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

London Borough of Lambeth (202333409)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333409

Lambeth Council

16 January 2025


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:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports of leaks from a neighbour’s balcony, damaged brickwork, defective drains, and a leaking stack pipe.
    2. Response to the resident’s reports of leaking guttering.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Jurisdiction

  1. Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman “may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”. In accordance with this, this investigation will not consider the above aspect of the complaint as it has not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
  2. On 23 December 2024, the resident told this Service that the landlord had not addressed all the repairs that were outstanding in the property. These were:
    1. Defective drains, which she reported on 29 December 2020.
    2. A leak into her shed from the balcony above, which she first reported on 14 November 2022.
    3. Defective brickwork, which she reported on 12 December 2023.
    4. A leaking stack pipe, which she reported on 25 April 2024.
  3. However, the complaint the resident made to the landlord on 19 April 2024 specifically quoted a job number relating to a repair to the external water pipe for guttering. This was the issue to which the landlord responded in its complaint responses. It is not evident that the resident raised the other issues as part of a complaint, therefore, the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond to the resident’s dissatisfaction with the other repairs.
  4. After careful consideration, the complaint about the leaks from a neighbour’s balcony, damaged brickwork, defective drains, and a leaking stack pipe complaint is outside of the Ombudsman jurisdiction.
  5. The Ombudsman understands that the resident is currently dealing the landlord to progress these repairs. If she remains dissatisfied, she may wish to raise a complaint about these. Once the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure, we may be able to investigate the issues.

Background

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of the property, which is a ground floor flat. The landlord is the freeholder of the property.
  2. On 12 December 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that an external water pipe for the guttering was broken and leaking water across the front of her property. This repair was marked complete on 24 January 2024.
  3. On 19 March 2024, the resident informed the landlord that she was dissatisfied with the handling of the repair. She said she was told that pictures were taken of the issue, and this would be reported back to the landlord. The resident was unhappy that the landlord had not updated her on the repair and wanted to escalate the matter.
  4. On 19 April 2024, the landlord logged a stage 1 complaint for the resident. It recorded that she was unhappy with how long it was taking to address the leak which was causing “severe damp and mould” in the property. The resident wanted the landlord’s surveyor to inspect the exterior of the property including the brickwork, guttering, and window frames.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 22 May 2024, which upheld her complaint. It said it had arranged to inspect the property on 30 May 2024 and it would remind its staff to keep updated records.
  6. On 30 May 2024, the landlord raised work to take down and renew the down pipe and guttering at the front of the property. No completion date was recorded in the landlord’s repairs log which it provided to the Ombudsman.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint on 2 September 2024. The landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident on 10 September 2024 which apologised for not completing the repair by the target date of 9 July 2024. It explained that the property was in a conservation area and the guttering and pipework needed to be replaced like-for-like. It attributed the delay to poor communication between its contractor and subcontractor. It said that the repair would likely be completed 6-8 weeks after 9 September 2024. It said it would update the resident on the progress of the work and offered £75 compensation for her inconvenience.
  8. The landlord’s recent correspondence with the resident confirmed that the repair was scheduled to be finished on 9 December 2024.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaking guttering

  1. The landlord’s lease agreement with the resident confirms that it is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the exterior walls and ceilings, roofs, balconies, gutters, and rainwater pipes of the property.
  2. The landlord’s repairs and damp policy states that routine repairs – those which do not pose an immediate hazard to people or the property – should be completed within 28 days. Its policy states that it will handle reports of damp in line with its damp charter. The charter says that the landlord will arrange an inspection to diagnose the issue within 28 days or sooner. It should then agree an action plan with the resident which includes timeframes for work.
  3. The landlord was therefore obligated to carry out an inspection and provide the resident with an action plan to remedy the leak from the guttering. It should have done this by mid-January 2024. However, there was no evidence that it provided an action plan to the resident or that it informed the resident of the outcome of its inspection. The landlord’s records recorded that the job was complete without recording what work was done or required to address the repair. These are record keeping failures.
  4. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management highlighted that “without good information management (record keeping), a landlord cannot provide a high-quality service to residents.” It is not possible to determine that the landlord took appropriate steps to remedy the repair from its unclear records. The resident was required to chase the landlord and raise a complaint before the repair was inspected and follow-on works were raised. This was unreasonable.
  5. The landlord delayed excessively in performing the repair, taking a year to do the repair following the resident’s first report. The landlord should have identified that the property was in a conservation area and specialist replacement parts may be required on its initial inspection on 24 January 2024 and factored this into its plan of work. Its failure to do so contributed to the delay and the distress experienced by the resident.
  6. While the Ombudsman accepts that repairs may be delayed when specialist parts or equipment are required, we would expect the landlord to keep the resident informed and provide regular updates on the progress of the repair. When a repair is expected to take an extended time, it would be reasonable for the landlord to consider temporary measures to mitigate any detriment to the resident. Given that the resident had reported issues with damp as a result of the leaking gutters, this may involve temporary repairs or the provision of dehumidifiers to reduce the damp and mould in the property. There was no evidence that the landlord considered any temporary measures to reduce the damp and mould she was experiencing, or kept the resident informed. This would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience over a significant period.
  7. It was positive that the landlord recognised its delay in its final response, apologised, and offered £75 compensation. However, this was not proportionate to the extent of its delay in carrying out the repair. To recognise the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident over an extended period, and her time and trouble in pursuing the repair, the landlord must pay her compensation of £600. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance, which provides for awards of compensation between £100 and £600 where there has been a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident, which the landlord did not adequately put right.
  8. The landlord has also been ordered to complete the repair or provide evidence that it has already done so. If the repair is still outstanding, the landlord must consider temporary repairs or other measures to deal with the damp and mould in the property.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the council, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting a resident, group of residents, or any other customer(s).” This definition mirrors the definition in our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which all landlords who are members of the scheme must adhere to.
  2. The landlord’s complaint policy provides for a 2 stage complaints procedure. At stage 1 it will provide a response to the resident within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. At the final stage, it will respond within 20 working days of acknowledging the complaint.
  3. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the repair on 19 March 2024 and requested that it escalate the matter. The landlord did not log a complaint for the resident until a month later. It was unreasonable that it did not recognise the resident was making a complaint that was in line with its definition of one in its complaints policy. This led to a delay in the handling of the complaint. If the landlord was unclear on whether the resident wished to complain, it would have been reasonable for it to ask her.
  4. When the landlord raised the stage 1 complaint on 19 April 2024, it did not provide its stage 1 complaint response to the resident until 22 May 2024. This was after 23 working days and was 13 working days in excess of the timeframe in its policy. There was no evidence of the landlord contacting the resident to explain there would be a delay or to agree an extension. This was a failure to adhere to its published timeframe which caused a further delay in the resolution of the complaint.
  5. The landlord’s stage 1 and final stage complaints failed to recognise that it had delayed in handling the complaint at stage 1. It therefore failed to demonstrate any learning from the delays or put them right, which was not in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles. These principles are to ‘be fair’, ‘put it right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
  6. Given the above failings, the Ombudsman considers that there has been service failure. To recognise the inconvenience caused to the resident by the delayed handling of the complaint, the landlord should pay the resident £100 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance, which provides for awards of compensation between £50 and £100 for failures which caused detriment to the resident but which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for them.

Determination

  1. As noted above, in accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the complaint about the leaks from a neighbour’s balcony, damaged brickwork, defective drains, and a leaking stack pipe complaint is outside of the Ombudsman jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of leaking guttering.
    2. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.

 

 

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman to show it has complied with the following orders:
    1. Pay the resident compensation of £700 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failures. This made up of £600 for its delayed repair and £100 for its poor handling of the complaint. It may deduct the £75 it previously offered her if it can evidence it has already paid this.
    2. The landlord must complete the repairs to the guttering and down pipe if it has not done so already. If further avoidable delays have occurred, it must provide its position on further compensation to recognise this. If there has been an unavoidable delay, the landlord must also provide a reasonable explanation for this. If there continues to be a delay, the landlord must consider what temporary measures it can put in place to mitigate the damp and mould and offer these to the resident.