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

Lewisham Council (202317278)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317278

Lewisham Council

26 September 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 response to the resident’s concerns about scaffolding at the property.

Background

  1. The resident occupies the property as a leaseholder.
  2. On 7 June 2023, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord as scaffolding had been up around the property for over a year. No repairs had been carried out in that time due to a dispute between the landlord and contractor. The resident asked that the landlord arrange for the repairs to be undertaken so the scaffolding could be taken down.
  3. The landlord issued its stage one response on 13 June 2023. It confirmed that it had erected two sets of scaffolding to complete repairs. The first set had been erected in March 2020, and should have been taken down in April 2020. However, it had not been taken down due to issues with contractors and delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. It assured the resident that it would be taken down within five working days.
  4. The second set had been erected in February 2023 to complete roof repairs. The landlord explained that works were ongoing, and additional scaffolding would need to be erected to complete the repairs.
  5. On 13 June 2023, the resident escalated his complaint due to the further scaffolding that had been erected, which he was concerned that it invaded his privacy. He also said that debris had fallen from the scaffolding into his garden, which could have caused someone harm.
  6. The landlord issued its stage two response on 21 June 2023. It said that it had advised the resident that more scaffolding would be erected, therefore his complaint was not upheld. The resident escalated his complaint as the landlord’s response failed to address his concerns about debris falling. He also raised concerns about the landlord’s lack of communication and failure to advise residents about scaffolding being erected.
  7. On 26 July 2023, the landlord issued its stage three response. It acknowledged that it had failed to address the resident’s concerns about falling debris in its stage two response or its lack of communication. It said that scaffolding had been in place longer than necessary, and the landlord’s communication had been poor. To put matters right, the landlord would complete a quality review, and also ensure that contractors contacted residents when scaffolding was being erected, with clear information about timescales and details of who residents could contact for updates and to report issues.
  8. The resident remains dissatisfied because the landlord failed to appropriately compensate him for the poor communication. He said it also failed to respond to the significant health and safety concerns posed by the scaffolding, due to a falling rivet and debris.

Assessment and findings

  1. In line with its obligations as the freeholder of the building, it was reasonable for the landlord to take all necessary steps to investigate repairs. The investigative and subsequent repair works included erecting scaffolding.
  2. There is a disparity in the timeframes shared by the resident and landlord about how long the scaffolding had been in place. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the scaffolding erected was in place for too long. This Service understands the inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident as a result of living with scaffolding outside his property for a long period of time.
  3. It is accepted that the COVID-19 restrictions and lockdown impacted the completion of repairs and non-urgent work. When the resident advised that the scaffolding was still up, the landlord offered an explanation, acknowledged that it should have been taken down sooner and confirmed when it would be taken down. This was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
  4. While frustrating for the resident, further scaffolding was required due to outstanding repairs. The landlord is entitled to complete repairs how it sees fit, and it was reasonable to erect more scaffolding if it enabled safe completion of the repairs. That being said, the landlord only informed the resident about erecting further scaffolding in its stage one response. This Service understands that the response was issued on the same day that the further scaffolding was erected. Given the resident had expressed his dissatisfaction of the scaffolding, it would have been courteous and appropriate for the landlord to inform the resident as soon as possible about the scaffolding, rather than utilising its complaint response to advise of this.
  5. Overall, scaffolding was necessary to complete repairs. However, the landlord failed to communicate appropriately with the resident about the ongoing works and further need for scaffolding which was unreasonable. It also failed to address the resident’s concerns about the location of the scaffolding invading his privacy, which was inappropriate and caused the resident further distress.
  6. Furthermore, the landlord failed to reasonably respond to the resident’s concerns regarding falling debris. While the stage three response acknowledged the concerns, it did not apologise, nor did it offer an appropriate remedy in recognition of the resident’s distress and frustration regarding safety concerns.
  7. In recognition of the above failures, the landlord will be ordered to apologise and appropriately compensate the resident for the inconvenience and frustration caused by the scaffolding being in place for longer than necessary, as well as its poor communication.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about scaffolding at the property.

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. The landlord must issue an apology to the resident, in writing, for its communication failures.
  2. The landlord is to pay the resident £50 in recognition of the distress, inconvenience and frustration endured due to the landlord’s poor communication.
  3. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendation

  1. In accordance with its stage three response, the landlord should ensure that it contacts resident’s prior to scaffolding being erected, with clear information about anticipated timescales, why the scaffolding is required and any safety implications. Residents should also be provided with a point of contact.