London Borough of Lambeth (202230674)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230674

Lambeth Council

28 October 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 reports of:
1. Various repairs.
2. Damp and mould in the property.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The lease began in March 2003.The lease is held jointly between mother and daughter who both reside in the property. The daughter has raised the complaint on behalf of both her and her mother and will be referred to as the resident in this report. The property is a 5-bedroom flat. The landlord advised that it has no known vulnerabilities recorded for the resident but is aware that one of the leaseholders is elderly.
On 30 March 2023, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. She said the landlord had not responded or resolved the following issues that she had raised:
1. There was damp and mould in the front of her property as a result of outstanding repair/ remedial issues to the external areas of the block.
2. Following major works completed in 2017/18 to the exterior of the block the guttering was still leaking to the rear of the property which had caused damp and mould in the rear of her property.
3. A leak from the communal area causing water ingress to her ceiling had still not been resolved despite reports to the landlord.
4. Condition of her window and the condensation in her bedroom.
5. A damaged drain cover at the rear of the property which caused a foul smell.
6. The landlord’s handling of her reports in relation to the quality of the major works to the block.
On 28 April 2023, the landlord sent its stage 1 response. It said in respect of major works it would like to arrange an inspection of the defects reported. It said it had tried to contact the resident to arrange this and asked her to let it know her availability. In respect of the leaks, it said.
1. On 21 July 2021 it had raised a repair to the guttering and to clear a blocked drain. Its records show that the repair was completed on 13 January 2022.
2. A new order was issued on 2 September 2022, and this was completed.
3. Reports were received of a leak affecting the communal staircase and an order was issued on 14 November 2022. An operative attended on 23 November 2022. The operative inspected the resident’s home and the communal area. There was no evidence of a leak, and the resident also confirmed that her home was dry. The order was closed.
The landlord said that it appeared there were no active leaks. It explained that as a leaseholder the resident was responsible for individual pipework that serves her home. It suggested she contact a contractor or have a survey undertaken to determine the cause of the issue if it persists. If the findings suggest that the landlord is responsible for repairs, it could arrange for a surveyor to attend to conduct a further inspection.
It explained that any claim for damages should be sought through her content’s insurance or the landlord’s building insurance. It partly upheld the resident’s complaint as it accepted that its response to repair the guttering and clear the blocked drain in July 2021 had been delayed and it failed to keep the resident updated. It apologised for the inconvenience caused.
On 6 October 2023, the resident raised a stage 2 complaint. She said she remained dissatisfied with the following:
1. She said she did not have a conversation with the operative who attended on 22 November 2022.
2. She had reported on numerous occasions in 2021 and 2022 a damaged stack pipe which was causing a terrible smell.
3. In respect of major works, she had been visited but had had no further contact.
4. The damp on the external wall and leaking guttering had led to damage in her property. This required urgent attention as air vents should have been installed prior to her moving into the property to prevent damp and mould. The mould was causing health issues to her family member who was disabled. It had also caused damage to her furniture. She disagreed that the damp and mould was her responsibility. She had submitted an independent report over a year ago regarding the damp and mould.
5. There were ongoing sewage issues from blocked drains causing stagnant dirty water to accumulate on the ground at the front of the property and smells from manholes situated in the garden at the front of the house. Contractors had attended on 4 October 2023 to unblock the sewage system but a deep clean was now required to destroy the bacteria.
6. The brickwork was crumbling and required pointing which should have been addressed in the major work scheme completed in 2017/18.
7. She considered that it was unreasonable that she had had to pay for service charges and major works given the condition of her property.
On 15 December 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It apologised for its delays in the resolution of the repair issues. It said it had conducted a survey of the external issues on 12 December 2023. It identified blocked rainwater outlets and wet brickwork which would be contributing to the internal dampness. It listed the works that it had raised. It said it would complete an inspection of the roof covering and required works would also be raised.
The landlord advised that it had completed a CCTV drain survey and it had raised extensive repairs as a result. It said that the drainage repair works would also rectify the smell issue. In relation to vents being installed in the property it said this was not its responsibility as the resident was a leaseholder.

Post complaint

The resident contacted this Service because she remained dissatisfied. She said the issues had been going on for years causing damage and she wanted them resolved.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of various repairs.

As part of her complaint about the various repairs the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the major works that were completed in 2017/18. She considered that the major works had not been completed or were inadequate which had caused the various repair issues. She told this Service that she had raised complaints to the landlord at the time but had not escalated them further.
In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the resident to have escalated her concerns about the major works sooner so that the issues could have been investigated by the landlord and this Service while they were ‘live'”. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
Therefore, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence. It is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of various repairs. This will not include consideration of the quality of the major works which were completed in 2017/18.
The records provided to this Service show reports of repairs dating back to 2020. They show that the resident reported issues relative to this complaint on or around June 2021. This Service acknowledges the resident’s concerns that the issues had been present since around 2018 when the major works were completed. However, given the passage of time, and availability of evidence this service has only investigated the landlord’s responses from June 2021 onwards. This is in line with the approach set out in our Scheme that states we can only investigate matters that were brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable timeframe.
In respect of the resident’s concerns about service charges which include payments towards the major works completed in 2017/18. This investigation has focused on the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns raised in the timeframes set out above. It is not within our remit to determine whether service charge was payable, or the reasonableness of the charges during the relevant periods. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and the resident would be advised to seek free and independent advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) ( https://www.lease-advice.org) in relation to how to proceed with a case, should she wish to do so.
The lease states that the landlord must repair and keep in good condition the exterior walls, joists and floors of the buildings. This includes the whole of the structure, roof, chimney, stacks, gutters, rainwater pipes and window frames. It should keep all conduits laid in good repair and condition. The lease states that the resident is responsible to repair the glass in the windows, the ceilings, non-structural walls and partitions within the property.
The landlord’s repair policy also confirms the leaseholder is normally responsible for the repairs inside the property. It states the landlord will undertake all repairs to the outside of the building and common areas. It states it will claim back the cost of these repairs through the service charge billing process. The policy states it has 5 repair priorities, but it does not explain how repairs are specifically classified. Its response times range from 24 hours to 90 days.
The resident raised concerns about various repairs within her complaints. They included a damaged drain, stack pipe and sewage issues. She said there was stagnant dirty water outside of her property and foul smells. She also said the brickwork required pointing as it was crumbling.
A leak detection survey completed on 2 November 2022 identified that an external soil pipe was falling apart and allowing water to seep out. The records provided do not show that the landlord remedied the issue at this point despite being put on notice.
In March 2023, the resident’s stage 1 request included reports about a damaged drain cover at the rear of the property which caused a foul smell. On 26 June 2023, the resident reported that there was a blocked drain outside the property which was causing a back flow through the manhole cover. A further report was made on 12 July that a soil stack was blocked.
In the resident’s stage 2 request she said there were ongoing sewage issues. She said that contractors had attended on 4 October 2023 to unblock the sewage system but a deep clean was now required to destroy the bacteria.
A report was also made in November 2023 stating that blocked pipes outside were causing blockages in her sink. The records do not show whether the landlord responded to any of these reports and if it did what action it took. It is acknowledged that the resident said the landlord had attended on 4 October, but the records do not show this. This is a failing in its handling of the matter and evidence of poor record keeping.
The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence provided in this case is minimal. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response it said that following a CCTV drain survey it was going to carry out repairs to the drainage system. This Service has not had sight of the CCTV drain survey, so it is unknown when this was completed.
It said that all the points raised by the resident relating to drainage and smells would be rectified once these works were completed. It failed however to provide timescales of when these works would be completed. Furthermore, it failed to address the resident’s concerns that a deep clean was required following its attendance to the sewage system on 4 October 2023.
The landlord must ensure that its homes meet the Decent Homes Standard. This was updated in 2006 to take account of the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) which lists sanitation and drainage as a potential hazard. It therefore follows that it would have been appropriate for the landlord to closely monitor the works to ensure that they were carried out as quickly as possible. Furthermore, it should have ensured it responded to the resident’s concerns about sanitation and the requirement of a deep clean. That it did not was a failing in its handling of the matter.
The landlord has provided a copy of a report showing that drainage works were completed in January 2024. The works included excavation of the ground and relaying of faulty underground pipework. It is unknown whether these works have resolved all of the issues concerning blocked soil stacks, smells and stagnant water.
This Service contacted the landlord in October 2024. We asked the landlord to provide evidence that the repairs, drainage and smell issues had been resolved. The landlord’s response was vague. It said works were still ongoing. This lack of clarity has been considered in the orders made below.
The issue raised by the resident in her stage 2 complaint about crumbling brick work was not specifically addressed within the landlord’s complaint response. This is a further failing in its handling of the matter which has also been considered in the orders and compensation below.
In summary this Service considers the series of failings identified above amount to severe maladministration. This is because the landlord repeatedly failed to provide a response to the various repairs raised. It failed to show any communication with the resident about the repairs. It has not been possible to determine when the landlord completed some of the repairs, due to its poor record keeping.
Furthermore, it has not been possible to determine if all the repairs have now been completed. It is evident however the repairs were or are still outstanding for an unreasonable period. The landlord’s response to the failures exacerbated the situation. This further undermined the landlord/tenant relationship.
The resident was inconvenienced by the delays. She had to continue to live with the uncertainty of the ongoing repair issues for approximately 2 years. She had expressed concerns about bacteria from the sewage which were not addressed. The inconvenience was increased by the fact she had to repeatedly raise the repairs. She was then put to further time and inconvenience in pursuing her complaint with this Service.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.

It is recognised the situation was distressing and inconvenient for the resident and her family. Its adverse impact on the family’s welfare is also acknowledged. It may help to explain that, unlike a court, the Ombudsman is unable to establish liability, so we cannot calculate or award damages. Nor can we evaluate medical evidence. On that basis, the resident’s concerns around loss of earnings and any damage to her family’s health are beyond the scope of this assessment. The Ombudsman can assess whether a landlord offered sufficient redress for the distress and inconvenience it caused.
The landlord has a responsibility under Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) highlights the potential harm that damp and mould can cause. It provides recommendations for landlords. This includes adopting a zero-tolerance approach and proactively reviewing the homes and buildings landlords manage or lease.
The resident was experiencing water ingress into her property. She said that a leaking gutter and damp on the external walls had caused damp and mould within her property. She also said that a leak coming in from the communal area was causing damage.
The records show that the resident raised the blocked guttering issue in June 2021, July 2021 and then again in September 2022. The repair records provided are vague. They do not specifically state that there was a damp and mould issue. It is therefore unclear when the landlord was first put on notice that damp and mould was present. The records do not evidence what action if any was taken in response. Furthermore, the records do not show that the landlord had kept the resident informed during this period. That it does not is a failing in the landlord’s record keeping and its handling of the matter.
The landlord said within its stage 1 response that an order to complete the guttering works was raised on 21 July 2021. It said that the repairs were then completed on 13 January 2022. It is unclear what records the landlord relied upon within its stage 1 response to enable it to conclude when the works were completed.
In its stage 1 response the landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint about the guttering as it accepted that it had delayed in responding to the reports. It said that it had not kept the resident informed in respect of the delays. It apologised but offered no explanation or learning and failed to consider whether compensation was appropriate. By not considering what had gone wrong it failed to put matters right.
In respect of the leak from the communal area into the resident’s property. The records show that the issue was logged on 25 June 2021 and again on 14 November 2022. The notes state that the leak was causing damage to the resident’s property. The records again do not specify that damp and mould was an issue. Furthermore, the records do not show what action the landlord took or whether it communicated with the resident. The lack of information shows that its record keeping was inadequate. This has been a continuous failing throughout this investigation.
The records do however show that a leak detection survey was completed on 2 November 2022. This was appropriate action to take by the landlord given the resident’s reports. The survey said that the resident had been experiencing mould within one of the back bedrooms for some considerable time. This means that the landlord was aware that mould was present at this point. The survey involved an inspection of the interior and exterior of the property. The landlord mentioned an inspection taking place on 23 November 2022 within its stage 1 response. The reference to the inspection and the findings in the survey appears to be the same. However, the different dates given in the complaint response are confusing.
The outcome of the survey was that there were no live leaks or damp. It said it had only been able to detect mould. It said that the issues were due to lack of/or inadequate ventilation within the room. The survey identified that an external soil pipe was falling apart and allowing water to seep out. It said that this needed to be addressed to prevent further issues in the future. The soil pipe repair has already been considered in this investigation above. It is acknowledged that the resident disagreed with the overall findings of the survey. It is however reasonable for a landlord to rely on the findings of its specialist contractors.
The survey recommended that a professional clean be completed to remove the existing mould. It also said that it would recommend ventilation be installed in the walls of the bedroom to assist with air circulation and prevent issues of mould.
It is unknown whether the survey was shared and/or discussed with the resident. It is also unknown whether any of the recommendations were completed by the landlord following the survey. This coincides with the continued poor record keeping found during this investigation. If the landlord considered it had no duty to complete the recommendations due to the property being leasehold. It should have set out its position to the resident. That it had not was a further failing. This failing has been considered in the orders below.
It is acknowledged that the resident states she had shared an independent report with the landlord, but this Service has not had sight of any other surveys relating to the causes of damp and mould within her property other than the one that took place in November 2022.
In respect of the installation of air vents. This Service is aware of the resident’s comments that these should have been installed when the property was purchased. The property sales process is a formal and legal one. There are rules and regulations about the information provided to prospective buyers, and solicitors play an important role in advising and guiding their clients in the process. As the legal system is the more effective and appropriate organisation to consider the leaseholder’s concerns regarding the condition of the property when purchased. In line with 42(g) of the Scheme, this part of the complaint is not one the Ombudsman will investigate.
The landlord changed its position in its stage 2 response issued in December 2023. This was based on a survey it had just completed a few days prior. This was reasonable. It showed that it had considered the issue again despite no issues being found previously. The landlord said that it had found wet brickwork which would be contributing to the dampness within the resident’s property. It set out works it would complete to resolve the matter.
The landlord had already signposted the resident to its own insurance to make a claim in respect of the damage to her belongings and property in its stage 1 response. It is unknown whether the resident pursued this at that point. The landlord should have reiterated this option again within its stage 2 response. Particularly as it had now identified an issue that it was responsible for. That it did not was a missed opportunity to put matters right and resolve at an earlier stage.
In summary this Service considers the landlord’s failings amount to maladministration. It took almost 17 months from June 2021 for the landlord to investigate the issue and complete a leak detection survey in November 2022. It is however unclear precisely when the landlord was informed that there was an issue with mould in the property.
While the findings of the survey in November 2022 are acknowledged. There was no evidence to show that it had shared its findings or that it had set out its position relating to the recommendations.
The landlord was then put on notice in March 2023 that the issues were continuing which included damp and mould. It then took a further 9 months to inspect the property to establish whether it had any repair liability. The delays in completing investigations by the landlord during this time is concerning given the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on damp and mould was published in October 2021. The landlord’s delays and lack of clear communication was also unreasonable and did not demonstrate the “proactive interventions” called for in the Spotlight report.
The resident had to spend considerable time and effort chasing the landlord. Furthermore, she had to live with the uncertainty of what if any action the landlord was taking. She had also raised concerns that the damp and mould was impacting a disabled member of her household.
The lack of records showing what it had done and how it had communicated with the resident hindered this investigation. Meaning that this service has been unable to fully assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. This is a failing in the landlord’s record keeping and has caused the resident further time and inconvenience in having to pursue her matter further.
This Service contacted the landlord in October 2024 to query whether the works relating to the damp ingress and external parts of the building had now been completed. The landlord’s response was vague. It sent copies of works orders and said that the works were ongoing. It said that scaffolding was due to be erected on 10 October 2024. The fact that the works still remain outstanding 10 months after its stage 2 response has also been considered in the compensation and orders below.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

The landlord’s complaints policy states when it wants to resolve complaints straight away it will be passed to the officer who can resolve the issue which it calls “early resolution.” It will contact the resident and agree actions to resolve the issue and agree timescales. At this stage, the resident would not receive a written response however should they wish for a written response then this will become a “local resolution stage.”
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it operates a 2 stage complaints process. Stage 1, which it calls the ‘local resolution’ stage, and stage 2 which it calls the ‘final review’ stage. It states that it will provide a response to its stage 1 within 20 working days. Its policy is silent on when it will respond at stage 2.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that stage 1 complaints should be responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord’s policy was not therefore reflective of the timescales set out in the code. However, this Service is aware that since this complaint the landlord has updated its policy to align with the Code.
The resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 30 March 2023. The landlord responded 20 working days later on 28 April 2023. This was not in accordance with the timescales set out in the Code and a failing.
The landlord’s stage 1 response did not show a meaningful assessment of the issues the resident had raised. It gave a brief history of action it had taken in the past relating to the leaks. Where it did find that there was a shortfall it failed to explain how the failings had occurred. It was also silent on what it would do to prevent similar happening again. This was a further shortcoming in its handling of the complaint.
The Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. The landlord’s complaint response failed to address all of the issues raised by the resident in particular the resident’s concerns that repairs were still outstanding and there was damp and mould in her property. This was a further failing and a missed opportunity to consider how it could put matters right at a much earlier stage. The complaint handling failings caused the resident time and effort having to pursue her complaint further.
The records show that the resident informed this Service that she had been trying to escalate her complaint in September 2023. This Service does not dispute the resident’s version of events but has not had sight of any evidence to show a complaint was raised with the landlord in September 2023. The evidence does show that a stage 2 escalation request was sent to the landlord on 6 October 2023. This Service also contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf to request an escalation on 1 December 2023. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 15 December 2023. This was 51 working days after the resident’s original escalation request in October 2023. This was outside of the timescales provided within the Code and a failing.
The landlord’s stage 2 response failed to show that it had investigated its handling of the issues raised. By not investigating what had gone wrong it failed to put matters right. It did advise what action it would take to try to rectify the issues moving forwards. It failed however to provide any timescales for when the issues would be resolved and how it would monitor matters to ensure resolution. The resident experienced an inconvenience of raising concerns about the landlord’s handling of the repairs, without receiving a detailed response.
This Service considers the above complaint handling failures amount to maladministration. At both stages of the complaint there was a failure to respond within the relevant timescales. The responses demonstrated a lack of investigation and curiosity. It failed to consider all of the issues the resident had raised. The complaint response failed to put things right, consider redress or provide a meaningful apology. The landlord failed to learn from its mistakes. In determining an appropriate order for compensation, consideration has been given to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

Special report findings.

In February 2022, the Ombudsman issued a special report about the landlord, highlighting concerns with its record keeping relating to repairs and complaint handling. The report recommended the landlord review its record keeping relating to repairs and its complaint handling procedures to reduce the risk of similar failures in the future.
We continued to identify problems with the landlord’s performance, reaching findings of maladministration and severe maladministration following investigations into 20 separate complaints from residents.
In June 2023 we told the landlord of our intention to carry out an inspection to find out the reasons for its ongoing failures in complaint handling. In December 2023 we issued a report setting out our findings with further recommendations for service improvement.
In this investigation we have identified failures similar to those that led to our special report in 2022 and subsequent inspection in 2023. We therefore order the landlord to consider the findings highlighted in this investigation against the recommendations in our special report of February 2022 and our inspection report of December 2023.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of various repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within the next 28 days:

Apologise to the resident for the failures identified by this investigation.

Pay the resident £1750 compensation broken down as follows:
1. £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s reports of various repairs.
2. £700 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
3. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint.

Within 8 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to write to the resident to set out its position relating to the outstanding repairs. It must provide a list of the repairs that are still outstanding. It should include timescales in which it will complete the repairs. It should also provide a point of contact for the resident who will oversee the repairs until completion. A copy of this letter should be provided to this Service also within 8 weeks.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should carry out a review of the case to identify what went wrong. It should satisfy itself that the changes it has made in response to the Ombudsman’s special reports will ensure that such failures will not reoccur. If not, it should develop an action plan. The landlord should write to the resident to set out the outcome of its review, including the action plan if relevant. A copy should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 8 weeks.