Lewisham Council (202337128)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337128

Lewisham Council

17 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 complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord, a local authority. In the landlord’s response to this Service it confirmed there were no vulnerabilities recorded on its system. Medical evidence provided as part of the investigation shows that the resident suffers from physical and mental health issues. She uses crutches to mobilise and is registered as disabled.
The property is a 1 bedroom bungalow.
The landlord carried out a survey of the resident’s property in April 2022. In her emails to the landlord on damp and mould related matters on 16 and 25 August 2022, the resident advised that other repairs were outstanding from the survey. The works in question included repairs to the bathroom, kitchen and doors. On 22 September the landlord advised the resident that its contractor would contact her that day to arrange a date to commence works.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 1 August 2023 in which she set out the outstanding repairs to the bathroom (radiators, wet room shower door, shower water pressure, toilet flush) and kitchen (cupboards including doors and pull down shelves). She said her GP had referred her to the Occupational Therapist (OT) who had said it could not assist until the repairs were carried out. She had therefore gone to stay with her sister.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 15 August 2023. It listed the outstanding repairs and confirmed the new inspection appointments it had raised against each one. It said that while it understood the resident had vulnerabilities it could not carry out all the repairs requested as they did not form part of its standard repair service. Upon completion of an OT assessment it would endeavour to carry out any recommendations in a timely manner.
The resident emailed the landlord on 24 August 2023 to express her dissatisfaction with its response, as follows:
1. A contractor had attended on 15 August to inspect the bathroom radiator but she had not received any further updates.
2. The shower door had always leaked. A contractor had attended previously and said a replacement door would be ordered but this had not been done.
3. An appointment had been booked for 23 August to investigate the shower water pressure and toilet flush repair. However, the contractor arrived early and because she was not living at the property there was no one at home. She said the landlord had given her the incorrect time. A new appointment was booked for 15 September. The contractor told the resident that the repair for water pressure needed to be rebooked with an electrician.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 12 September 2023. It referred to the appointments set out in its stage 1 complaint response. It said some of the orders were scheduled for future dates that had not yet been carried out. For this reason it did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
The resident contacted this Service on 9 February 2024 to say that she was dissatisfied because a number of repairs remained outstanding.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s repairs guide says that it will respond to non-urgent jobs within 3 working days. The timescale may be extended to 20 days for certain repairs, such as when materials need to be ordered. It also says that residents are responsible for:
1. Repairing or replacing handles, catches and knobs on kitchen units.
2. Putting up and repairing shower and curtain rails and battens, pelmets, coat hooks and shelves.
The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will reply to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.

The landlord’s compensation policy says:
1. It will make a discretionary payment of between £10 and £50 where “services have fallen outside expected service standards” for time and trouble.
2. It will make a discretionary payment for distress and inconvenience, as follows:
  1. Low impact up to £50 where the impact is no greater than a reasonably tolerant person could be expected to accept.
  2. Medium impact £51-£250 where the resident has suffered a level of inconvenience and/or distress that exceeds what a reasonably tolerant person could be expected to accept.
  3. High impact £251-£1000 where the resident has suffered inconvenience and/or distress because of a serious or repeat service failure.

Scope of the investigation

The resident raised her complaint during her correspondence with the landlord about a separate matter relating to pests, damp and mould. That complaint was accepted for investigation by this Service on 31 May 2023. The resident made a formal complaint about other repairs on 1 August. This was after the first complaint was accepted for investigation therefore, the 2 complaints were separated. The complaint about pests, damp and mould was determined on 30 April 2024 under case reference 202125843.
In her email to the landlord of 1 August 2023 the resident said that she had sought the assistance of an OT. She said that she could not live in the property until the matter was resolved and had moved in with her sister. In its response of 15 August the landlord said that it could not carry out all the repairs requested as they did not form part of its standard repair service. It said it would endeavour to comply with any requirements resulting from an OT assessment.
This investigation has not seen any additional evidence from either party relating to an OT assessment or repairs which the landlord could not carry out. Therefore, the landlord’s response regarding the OT assessment, and any related works, has not been considered as part of this investigation. The resident may wish to make a separate formal complaint to the landlord on this point if she remains dissatisfied.

Repairs

Following reports of damp and mould the landlord carried out a full property survey on 4 April 2022. The landlord was asked to provide a copy of the survey for the purposes of this investigation. Despite the front sheet of the survey setting out the resident’s address, the survey did not describe her property. This is because it described a 2 bedroom flat where a child was part of the household. The landlord has been given the opportunity to provide the correct report but has not done so. This is a record keeping failure.
In her email to the landlord on 16 August 2022 the resident said that there were works outstanding, including works to windows and a kitchen cupboard which was covering the hole where her extractor fan should be. She chased the landlord for an update on 25 August but did not receive one which was inappropriate, causing distress.
In a letter to the resident on 22 September 2022 provided an update on the repairs. This was well over a month after the resident raised the issue and 5 months after the survey was carried out. Therefore the landlord’s response was well outside its repair response times.
It apologised for the continued delay in carrying out works in the property following the technical surveyor’s inspection in April 2022 which was “caused by an admin error.” The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. While it was appropriate that the landlord addressed the delay, its response lacked transparency because it did not go far enough to explain what administrative error had occurred. Furthermore, it did not say what it would do differently.
It said the contractor would contact the resident that day to arrange a commencement date for works which were expected to take 4 weeks. It said the works would include window repairs, wet room door seal replacement and extractor fan repairs.
The landlord emailed the resident on 13 October 2022 to say that it had contacted the contractors for “clarity” on jobs which were outstanding. It confirmed it had raised jobs for the double glazed units, renewal of the seals to the walk in shower and renewal of the extractor fan in the wet room and kitchen. It also said it would “seek clarity” on the windows and the front and back door which the resident said was loose.
It was inappropriate that the landlord was not able to extract the relevant information from its own records which was a record keeping failure. Furthermore, it meant it did not possess sufficient information to be able to monitor the progress of works itself which was also inappropriate. This is because it could not review live data to ensure it provided a timely response.
The resident emailed the landlord on 21 October 2022 to say that extractor fan had been replaced and the kitchen cupboard previously blocking the extractor fan moved. While this was a positive step, it had taken the landlord 2 months to carry out the works which was unreasonable and not in keeping with its repair timescales.
The resident also said that the kitchen cupboards were rusty and the window frames needed replacing. She asked for a copy of the report of the survey undertaken by the landlord in April 2022 and an update on when repairs would be carried out.
The landlord replied on 22 November 2022 to say that it would request the report and send it to her. However, there is no evidence that it did so which was inappropriate. It said the surveyor would raise all necessary and outstanding repairs.
The landlord took 1 month to reply to the resident and when it did, it was unable to provide a detailed response on the action it had taken to date or an estimated timescale for completion. Furthermore, it said there were still orders outstanding which needed to be raised by the surveyor. This was inappropriate, causing distress and frustration to the resident.
The resident emailed the landlord on 1 August 2023 to make her stage 1 complaint. She raised a number of outstanding repairs to the bathroom and kitchen. Given that this investigation does not have a copy of the survey carried out in April 2022 it is not possible to know if they were outstanding from that time. However, the wet room door seal door was outstanding from when the resident raised it almost a year before, on 12 August 2022. That the landlord had not yet completed the repair was unreasonable, causing disappointment and distress to the resident.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 15 August 2023 set out its response to the repairs, as follows:
1. Front and garden door repair – it raised a works order for a carpenter to inspect on 2 October 2023.
2. Glazing repair – it raised a works order for a glazer to inspect the windows on 16 November 2023.
3. Bathroom radiator – its contractor would contact the resident within 10 working days to arrange to carry out an inspection.
4. Wet room shower door – its repair guide stated that shower doors and curtain rails were the responsibility of the resident to maintain.
5. Shower water pressure and toilet flush – it raised a works order for a plumber to inspect on 23 August 2023.
6. Kitchen units – it raised a works order for a carpenter to inspect 29 September 2023.
While it was positive that the landlord booked a number of repairs appointments some of them had unreasonably long lead times. This protracted resolution of the repairs, causing avoidable distress to the resident. It was unreasonable that the landlord changed its position with regards to the wet room shower door having said on 22 September 2022 that it would replace the seal. Furthermore, its response was incorrect because the guidance does not refer to shower doors, but to “shower and curtain rails.”
In her stage 2 complaint of 24 August 2023 the resident said that the bathroom radiator had been inspected on 15 August. However, she had not received any further updates which was inappropriate, causing her distress. She challenged the landlord’s response regarding the shower door saying it had been inspected previously but the repair never took place. While this investigation does not doubt the resident’s comments, there is no independent evidence to support her statement therefore this investigation cannot make a determination on this point.
The resident said that due to the landlord telling her the wrong time for the appointment to inspect the toilet flush and shower water pressure, she missed it because she was not living at the property. This then created a further delay because it had to be rebooked for 15 September 2023. This caused inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident to be present for the second appointment.
Furthermore, the plumber said the shower water pressure would need to be investigation by an electrician. It was inappropriate that the repair had been booked in with the wrong trade. Not only did this delay the investigation, it caused inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident because she had to facilitate another appointment.
The resident highlighted that the kitchen had been adapted to meet the needs of disabled residents. She said the pulldown shelves in the cupboard had rusted because of the issue with the extractor fan, which had caused damp. She said now that the problem had been rectified 2 of the cupboard doors were “hanging off” because the latches were so rusty.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 12 September 2023 failed to provide a response to the resident’s specific points which was inappropriate. It only considered those repair appointments that were yet to be carried out. Furthermore, the brevity of its response shows that it did not carry out a meaningful investigation into the complaint.
It did not investigate the issues highlighted by the resident with the appointments that had taken place which was unreasonable. The landlord should have ensured any actions arising from the complaints process were completed, to ensure effective complaint resolution. It also caused detriment to the resident who did not benefit from an in depth review at stage 2. Furthermore, it meant that its decision to not uphold the stage 2 complaint was unreasonable. This was inappropriate, undermining the landlord/tenant relationship.
The resident advised that her kitchen had been adapted and met her needs owing to her disability. However, there is no evidence that the landlord had regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010 when considering its response. This was a failure because it had a duty to ensure that the kitchen remained fit for purpose.
In an email to this Service on 14 May 2024 the resident advised that the wet room door seal was not replaced and works to the window units, front door, bathroom radiator and shower water pressure remain outstanding.
The Ombudsman’s investigation was hampered by the poor quality of the landlord’s records that were provided to this Service. It was not able to provide a copy of the survey carried out in April 2022.
The repair logs initially provided for this investigation did not relate to the period of the complaint. The landlord was given the opportunity to resubmit this information.
It provided a spreadsheet with 9 entries relating to works orders raised for this complaint between April 2022 and December 2023. The log shows when the works order was raised and the booked appointment date. There is no record of what works were carried out and/or when works were completed. This is a record keeping failure.
In its response to this Service the landlord advised that “there are no known vulnerabilities recorded on our system.” This is a record keeping failure because the landlord’s own evidence does not support its position.
This includes an internal email dated 24 April 2018 relating to a ‘homesearch recommendation’ which matched the resident with the 1 bedroom bungalow. The note says “this match is for an accessible property, and community occupational therapist must be involved in the viewing.” In her email to the landlord on 12 October 2022 the resident pointed out that she was allocated the property due to her health and mobility problems. During her correspondence with the landlord the resident highlighted her disability.
A wider order was made in a previous determination, case reference 202124577, for the landlord to carry out a comprehensive review of its practices in relation to responding to record keeping. Therefore, it was not necessary to make a similar order in this case.
The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. The landlord failed to acknowledge its failures and therefore also failed to identify what had gone wrong and what it would do differently. Consequently, it did not consider how it could put things right for the resident, including an apology and/or how it might apply its compensation policy.
This investigation has identified the following failures by the landlord:
1. It failed to effectively manage the plumber’s appointment on 23 August 2023.
2. It failed to have regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010.
3. It did not adhere to the response times set out in its repairs guide.
4. It did not use the complaints process to provide a response to the all the points raised in the residents complaint and/or expedite the repairs.
5. It failed to acknowledge its failings, the detriment caused to the resident and how it could put things right.
6. There were record keeping failures.
The record keeping failures had a direct impact on the resident because the landlord did not provide a repairs response following the survey. Even when the issue was highlighted it still failed to complete the repairs in a timely manner. Furthermore, the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and made no attempt to put things right. The failings amount to maladministration because they adversely affected the resident. The landlord should be aware that this investigation would have made a finding of severe maladministration had the repairs been of a more serious nature, thereby increasing the detriment to the resident.
The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £600 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy where there has been high impact, reflecting that there were a number of failures which affected the resident.

Complaint Handling

The landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses were appropriately issued within the landlord’s timescales.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that the landlords complaint response must address all points raised in the complaint and it must provide clear reasons for any decisions. In her escalation request of 24 August 2023 the resident clearly set out her dissatisfaction with regards to a number of actions carried out by the landlord following its stage 1 response. The landlord failed to address these points which has been previously assessed as part of the response to the repair.
The Code says that complaints allow an issue to be resolved before it gets worse. The landlord failed to use the complaints process as an opportunity to reflect on its response and improve its service to provide a swift and efficient resolution of the outstanding repairs.
The failing amounts to service failure because there was failure which the landlord did not appropriately acknowledge or put right. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £50. This is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was a single minor failure and with the landlord’s compensation policy for low impact.

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.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £650 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £600 for the failures in its response to the resident’s request for repairs.
  2. £50 for the failure in its complaint handing.
2. In case reference 20212584, determined on 30 April 2024, the landlord was ordered to apologise to the resident. The apology should also include the failures identified in this investigation.
3. Write to the resident setting out an action plan for the completion of the outstanding repairs to the window units, front door, bathroom radiator and shower water pressure. It should confirm what works will be carried out, by whom and when. It should also set out its final position with regards to the wet room door seal. A copy should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.
Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of the case to identify learning outcomes and what it could do differently. A copy of the review should be provided to the resident and this Service, also within 6 weeks.