to examine its responsibilities to the resident regarding the long term health conditions he had reported to it. The Equality Act (2010) sets out the landlord’s duty to ensure the resident was not put at an unreasonable disadvantage due to any failure to act on its part. It was not acceptable that the landlord failed to consider the resident’s health issues and the potential impact of leaving him without safe bathing facilities for many months.
Some further delays were caused due to the landlord’s operatives not having the necessary materials or measurements ahead of their appointments. The resident was caused much disruption due to the number of appointments which were missed or rescheduled at the last minute.

The guttering and pipes

The landlord appeared heavily reliant on its contractors to arrange appointments for communal repairs with the resident. It is not clear why it could not facilitate these itself, which would have prevented further inconvenience to the resident. It should consider whether it could take a more active part in allowing access for communal repairs where access to an individual property is not required.
The landlord has now carried out the works to stop water leaking onto the external wall, however its response time was again well outside its published repair timescales.

Adaptations

During the complaint period, the resident referred himself to the occupational therapy service, and has explained this was due to waiting for the landlord to respond to his requests. The service identified that he needed adaptations, which were a stool and grab rail in his bathroom, a rail in the communal area, an assisted door opener for the communal area, and it suggested that a light be installed outside his flat due to him finding the area dark to navigate.
The landlord has carried out the works to the bathroom, but the resident has explained he is disappointed that the door opener has not been fitted. He explained that the problem arose when the door was changed, and that the new one has a very strong closer fitted. The landlord had adjusted the closer to be gentler on the previous door, but he says it has told him this is not possible for the new door. He explained to us that he would be happy if the landlord changed the closer, if this was easier or quicker for the landlord.
The landlord has taken a very slow approach to adapting the resident’s home, with items that it should be used to procuring. The overall impression the landlord’s response has given, is that it has not put the resident’s well-being at the heart of its response.
As well as being good customer service to respond in a timely way to make the resident’s home suitable for him, the landlord has a legal duty to carry out reasonable adaptations in relation to a disability (as defined by the Equality Act (2010)).
The landlord should now contact the resident as a matter of urgency to explain where it has got to in the process of adapting the block entrance door and consider whether it would be appropriate to fit an alternative door closing system as an interim solution.

Complaint Handling

The landlord’s complaint responses did not demonstrate a sufficient level of commitment to identifying and remedying the cause of its failures. We expect landlords to use complaints as an opportunity to take learning and prevent similar mistakes in future cases. Its apology (issued in May 2023) was very brief, with what appeared to be generic wording.
The landlord’s use of an “independent adjudicator review” risked confusing the internal complaints process with an investigation by this Service. The landlord has, since 1 February 2024, changed its complaint procedure to reflect the standards set out in our complaint handling code.
This change is welcomed. In the resident’s case, while its stage 2 response did advise the resident that he could contact this Service, it did not make it clear that we could accept the case at that point, instead continuing to say that we could provide “advice and guidance”. It also used a three-stage complaint process, which delayed a satisfactory resolution being reached.
The stage 3 response did identify some steps to put things right, including an offer of compensation for the first time, but there did not appear to be sufficient ownership of the promised resolutions at this, or the previous stages, to ensure they were enacted.
The landlord’s offer of compensation may have been acceptable, if a little on the low side, when it made the offer, however the additional delay and poor service the resident has experienced since warrants a higher offer. We have made an order to that effect below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs to his windows, bathroom, pipes and guttering.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord unreasonably delayed repairs to the bathroom and windows which it should have treated as urgent and did not carry out repairs to the guttering and pipes in a reasonable timeframe either.
The landlord caused the resident much disruption due to an apparently disorganised approach to the repairs, without adequate oversight, and failed to give due consideration to the impact on him, given his health conditions and circumstances.
The landlord did not make appropriate use of its complaint process to identify the reasons for its failures, which has not provided us with reassurance that it has taken appropriate learning to prevent future instances.
The landlord used an inappropriate third internal complaint stage, which was not in line with our complaint handling code. The landlord did not ensure that the promised redress was put in place.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, an appropriately senior member of staff (of director level or higher) must write a personal apology to the resident for the poor response to the repairs, and its failure to put this right using its internal complaints process. It should include details that demonstrate the staff member understands the specific failures in the resident’s case, and what steps will be taken to ensure these are not repeated. It must provide us with a copy once completed.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should directly pay the resident a total of £1000 compensation, made up of:
1. £700 for its failure to carry out the repairs within a reasonable timeframe. It must confirm to us when this is complete.
2. £300 for the impact of its poor complaint handling.
Within three weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should inspect the resident’s windows, carry out an ease and adjustment as necessary, and confirm whether it needs to repair the two that are potentially blown. It should confirm to the resident the details of the repairs it will carry out, the timeframe this will take, and appoint a member of staff to liaise directly with him about it until resolved. It must confirm to us when this has been carried out.
Within three weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must contact the resident to explain what stage it is at regarding the door entry system, what steps it proposes to take, how long this will take, and provide him with a member of staff to liaise directly with him about it until resolved. It must confirm to us when this has been carried out.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord confirm to the resident the best points of contact for issues regarding his tenancy, the timeframes within which he should expect a response, and that he can log a complaint should it fail to respond to all or part of a query within these service standards.
We recommend that the landlord contact the resident to confirm whether he wants it to record any details of vulnerabilities or specific needs for his household.
We recommend that the landlord review whether it could deliver a better service to its residents if it took responsibility for liaising with, and allowing access to, its contractors in the case of communal repairs.
We recommend the landlord confirm to the resident what its decision has been regarding the findings of the survey conducted in late 2023, and what its plan is in relation to the major works to the roof and guttering. It should aim to be as transparent about the recommendations it has received, the reasoning behind its decisions, and any timescales for works to be completed, as possible.
We recommend that the landlord review its oversight arrangements for actions promised as part of its complaint resolutions, to ensure that they are completed, in a timely way, and to a good standard.