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

London Borough of Lewisham (202314146)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314146

Lewisham Council

17 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 handling of the resident’s report of a leak and collapsed ceiling. 
  2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint will also be considered.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, living in a flat with 2 children.
  2. On 5 December 2022, the resident reported a water leak was causing damage to the ceiling, including damp, and the landlord raised a work order to repair the damage on 12 December 2022. The landlord raised further work orders on 16 June 2023 as the resident reported she had no power after a leak, and on 19 June 2023 to make safe the kitchen ceiling, which had collapsed.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 20 June 2023 as she had reported the collapsed ceiling on 18 June 2023 and the landlord had not handled the matter with sufficient urgency. The landlord failed to attend on 19 June 2023, despite stating it would. She raised a further complaint on 11 July 2023, as following the report of the ceiling collapse, “it only got taken down” on 10 July 2023 and it now had a plastic covering over it. She said the downstairs smelt of damp and rotten wood. She was advised on 10 July 2023 that there was likely asbestos, and she should not be living in the property. She was concerned about the impact on her family’s health.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 26 July 2023. It said it attended out of hours on 19 June 2023 and 20 June 2023 to make the ceiling safe. It attended a further appointment on 10 July 2023 to inspect the ceiling and the contractor made safe the hallway ceiling. It apologised for the delay in the asbestos survey as it needed to observe a 14-day notice period before removing it, so it expected to start the works on the week commencing 14 August 2023. It would repair the leak after it removed the asbestos and then complete the damp and mould and kitchen remedial works. Its surveyor determined on 24 July 2023 that the property was not uninhabitable and a decant was not required.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint on 21 August 2023 as she said the property had been in poor condition since December 2022. She said the landlord had removed the asbestos, but the repairs were still outstanding. She said the property smelt damp due to the leak from the soil stack under the bath. There had been no ceiling in the hallway for 2 months, rotting skirting boards, and damp and mould in the kitchen. She said she was advised that the property was uninhabitable, and the landlord had not responded to her request to be decanted.
  6. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that the resident confirmed on 15 September 2023 that the leak and asbestos removal was complete. It would commence work on 22 September 2023 to renew a section of the hallway ceiling, block out the water staining and repaint the kitchen, renew the back to the wall unit and mould wash, and renew ducting and tiling in the bathroom. It reiterated that the surveyor confirmed on 24 July 2023 that the resident did not need to be decanted as it had made the ceilings safe, and they did not pose a health and safety risk.
  7. The resident referred her complaint to the Service as she was dissatisfied with the length of time it took to complete the repairs and that the landlord refused to decant her.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has raised concerns about outstanding damp and mould issues.  The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 13 August 2024 to a second complaint about damp and mould. In its response, the landlord noted that the issues were not present at the time of the previous stage 2 response in September 2023. As such, it appears that this is a new issue.
  2. There is no evidence that the second complaint has exhausted the landlord’s complaint process, and the landlord told the Service the resident had not escalated the complaint to stage 2. In accordance with paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints which “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of the Service. If the resident remains dissatisfied, she should complete the landlord’s complaint process and then refer the matter to the Service. The investigation will therefore focus on the first complaint as set out above.
  3. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s concerns that the landlord’s handling of this case has negatively impacted her family’s health. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear this, it is beyond the expertise of the Service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) and the impact on health. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are better equipped to access and assess all the relevant evidence that can provide an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should do so via this route. This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy / its legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak and collapsed ceiling

  1. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure of the building in good repair. The landlord’s website states it will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 3 working days, and routine repairs within 20 working days. It considers emergency repairs as “repairs that remove immediate danger to people, avoid flooding or major damage to the property”. This includes dangerous structures and ceilings.
  2. The resident reported on 5 December 2022 that a water leak had caused damage to the ceiling and was starting to cause damp. The landlord raised a work order on 12 December 2022 to hack off the plaster and repair the damage caused by the leak. However, there is no evidence to confirm whether it inspected or resolved the leak. The resident subsequently reported on 16 June 2023 that there was no power after a leak, and on 18 June 2023 that the ceiling had collapsed. While the Service cannot determine a definitive causal link, the landlord may have prevented the subsequent repair issues if it had properly addressed the leak when initially reported.
  3. When the resident reported the ceiling collapse, the landlord should have attended within 24 hours to make the kitchen ceiling safe, in line with its repair response timeframe. The landlord raised work orders on 19 June 2023 and 20 June 2023 to make the kitchen ceiling safe and in its complaint response it said it had instructed contractors on both days to attend after 5pm to complete the make safe works. However, in her complaint, the resident said the landlord promised to attend on 19 June 2023 but failed to do so.
  4. When there is a disagreement in the accounts of the repairs, the onus is on the landlord to provide documentary evidence showing how it completed the repair work to a satisfactory standard. As the repair records do not confirm when the contractors attended or provide any details about the outcome of the appointment, the Ombudsman cannot confirm whether it attended on 19 June 2023. There is no evidence that the resident disputed that the landlord attended on 20 June 2023, so the investigation has acted on the assumption that it made the ceiling safe on that date. As such, it failed to adhere to its 24-hour response timeframe. While the delay was not necessarily excessive, it is likely the delay in completing the make safe works would have caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  5. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it said, “We are sorry you felt there was a delay sending out operatives to make safe the ceiling after it had collapsed on 18 June 2023”. Given that it did not adhere to its repair timeframe, this was inappropriate as it failed to accept responsibility or recognise its failing.
  6. The landlord told the resident on 21 June 2023 that it was waiting for the contractor’s report to raise the necessary follow-on works. It internally stated on 22 June 2023 that there seemed to be a hidden leak from an upstairs cupboard which caused the ceiling to collapse and the damp and mould issues. The landlord’s stage 1 response stated it attended on 10 July 2023 to inspect the ceiling, and the contractor noted that they made safe the hallway ceiling. The landlord therefore reattended following the make safe works within its 20-working day response timeframe, which was appropriate. However, it should have made the hallway ceiling safe during the first visit to ensure there was no health and safety risk to the resident.
  7. During the appointment on 10 July 2023, the contractor removed the bath panel to check for leaks and found potential asbestos which needed to be checked before it could proceed with the works. The landlord subsequently raised a work order for an asbestos survey on 14 July 2023. The resident emailed the landlord on 21 July 2023 and said the asbestos team were unable to attend that day as the landlord had not sent them the necessary data. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it attended on 25 July 2023 and 26 July 2023 and confirmed it needed to remove asbestos. Although there were some delays, which the landlord acknowledged, it completed the asbestos survey within 20 working days, so it did not cause a significant impact. Nonetheless, the landlord should ensure it provides contractors with all necessary information to prevent any delays.
  8. The landlord said that due to the type of asbestos present, it had to observe a 14-day notice period before it could remove it. This is a legal requirement, so the landlord could not have prevented the delay. It said it anticipated works would commence during the week starting 14 August 2023. The landlord removed the asbestos on 18 August 2023, which was within the timeframe set out, so it reasonably managed the resident’s expectations.
  9. In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it said the resident confirmed on 15 September 2023 that it had repaired the leak. This was within 20 working days of removing the asbestos, so within its repair response timeframe.
  10. The landlord would not have been able to effectively repair the ceiling before repairing the leak, so it was reasonable that it postponed the repairs. It took reasonable steps to manage the resident’s expectations regarding the expected timeframe as it said in its stage 1 response that it arranged a follow-on appointment for 19 October 2023, once it had resolved the leak, to plasterboard and skim the ceilings in the kitchen and hallway. The repair records show that the landlord replastered the hallway ceiling on 29 September 2023 and repainted it on 3 October 2023. It was reasonable that the landlord rescheduled the original appointment once it recognised the repairs were ahead of schedule and it could complete them at an earlier date. 
  11. The landlord completed further works to replace the architrave and replaster the wall in the hallway on 26 October 2023. It told the Service on 10 November 2023 that it had completed and post-inspected the works to the ceiling. It therefore took over 4 months to complete the works in full.
  12. The resident was dissatisfied that the landlord did not decant her while the works were outstanding. In a call on 21 June 2023, the resident told the landlord that the contractor attended to make the ceiling safe but said she needed to be decanted. The following day, the resident said she was concerned that more of the ceiling could come down and posed a health and safety risk. Further, in the resident’s complaint on 11 July 2023, she said the contractor told her there was likely asbestos and she should not be living in the property, and on 19 July 2023 she told the landlord she did not feel the property was safe, which she said contractors had confirmed.
  13. When the resident raised concerns about whether the property was safe, the landlord should have instructed a contractor to inspect the property condition to determine whether it was habitable and if it needed to decant the resident. In its stage 1 response on 26 July 2023, the landlord said its technical surveyor attended on 24 July 2023 and advised the property was not uninhabitable as the ceilings were made safe and did not pose a health and safety risk. The landlord therefore failed to confirm whether the property was safe for over a month. As the resident had repeatedly raised concerns, this was entirely unreasonable and caused her additional distress. Nonetheless, once the contractor determined the property was habitable, it was reasonable that the landlord did not decant the resident. This is because the landlord is entitled to rely on the opinions of its appropriately qualified contractors to determine whether the property is safe.
  14. Overall, although it is recognised that the repairs were ongoing for an extended period of time, the main delay was caused by the asbestos works, which was largely outside of the landlord’s control. The works were also complex and required numerous appointments, so it would be unreasonable to expect the landlord to adhere to its usual timeframe. The landlord took reasonable steps to manage the resident’s expectations about the anticipated timeframe. However, there was a delay in making the hallway ceiling safe, the landlord has not demonstrated it took reasonable steps when the resident initially reported the leak in December 2022, and it failed to address the resident’s request for a decant in a reasonable timeframe. It is evident that the failings caused the resident additional distress, and time and effort pursuing the issues. In accordance with the Service’s remedies guidance, £250 compensation is appropriate as the landlord has not acknowledged its failings or attempted to put things right.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 and 3 complaints within 20 working days. It states an initial expression of dissatisfaction can often be quickly resolved without a formal complaint, and it will log a complaint if it cannot resolve the issue.
  2. The resident requested to raise a complaint on 20 June 2023 about the landlord’s handling of the ceiling collapse. In this case, as the ceiling collapsed 2 days prior to the resident’s complaint, and this was the first time the resident had reported dissatisfaction, it may have been reasonable for the landlord to try to promptly resolve the matter without commencing the complaint process.
  3. The landlord told the resident on 23 June 2023 that it had logged the complaint at stage 0. It was unreasonable to signpost her to an additional complaint stage, as this would extend the time taken to exhaust the complaint process. The Service’s complaint handling code states that “The early and local resolution of issues between landlords and residents is key to effective complaint handling. It is not appropriate to have extra named stages (such as ‘stage 0’ or ‘informal complaint’) as this causes unnecessary confusion.”
  4. The landlord said it would confirm the actions it would take by 27 June 2023, but there is no evidence it did. As such, it failed to meet the expectations it set. There is also no evidence that the landlord subsequently confirmed whether the resident was satisfied with the outcome or wanted to further progress the complaint, which was unreasonable.
  5. The resident raised a further complaint on 11 July 2023. If the landlord had taken appropriate steps following her original complaint, it would have prevented a delay in completing the complaints process. The landlord issued its response on 26 July 2023. This was 26 working days after the resident’s initial complaint, exceeding its response time by 16 working days.
  6. The resident escalated the complaint on 21 August 2023 and the landlord responded on 20 September 2023. This exceeded its response timeframe by 2 working days, which was not an excessive delay, but it would have been appropriate for the landlord to inform the resident that it required a short extension to manage her expectations.
  7. The landlord did not recognise its failing to correctly handle the resident’s initial complaint, so the issue remains unresolved. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, £50 compensation is warranted as there was a minor failure by the landlord that it did not appropriately acknowledge or put right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak and collapsed ceiling. 
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must pay the resident:
    1. £250 for its failings in its handling of the resident’s report of a leak and collapsed ceiling. 
    2. £50 for failing to appropriately handle the resident’s initial complaint.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence of the payment to the Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its handling of complaints to ensure that it does not raise any complaints at stage 0.