Lewisham Council (202346520)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202346520

Lewisham Council

28 November 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 concerns about a repair appointment.             

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of a 1-bedroom first floor flat, where the landlord is the freeholder of the building. The resident moved to the property in 2004. The resident advises he has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and anxiety.
3. On 15 November 2023 the resident reported to the landlord issues with the brickwork and rainwater pipe which he said caused water ingress and mould. The landlord contacted the resident the next day with an appointment scheduled for 19 January 2024.
4. On 22 January 2024 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. He said no one attended on 19 January 2024 as promised despite him waiting in all day. He added he waited 2 months for this appointment. On 9 February 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It did not uphold the complaint as it said its operative attended on 19 January 2024 and there was no access. The landlord said a no-access card was left on the door. It said the job had been cancelled as the resident had not got back to it within 48 hours. It raised another appointment for 5 March 2024. 
5. The same day the resident asked to escalate the complaint. He disputed that the landlord’s operative attended on 19 January 2024 as he was in all day, and there was no problem with his doorbell. He said as he had accommodated subsequent unannounced visits, he felt this proved he would have answered the 19 January 2024 appointment. He said there was no card left to the main door, and had there been, he would have called back within 48 hours to reschedule. He added the situation caused unnecessary stress.
6. On 14 March 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 final response where it did not uphold the complaint. It reiterated that its operative advised a card was left. It added information was logged onto the system by its operative, and it apologised if the information was incorrect. Further, it said its operative notes state the resident’s contact details were not added to the job so they were unable to call the resident when they were outside. It said it forwarded this feedback onto its repairs team to ensure residents contact details were added when logging jobs.
7. The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman on 16 March 2024. He queried why the landlord had apologised that the information logged by the operative may be incorrect, but did not uphold the complaint. He was unhappy that he had waited 2 months for the appointment and explained he had waited in to accommodate the contractor and disputed that a no access card was left. As a resolution, he wanted the landlord to fully resolve the water ingress and damp and mould, and compensation. 

Assessment and findings

8. The landlord’s website sets where it has a repairs responsibility, reports will be logged and ordered promptly. It adds if it misses an appointment, it will contact the resident apologise and rearrange the visit. The landlord’s website also sets out if the resident provides a mobile number when requesting a repair, it may send an appointment confirmation text immediately. It would then text to let the resident know the operative was on their way and what time they are expected to arrive. It further states if an operative arrives at a resident’s home but cannot gain access, they will telephone to check whether the resident is home or not. If there is no answer to the call, the operative will leave a card at the property. The resident would then need to contact the landlord to rearrange the appointment.
9. On 15 November 2023 the resident raised a report of water ingress which he attributed to potential faulty brickwork and/or the communal rainwater pipe. The Ombudsman has seen a form which was sent to the landlord’s repairs team on this date. The landlord subsequently raised an appointment for the 19 January 2024 but this appointment did not go ahead. The landlord asserted that the resident did not provide access. The resident disputed this. He informed both the landlord and this service he was home that day and that no card was put ‘on’ the door or posted through the letter box of the entrance door.
10. The Ombudsman not seen evidence that a card was put through the door as per its website. Although the landlord’s repair logs show it logged the repair on  16 November 2023 and an arranged an appointment for 19 January 2024, it does not provide any narrative or notes about the appointment such as whether the operative was able to gain access. Additionally, the landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with a photograph of a no access card. In this case, there is no evidence to dispute the resident’s assertions. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that it is likely the appointment did not go ahead.
11. In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it stated that its operative advised it that the resident’s contact details were not added to the job so they were unable to call the resident when they were outside. It added the resident’s contact details should have been noted on the job notes when initially raised. The initial form raised by the resident, which was sent from the landlord to its repairs team on 15 November 2023, contained the resident’s contact details including a mobile phone number. This would indicate that the landlord and its operative likely had the resident’s mobile number when this job was raised.
12. Furthermore, the resident’s contact number was included in a ‘special instruction’ which was shown on the repairs logs. In this case, on the basis that the operative had the ability to log information, this ‘special instruction’ would likely been available to them. In any case, the operative could have contacted the landlord to obtain the resident’s phone number. This was a service failure and, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence to suggest the landlord followed its process regarding appointments as per its website. 
13. The landlord’s final response also said that its operative may have included incorrect information. Whether this was poorly phrased, it clearly sounded like the landlord was unclear on whether the appointment was attended by its operative or not. Therefore, the landlord’s decision to not uphold the complaint was inappropriate. In this case, the Ombudsman has not seen the operative’s notes and there is no evidence to reconcile the landlord’s assertions in its formal responses.
14. Although the Ombudsman cannot definitely say whether the appointment was attended to by the operative or not, in the circumstances, the landlord should have recognised this and apologised that there was insufficient evidence to say whether the appointment was attended and offered some compensation for a remedy. However, it did not.
15. Overall, the landlord failed to adequately demonstrate that its operative attended the property on 19 January 2024 and there is no evidence that the landlord adhered to the guidance on its website. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, who felt that its operative simply did not show up and the landlord was unable to prove otherwise. In line with this service’s remedies guidance, awards of up to £100 should be considered where there has been a minor failure that has caused distress and inconvenience to a resident. This has been considered as part of the Ombudsman’s orders.
16. In the resident’s referral to this Service he said the issue with water penetration and damp and mould remained unresolved. He added that at no point has a damp and mould survey been undertaken by the landlord. While this matter does not form part of this assessment, the resident has referred another complaint to the Ombudsman regarding water penetration and damp and mould which is currently awaiting investigation and will be determined in due course.

Determination

17. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to concerns about a repair appointment.             

Orders and recommendation

Orders

18. Within 28 calendar days of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £100 for the failings identified in this report.
19. The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within 28 calendar days to confirm that it has complied with these orders.

Recommendation

20. The landlord should ensure that it provides residents’ contact details to its contractors when arranging an appointment.
21. The landlord should confirm its intentions in regard to this recommendation to this Service within 28 calendar days of the date of this report.