London Borough of Lambeth (202300429)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300429

Lambeth Council

25 June 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:
1. Response to outstanding repairs.
2. Response to an information request.
3. Complaint handing.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The Ombudsman is unable to investigate the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for copies of his tenancy file and records. Paragraph 42 (j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that this Service may not investigate matters which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. In this instance this aspect of complaint falls properly within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office and is about a matter which it has already decided upon.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. He has disclosed medical conditions to the landlord such as chronic kidney disease and Graves’ disease. He has lived at the property which is a 1 bedroom, 3 storey terraced house since 2014.
The tenancy agreement states as follows:
1. The landlord is responsible for:
  1. Maintaining the structure and outside of the property.
  2. Drains, stack pipes, gutters and outside pipes.
  3. Keeping in proper working order any fittings for supplying water, gas or electricity, toilet facilities and non-temporary heating inside the property.
2. The resident must let its officers, contractors or management agents enter the Property if it gives at least 24 hours’ written notice to:
  1. Inspect or survey.
  2. Carry out any repairs, gas servicing, treatment, or safety inspections.
  3. Carry out emergency work.
3. If a resident does not permit access after the landlord has given proper notice, it may force entry.
The landlord’s vulnerable residents policy states as follows:
1. For a resident to be considered vulnerable they must have at least one personal and at least one situational characteristic. Personal characteristics include having a disability or long term illnesses. A situational characteristic includes having “an inactive repairs history”.
2. It will refer vulnerable resident to external agencies to provide support.
The landlord’s repairs manual states as follows:
1. It categorises repairs as follows:
  1. Urgent Emergency – attend within 2 Hours and fix within 24 Hours.
  2. Emergency – fix within 1 working day.
  3. Routine – fix within 7 days (or three days for certain qualifying repairs under the Right to Repair regulations).
  4. Routine – fix within 28 Working Days.
  5. Planned – complete within 90 Days.
2. Residents are responsible for safety checks on any gas appliances they own, such as a gas cooker.
3. Vulnerable tenants have their repairs prioritised for quicker action.
The landlord had a specific policy for repairs and health and safety during COVID-19 (the timeframe of this policy is not clear however it was reviewed twice in 2022). It states as follows:
1. In case of a national lockdown, the following would be considered emergency – essential repairs include repairs where serious health and safety problems or severe damage could be caused.
2. As restrictions ease, the landlord will carry out the following repairs within 3 days:
  1. Tap renewals.
  2. Roof inspections only where a property is being affected by water ingress.
  3. Renewal of mortice locks / handles to FEDs.
  4. Sealant around bath, basin, kitchen sink.
  5. Loss of water (Non drinking water).
The right to repair scheme sets out timeframes which the Government expects landlord’s to complete specified repairs. It states as follows:
1. A partial loss of water supply should be responded to within 3 working days.
2. An insecure external door should be responded to within 1 working day.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints policy. At stage 1 (local resolution) it will respond within 20 working days. At stage 2 (final review) it will respond within 25 working days. If the landlord cannot meet the timeframes it should keep the resident informed.

Summary of events

Following reports of water penetration from the roof, the landlord replaced the roof and windows in 2016. There were subsequent works carried out to the parapet walls with coping stones having been added. The date of this work is not clear. This Service considered the resident’s concerns about how the landlord had responded to outstanding repairs at the property, including the roof, in 2017 (Housing Ombudsman case reference 201604621). This Service found maladministration by the landlord in the handling of the roof works. The resident subsequently commenced a disrepair case in the County Court in 2018. In respect of the legal case, a surveyor inspected the property in April 2019 and provided an expert witness statement to the Court which stated as follows:
1. The resident believed there was penetrating damp from the main roof however no direct evidence was found of this.
2. Guttering to the rear roof was dipping significantly which could be causing water to overspill.
3. There were drainage problems to sanitary fittings within the basement bathroom which required further investigation.
4. The bathroom radiator valve was leaking.
5. A socket faceplate to the kitchen stove was loose and was unable to accept a plug.
6. There were issues with the humidistat controls to the bathroom and kitchen extractor fans.
7. The resident had reported that the radiator to the first floor reception room did not get adequately warm. This required further investigation.
8. The resident had reported that daylight could be seen from the skirting.
9. The resident had reported that damp penetrated beneath the separate w.c. window.
10. There was no evidence of rising damp and no significant condensation problems.
11. In the first floor reception room, the resident had added some additional draught proofing material to the window. A more suitable sealant should be provided to prevent draughts.
12. The resident had reported that water appeared beneath the boiler in the kitchen during rainfall. This could be due to water entering the flue.
13. The lower lock to the front door did not appear to be functioning and only the upper lock was in use. The door was not particularly secure and a general overhaul was advised.
14. Although it was very likely that there were no problems of penetrating damp, the coping stones to the party parapet wall could be checked for soundness, together with the cement render finish.
Two subsequent roofing reports were provided to the Court in 2019 and 2020 which stated that the roofing should be checked and repointed.
The matter was settled in Court in June 2020 as follows:
1. The landlord was to pay the resident £4,170 in full and final settlement of the claim for housing disrepair up to 22 June 2020. This was inclusive of the £1,170 Housing Ombudsman compensation award.
2. The landlord was to carry out the remedial works set out in the surveyor’s report and roofing reports within 3 months. This was subject to reasonable access being given by the resident and to any public health restrictions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The resident commenced further legal proceedings against the landlord in October 2020. He stated that it had had not complied with the Court order and had not carried out the repairs.
In November 2020 the Information Commissioners Office responded to the resident in respect of a concern that the landlord had not disclosed his tenancy file to him. The ICO advised that it does not have the power to enter the landlord’s offices to check if their claims that the landlord released the files were true, and the only option was to bring the matter to the courts.
On 24 December 2020 the landlord advised the resident that contractors would be attending between 6 and 8 January 2021 to carry out the works.
In January 2021 the landlord’s solicitor subsequently advised the Court as follows:
1. The roofing works had been completed on 3 July 2020.
2. An electrician had inspected the property in February 2020 and had identified minor works.
3. Other works were outstanding but this was due to a backlog of work following the COVID-19 lockdowns. An appointment had been arranged for a surveyor to attend the property on 21 October 2020 to progress the outstanding works however the resident “refused to provide access in direct breach of his tenancy agreement”. As such the exceptions provided in the consent order for the works to be completed within 3 months applied.
The Court ruled in favour of the landlord and ordered the resident to pay £400 costs.
There was a gap in correspondence between June and November 2021 when the landlord raised a job to carry out the outstanding works as per the surveyor’s report and to remedy a leak from the sink. It is not clear if these works were carried out.
On 30 April 2022 the landlord raised a job to carry out the outstanding works as per the surveyor’s report. It is not clear if these works were carried out.
The landlord raised a job to investigate issues with the boiler on 25 July 2022.
On 2 August 2022 a representative submitted a complaint to the landlord on the resident’s behalf. The representative stated as follows:
1. The cold water supply in the kitchen had been shut off since November 2020. Temporary putty had been placed around the base of the kitchen tap (by the resident) to stop water entering the cupboards below.
2. The guttering had been poorly repaired and was not level. Water had penetrated kitchen cupboards which had allowed “infestation into the property”.
3. The wiring to the stove had not been inspected but had been signed off in the electrical report as being safe.
4. The resident had installed some tiles to prevent an infestation and as a result the water shut off valve could not be accessed.
5. The boiler had caused “near loss of life” on more than one occasion. It had previously made “very loud explosions” and had flooded the property.
6. The front door had not shut securely since 2014. Water was entering by the front door.
7. The back door was warped.
8. There was discoloration in the cement around the coping stones. The roof had not been signed off as safe and was a “risk to life”.
9. Garden fencing was falling down.
10. Daylight could be seen through parts of the skirting.
11. The bathroom radiator was leaking.
12. Since late 2020 the resident had stopped reporting repairs and had undertaken them himself at his own expense. The resident requested to know why the works were outstanding and no schedule of works had been given to him. He was “in great distress” and the matters had impacted his mental and physical health. He was attending bereavement counselling and wanted to move from the property.
That same day, the landlord’s solicitor responded to the resident’s complaint that it had not received authorisation from the resident to correspond with the representative.
On 8 November 2022 the landlord raised a job to trace and remedy the fault with the boiler and provide a report. Following this, on 6 December 2022, the landlord contacted the resident and advised that it had arranged for an independent surveyor from its Legal Surveying Services to inspect the property. The inspection took place on 12 December 2022 and the surveyor noted as follows:
1. The colour of the render to the parapet wall was different due to the mix used. No defects to the parapet wall were identified.
2. The gutter joint had come apart and was allowing water to escape. This required repairing.
3. No works were required to the boundary fence.
4. The rear exit door and locks required easing, adjusting and overhauling.
5. A new brush type draught excluder had been installed to the external face of the main entrance door frame. The door had twisted and did not shut securely. The night latch was defective. The surveyor had been able to push open the main entrance door with little effort despite the door being closed. A new door was required.
6. The boiler was operational.
7. There was no cold water available on demand to the kitchen sink. The sink base unit had historic water damage together with crude proofing works undertaken by the resident. A replacement sink base unit was required together with remedial works to restore the supply of cold water to the kitchen sink.
8. The kitchen extractor fan was operational.
9. No defects were identified with the electrical socket.
10. The electrical domestic installation certificate clearly identified that the cooker circuit had been tested and found to be acceptable.
11. The wall plaster in the rear bedroom was tested and found to be dry.
12. A gas-safe heating engineer was required to test the provision of space heating and undertake room sized calculations to ensure the property was fitted with the correct sized radiators.
13. There was no evidence of mouse or rat activity. As a precaution, specialist contractors should undertake a trial baiting programme to establish the level of vermin activity and provide a detailed report of remedial works identified.
14. The shower room extractor fan was found to be operational.
15. There was minor condensation related mould growth on the shower room ceiling plaster. All surfaces affected by mould growth required treating and decorating.
16. Water staining was evident to the radiator valves although it could not be established if this was historic or recent. A gas-safe heating engineer was required to undertake a thorough inspection of all pipework and connections and provide a detailed report of remedial works identified.
On 19 December 2022 the landlord noted in its repair log that the resident had reported an uncontainable water leak from the boiler. It is not clear if any action was taken.
The resident instructed his own gas engineer, who undertook a boiler inspection in Janaury 2023 and noted as follows:
1. The resident had reported that since 2018 the boiler had been making banging noises and vibrating. He could not use the hot water and central heating at the same time.
2. No operational checks were undertaken as permission had not been given by the landlord. A satisfactory “safe to touch test” was carried out along with a visual inspection of the gas meter and associated pipework. It was noted that the resident had a bowl directly below the boiler which had water in it.
3. The main protective bonding conductor was connected in an incorrect position and was not to current standards. The chimney/flue protruded past the outer wall. This was not in accordance with the manufacturer’s installation instructions. These defects were not considered to be unsafe.
On 25 January 2023 the landlord acknowledged the complaint and apologised for the delay in responding. It advised that the correspondence had been passed to its disrepair team to provide a response, as it was managed outside of its complaints policy.
The resident contacted this Service on 3 March 2023 and outlined the outstanding works.
On 18 April 2023 the landlord advised this Service that it had logged the matter as a “Final Review Complaint” and would respond by 15 May 2023.
On 11 May 2023 the landlord raised the following jobs:
1. Supply and fit a new front door. Ease and adjust the rear door.
2. Repair guttering.
3. Repoint brickwork.
4. Supply and fit a replacement sink base unit in the kitchen.
5. Treat bathroom surfaces affected by mould growth.
6. Carry out a roof inspection and carry out any recommended works.
7. Refix fencing.
The landlord responded at stage 2 on 15 May 2023 and stated as follows:
1. It apologised for the delay in sending the stage 1 response. It acknowledged that it would have been frustrating to receive a late response which did not address or resolve the resident’s concerns. It apologised for the “poor customer service” and for the distress and uncertainty caused. To acknowledge this it offered an goodwill gesture of £75 compensation.
2. It apologised for the “severe delay” to the repairs. This was caused by the COVID-19 lockdown as well as transferring to a new contractor. It offered £300 compensation as a goodwill gesture for the delay to the repairs.
3. It offered to undertake a pre-works inspection the week commencing 22 May 2023.
4. It signposted the resident to this Service.
The resident applied to the County Court on 11 June 2023 to ask it to consider the landlord’s response to the outstanding repairs and that it had breached the Court order in respect of the repairs.
On 22 June 2023 the resident advised this Service that the landlord had a “campaign of harassment” against him. He stated that in 2022 a surveyor misrepresented himself as being independent. Following the inspection he was not provided with the report or a schedule of works. Subsequently, an “illegal certificate” was issued in respect of the dangerous boiler.
A further surveyor inspection took place in late June 2023. This Service has not seen a copy of this report.
On 4 July 2023 the resident asked the landlord if he could instruct his own gas engineer. The landlord advised that day that the boiler replacement would be taking place on 6 July 2023. The contractor advised the landlord on 6 July 2023 that it had attended as planned, however the appointment could not go ahead as the resident had refused to move his possessions and had said it was for the landlord to do so. The resident had advised the contractor that he “can’t be bothered” to move his belongings from under the stairs to enable the contractor to gain access to the gas meter and inspect a leak. He did not want the contractor’s tools in the property and had set up cameras in the property.
The landlord’s disrepair team attended the resident’s address on 25 August 2023 to inspect the property. Following this it emailed him the schedule of works. This has not been provided to this Service. The resident chased up the works in September 2023. He stated that the landlord had wrongly distributed the surveyors report which had been an unauthorised expert witness statement and as such his personal safety was at risk.
On 5 September 2023 the landlord advised the resident that as it was a legal disrepair case, it should have assigned a case worker in order to manage the works. It stated that in respect of the works, it could offer an appointment the week commencing 25 September 2022. On 7 September 2023 the disrepair team advised that the works to replace the doors had been allocated to its door specialist.
On 26 September 2023 the resident submitted a complaint and stated as follows:
1. No works had been carried out since the surveyor report in 2020.
2. He questioned the landlord’s record keeping and stated that the “dangerous boiler” was one of the threats to safety he had repeatedly reported for many years.
3. Whenever he had requested a schedule of works over the years, the works would abruptly stop.
4. Following a leak from his boiler, he had shut it down from 10 August 2023 and could only turn it on in quick bursts at a risk to his safety.
5. It was causing him “great stress”.
On 28 September 2023 the landlord noted internally that a contractor had attended as planned on 25 August 2023, however the resident had turned him away as he was about to go out. The resident had stated he had not received a schedule of works, however the landlord noted this had been emailed to him shortly after 25 August 2023.
On 23 October 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and stated as follows:
1. In respect of the planned boiler replacement from July 2023 it was not accurate that he had blocked access.
2. Leaking pipes had not been resolved.
3. The defective radiators had not been changed.
4. The replacement front door had not been provided.
That same day, the landlord noted internally that it had tried to visit the resident on 12 October 2023 but there had been no access. It would try to arrange an appointment for 2 November 2023 to complete a vulnerability survey. It further noted on 27 October 2023 that the boiler needed to be resolved quickly due to how long it had been ongoing and the worsening weather.
On 10 November 2023 the resident submitted a complaint and stated as follows:
1. His bereavement counsellor had advised him of allegations that he had blocked works. This had left him confused and upset and almost resulted in the termination of his counselling sessions.
2. The works outlined by his representative in 2022 were still outstanding.
3. The landlord was trying to “severely damage” him to help the landlord win the appeal case at Court.
4. A contractor had attended unannounced on 7 November 2023. He asked for this to be rearranged to 9 November 2023 but the contractor had failed to attend.
5. A surveyor had inspected the property in December 2022. He had been advised this was an independent surveyor but it was in fact an “unauthorised expert witness” acting for the landlord. This individual took picture which effectively amounted to “a manual on what I have & how to break in”. This led to him losing sleep.
6. The landlord repeatedly declined to let him instruct his own contractor. It blocked access to the resident’s Gas Safe engineer and then issued an illegal gas safety certificates keeping the “threat to life” in place.
On 21 November 2023 the landlord noted internally that the resident had not responded to it trying to organise the works and that he was refusing to co-operate. It noted that it was planning to commence the works on 11 January 2024.
On 1 December 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and stated as follows:
1. It had sent him a “threat of termination” with a financial fine.
2. He was living in cold temperatures. He asked to be able to instruct his own gas engineer as he was “living with danger of the L2 boiler warning”.
3. He requested that his front door be replaced for his protection.
The resident contacted this Service on 7 December 2023 and stated as follows:
1. He wanted to be able to instruct his own gas engineer.
2. The landlord had subjected him to a serious campaign of “siege and retribution” which included, living with the rats, a front door that could be pushed open, a leaking roof and a dangerous boiler. He believed this was as a result of him appealing the Court case from 2021.
3. He had no cold water in the kitchen since November 2021.
4. He would like to be reimbursed for heaters he had used to keep warm.
5. He requested “substantial damages” for the roof not having been resolved since 2017.
6. The landlord had misled the Court in 2021 by stating that he had blocked works.
7. Contractors had arrived unannounced, had not arrived when planned and a gas safety certificate had been issued illegally.
8. He had suffered severe sleep deprivation and prevented him returning to work or leaving the property for fear of intruders. He had been diagnosed with depression and anxiety.
9. It had impacted on his healing in respect of bereavement counselling.
10. The landlord had not complied with GDPR in respect of disclosing his tenancy file.

Correspondence following the involvement of this Service

On 2 Janaury 2024 the resident advised this Service that a neighbour had almost been hit by defective fencing in strong winds. He advised on 8 Janaury 2024 that he was requesting £673 expenses as follows:
1. Small radiators £75.
2. 2 large radiators £150.
3. Back up paraffin heater £21.
4. Tiles £120.
5. Microwave £75.
6. Wood (for infestation proofing) £60.
7. Locks £10 and £20.
8. Tap for toilet £6.
9. Thermal gun £20.
10. Pot scorers for infestation £20.
11. Sealants £60.
12. Tile grout/cement £40.
13. Duct tape £7.
14. CCTV/Alarm//Tools £127.
On 8 January 2024 the resident advised this Service as follows:
1. He was living in his kitchen with an oil radiator as he could not turn on the central heating. He had lost the proper use of all other rooms in the property due to the “arctic air”. This had caused him embarrassment, stress and anxiety and had ruined Christmases.
2. He had been diagnosed with very serious health defects with his internal organs which included palpitations due to the stress and anxiety. It had also severely impacted his mental health.
3. The leak into the living room had increased.
4. He requested that a “RICS” surveyor sign off the roof.
On 5 February 2024 the resident advised this Service as follows:
1. The disrepair team manager had attended on 30 Janaury 2024 to discuss the works. It was agreed that the roof would be inspected and repaired and a roof safety report done. All other disrepair would be actioned and it would reimburse the residents’ expenses.
2. He had then received a tenancy threat letter dated 23 Janaury 2024 which was contradictory to the promise of works.
In February 2024 and the resident advised the landlord that it had moved in an anti-social resident which caused a threat to his life and he requested to be rehoused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman cannot investigate matters that are the subject of court proceedings or were the subject of court proceedings where judgement on the merits was given, in accordance with paragraph 41 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The resident has confirmed to this Service that he has a current case pending in the County Court in respect of an appeal in respect of the repairs previously considered at court. Therefore, as these repairs are being considered by the Court, they cannot form part of this investigation:
1. Guttering.
2. Front door.
3. Sanitary fittings within the basement bathroom.
4. Bathroom radiator valve.
5. Socket faceplate.
6. Holes in the skirting.
7. Humidistat controls.
8. Radiator warmth.
9. Sealant to the first floor reception room window.
10. Coping stones to the party parapet wall.
11. Roofing works.
This Service is not a reactive service and as such this investigation only considers the matters investigated by the landlord during its internal complaints procedure which concluded on 15 May 2023. The resident subsequently reported further matters to the landlord and this Service. The following matters raised after the completion of the internal complaints procedure do not form part of this investigation. The resident may wish to progress these matters through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure:
1. Misrepresentation by a surveyor and the landlord’s use of the surveyor’s report.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for his new neighbour to be moved.
3. A missed contractor appointment from November 2023.
4. A neighbour almost being hit by defective fencing.
It is noted that the resident has stated that the situation in respect of the repairs impacted on his physical and mental health. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

Response to outstanding repairs

The repairs which can be considered in this investigation, (those which do not form part of Court proceedings and which were raised as part of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure) have been addressed separately.

A lack of cold water supply in the kitchen

The resident’s representative advised the landlord that the cold water had been shut off in the kitchen since 2020. This Service has not seen any evidence to suggest that the landlord had been informed of this prior to the stage 1 complaint on 2 August 2022.
Given the partial loss of water to the property, the landlord should have acted in accordance with the timeframe under the right to repair scheme in responding to this, namely 3 working days. There is no evidence that it did so and it did not arranged a surveyor to inspect this until 12 December 2022. This delay of 4 months in inspecting the issue was not appropriate or in line with its repairs policy. On attending in December 2022, the surveyor confirmed to the landlord that there was no cold water to the kitchen tap and that a new base unit was required. Despite this, it took the landlord until May 2023, a further 5 months, before it raised a job for this to be replaced.
The significant delays in responding to this aspect of the resident’s complaint were not reasonable and the landlord’s actions were not in line with its repairs policy. It is not clear from the landlord’s records if the cold water was re-established in May 2023 and as such the landlord did not demonstrate that it had put things right for the resident.
The resident has advised that to date the cold water tap is not working. It is ordered that the landlord ensure this is repaired within the next two weeks.

Stove wiring

The resident raised concerns within his stage 1 complaint (August 2022) that the wiring to the stove had not been inspected but had been signed as being safe. It took the landlord 4 months (until December 2022) to inspect the issue at which time the surveyor stated that the installation certificate clearly identified that the cooker circuit had been tested and found to be acceptable. It is noted that the resident disagreed that this testing took place. It is not for this Service to determine whether this test took place, instead it is focused on the landlord’s response to the resident’s concern. It was appropriate for the landlord to rely on the finding of the surveyor in respect of this query, that it had been appropriately inspected. It is noted however that there was an unreasonable delay in the landlord arranging the surveyor to inspect this matter, given the health and safety concern raised by the resident.

The boiler

Despite the resident raising health and safety concerns in respect of the boiler and being afraid to use it in August 2022, it took the landlord 4 months to arrange a surveyor to inspect it (12 December 2022). This was not reasonable or in line with its repairs policy. It is noted that the surveyor concluded that the boiler was operational and as such, at that point, it was appropriate for the landlord to rely on the surveyor’s assessment in respect of this. Despite this, the resident continued to report issues with the boiler and in January 2023 a surveyor advised the landlord that a bowl of water had been seen under the boiler. It is not clear if this was due to a leak from the boiler however the landlord agreed to replace the boiler in July 2023. This was 6 months after the concern in respect of the bowl of water had been raised. Given the numerous issues raised by the resident in respect of the boiler the landlord did not demonstrate that it had fully considered the condition of the boiler or the impact this was having on the resident. This was not reasonable.

A warped back door

The resident reported the issue with the back door on 2 August 2022. Following this it took the landlord until 12 December 2022, a delay of 4 months to inspect the rear door. This delay was not reasonable and upon inspection, the surveyor confirmed to the landlord that a repair was required. Despite this, the landlord did not raise a job for this work to be carried out until May 2023. This was 9 months after the resident reported the issue. Given that this repair involved an external door, and therefore it could reasonably be concluded that the security of the property was compromised, the landlord should have treated this with more urgency and should have responded in line with its repairs policy which it did not do.

Discoloration in the cement mix holding the coping stones in place

The surveyor confirmed that the discolouration was due to the mix used and that it did not present a safety risk. It was appropriate for the landlord to rely on this conclusion although the delay of 4 months from the report (August 2022) to the survey (December 2022) was not reasonable.
In summary, for the repair issues, the landlord did not act in accordance with the right to repair scheme nor its repairs policy in responding to the outstanding repairs. The landlord inappropriately delayed arranging a surveyor and following this, it delayed the completion of the works for at least 5 months. It is however acknowledged that the landlord was prevented at times from accessing the property to carry out repairs due to the resident’s unwillingness to permit access. When things go wrong this Service expects landlords to take steps to put things right and learn from mistakes. In this case the landlord appropriately acknowledged that there had been “severe” delays in its handling of the repairs. Whilst this acknowledgement was appropriate, the redress offered, (£300 as a goodwill gesture) was not sufficient to acknowledge the significant frustration and distress caused to the vulnerable resident over the period of time.
At no point did the landlord demonstrate that it had considered the resident’s vulnerabilities in how it responded to his concerns or carried out the repairs, this was contrary to its vulnerable residents policy. The landlord’s reliance of COVID-19 and changing contractors did not demonstrate learning from its failings or steps it would take to avoid this in the future. This was not appropriate. The landlords failings amount to maladministration. To acknowledge the impact of this on the resident, £500 compensation has been ordered. This is in addition to the landlord’s offer of £300 compensation.

Complaint handing

Despite having a 2 stage complaints process, as recommended by this Service, the landlord did not follow its complaints procedure. It did not respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and instead provided an acknowledgement in January 2023 which it later stated had been its stage 1 response. This Service expects complaint responses at stage 1 to address all aspect of a complaint and not to be an acknowledgement of the complaint. This inappropriate response, led to confusion for the resident who sought the involvement of this Service. It was only following the involvement of this Service that the landlord responded at stage 2 (the only written complaint response received by the resident in this case). This was not appropriate as stage 2 should have been an independent review of the investigation. This could not take place as no investigation had taken place at stage 1.
In total the landlord’s internal complaints procedure took from August 2022 to May 2023, a period of 9 months. This was not appropriate, and not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy or the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code (The Code.) It is also noted that the timeframes in the landlord’s complaints policy are not in line with the Code. An order has been made in respect of this below.
The landlord acknowledged that the response sent in January 2023 had not addressed or resolved the resident’s concerns and that this had caused frustration and uncertainty to the resident. Although compensation was appropriate to acknowledge the impact of this on the resident, the landlord’s offer of £75 was not sufficient. The landlord’s complaint handling failure amount to a service failure. To acknowledge the impact the failures had on the resident, this Service has ordered a further £100 compensation (£175 in total) in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused by this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42 (j) the landlord’s response to an information request is outside the jurisdiction of this Service.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to outstanding repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord took 4 months following the resident’s complaint to arrange a surveyor to inspect the property. Following the surveyor identifying outstanding works the landlord did not act in accordance with its repairs policy in completing the works nor did it offer reasonable compensation for its failures. The landlord did not demonstrate that it had considered the resident’s vulnerabilities when dealing with the repairs or assessing the level of compensation it offered.
The landlord did not follow its complaints procedure. It did not respond at stage 1 and only responded at stage 2 following the involvement of this Service. The internal complaints procedure took 9 months and the landlord’s offer of £75 compensation was not sufficient in respect of the impact this had on the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks and provide evidence of compliance:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this case.
2. Pay the resident £975 in compensation, broken down as follows:
  1. £500 to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the outstanding repairs.
  2. £300 as offered during the internal complaint process if not already paid.
  3. £100 to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
  4. £75 as offered during the internal complaint process if not already paid.
Review of its complaints policy in respect of the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code and self-assess again against the code in light of this case. If the landlord is unable to comply within the 4 weeks timeframe, it should provide an action plan of steps it will take to ensure the timescales of its complaints responses at stage 1 and 2 are compliant with the Code. The landlord should make sure compliance with the Code is achieved within the next three months.
It is ordered that the landlord attend to ensure that the cold-water tap has been repaired within the next two weeks and any outstanding repairs are completed within four weeks.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord review its vulnerable resident’s policy to consider whether both situational and personal characteristics need to be present for a resident to be classed as vulnerable.
It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to try to arrange access to the property in respect of the outstanding repairs.
it is recommended that the landlord resend a copy of the resident’s final response.