From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

London Borough of Lewisham (202320762)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320762

Lewisham Council

29 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of a broken window.
    2. The front door replacement.
    3. The resident’s reports of damaged electric sockets.
    4. The resident’s reports of a leak, damp and mould.
    5. The resident’s concerns about carbon monoxide.
  2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint has also been considered. 

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, living in an 11th floor flat.
  2. The landlord raised a work order to make safe a broken window on 16 July 2020. The resident subsequently said on 6 November 2020 that the landlord had only completed a temporary repair. He raised a formal enquiry with the landlord on 17 October 2022 and contacted the mayor on 9 May 2023, in which he raised concerns about the window, a temporary front door, a leak from the flat above, and broken electrics sockets. The resident’s doctor sent a letter to the landlord on 19 July 2023 raising concerns about the property due to a high reading of carbon monoxide from his partner’s breath test. The landlord logged the matter as a stage 1 complaint on 21 July 2023.
  3. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 4 August 2023. It apologised that the window repair remained outstanding and said the contractor would contact him to arrange a suitable date to erect the scaffolding so it could complete the works. The contractor told the resident on 24 July 2023 that the front door replacement was available, but it needed to relocate the gas pipe on 4 August 2023 before it could install it. An electrician would attend on 8 August 2023 to repair the broken electric sockets, and a damp and mould surveyor would inspect the property on 7 August 2023. It asked the resident to report the leak through its contact centre. 
  4. The resident contacted the mayor on 6 September 2023 due to the ongoing repair issues with the windows, front door, and leak from the flat above. He said the issues were impacting his family’s health and compromised the security and energy efficiency of the property. The landlord recognised this as a stage 2 complaint on 15 September 2023.
  5. In its stage 2 response on 13 October 2023, the landlord apologised for failing to attend the damp and mould inspection on 7 October 2023 and rebooked it for 23 October 2023. It said a scaffolder would attend on 12 October 2023 to confirm the scaffolding location, and the contractor would contact him directly to schedule the window re-glazing. It would install the front door on 18 October 2023. It reiterated that the resident should report leaks, and it referred the matter to the relevant team to prevent further delays. It recognised that the resident had provided a midwifery report regarding high carbon monoxide readings in July 2023, and it had referred the matter to the national gas emergency service on 13 October 2023. It apologised for the poor standard of service and offered £350 compensation.
  6. The resident escalated the complaint on 23 October 2023 as the repair issues were ongoing, including inadequate windows and doors and a leak from the flat above. He said the repair issues were impacting his family’s health and safety including his baby’s breathing.
  7. The landlord’s independent adjudicator sent the stage 3 response on 15 November 2023 and found:
    1. The landlord should have logged the unrecorded repair issues following the resident’s email to the mayor on 9 May 2023.
    2. The landlord did not treat the letter from the resident’s midwife in July 2023 about the carbon monoxide levels with sufficient urgency, as it did not address the issue until October 2023.
    3. Windows should not be boarded up for more than a few weeks as it is not completely weatherproof and deprives daylight.
    4. It should handle leaks, damp, and mould as a priority. The first appointment was 3 months after the stage 2 response and 8 months after the initial report which was an unreasonable delay. An appointment was booked for 14 January 2024, but the leak was ongoing and there was dirty water entering the property.
    5. The landlord missed several appointments without providing an explanation or rescheduling them. It also did not follow up on works in a timely manner following the stage 2 response and relied on subcontractors.
    6. The landlord should:
      1. Apologise for the identified faults.
      2. Pay £40 for the missed appointments.
      3. Inspect the property to ensure it was fit for habitation, assess whether there were any category 1 hazards, and act appropriately on the outcome of the inspection.
      4. Fix the broken sockets, replace the front door, and replace the window, without any further delay, before Christmas.
      5. Explain what actions it had taken to trace the leak and why it did not think an internal inspection was required until January.
      6. Provide a dehumidifier to alleviate the damp and pay £10 a week towards the running costs until it resolved the leak, and the affected parts of the property were dry.
      7. Arrange a damp and mould inspection following the completion of the repairs to the window, door, and leak. It should consider whether it can complete any interim repairs at an earlier date.
      8. Commit to logging repairs raised within complaints, review arrangements for contractors replacing windows and doors to prevent delays, ensure that staff are aware it should promptly investigate reports of increased carbon monoxide levels, and ensure cancelled appointments are minimised and promptly rescheduled.
  8. The resident referred his complaint to the Service as he was dissatisfied that several of the repairs were still outstanding, including the window, electric sockets, leaks, damp and mould. He said the landlord had not taken his reports of medical conditions seriously or considered that he has young children.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s assertion that the landlord’s handling of this case has negatively impacted his 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. When there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are able to obtain 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, he 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.
  2. The resident initially reported the broken window in July 2020. However, he did not raise a complaint about the matter until October 2022. In accordance with paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, normally within 12 months of the matters arising. This investigation will therefore consider the landlord’s handling of the matter from October 2021 onwards. However, the Ombudsman will not completely discount the date that the repair was initially reported to the landlord. Although we will not comment on how this was managed, the length of time the window was out of repair may feature in our overall conclusion.
  3. The resident told the Service that there had recently been a house fire in his block of flats, and he was temporarily decanted due to the damage. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear this, the landlord’s handling of the matter is outside of the remit of this investigation as the landlord has not had the opportunity to formally address the issue within its complaints process. However, consideration may be given to how the matter will impact the landlord’s ability to complete any orders to put things right in the substantive complaint issue.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a broken window

  1. The landlord’s repairs guide sets out it is responsible for re-glazing windows (except those that have been previously made safe). Its website states that it will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 3 working days, and routine repairs within 20 working days. In this case, the landlord appears to have accepted full responsibility for the window repair, so it should have acted in line with its repair obligations. The resident reported the broken window in the bedroom on 16 July 2020, which the landlord made safe by boarding it up.
  2. The landlord raised 3 work orders to reglaze the window between 30 October 2022 and 5 January 2023. There is no evidence to confirm that it attended within its repair response timeframes, which was unreasonable and delayed resolving the matter. It is understood that repairing windows in high story buildings can be more complex and take longer to complete, as it can require multiple types of contractors, often including scaffolding. However, the landlord still has a responsibility to ensure that it repairs the window in full within a reasonable timeframe and manages the resident’s expectations regarding the actions it will take. 
  3. Following an appointment on 19 January 2023, the resident told the landlord the contractor said they were unable to fix the window, which he said they had previously confirmed 2 years prior. There is no evidence of any repair records to confirm the previous findings. The Service’s knowledge and information management (KIM) spotlight report noted that “failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress”. In this case, the lack of records likely prevented the landlord from arranging the required scaffolding at an earlier date and caused delays in re-glazing the window.
  4. When the resident chased the work in March 2023, the landlord told him it had referred the repair to its contractor, and they would contact him about an appointment date. Given there had already been extensive delays at this stage, the landlord should have followed up with the contractor to ensure the work was being properly progressed. It also would have been reasonable for it to gain additional information from the contractor about the progress of the work to provide the resident with a more substantial update.
  5. The resident contacted the mayor on 9 May 2023 due to the ongoing delays in completing the repairs. In its response on 24 May 2023, the landlord said there was a delay in installing the scaffolding due to an administrative error. The landlord may have prevented the delay in recognising the issue if it had taken greater accountability and completed proper due diligence with the contractor, when the resident chased the repair. The landlord said the contractor would contact the resident to arrange the appointment. In its stage 1 response on 4 August 2023, the landlord apologised that the window repair remained outstanding and again said the contractor would contact him to arrange the appointment to install the scaffolding.
  6. On 9 October 2023, the landlord internally stated that the windows were included in planned works for “this year/ next year” and noted that it may have to raise a repair in the interim. It is often more cost-effective to complete works as part of a larger programme and it may have been reasonable to delay the repairs for a few months – with a temporary repair in the meantime – if works were upcoming. However, in this case it was unreasonable to further postpone the works as there had already been a 3-year delay and the landlord did not have a clear timeframe for the planned works.
  7. The landlord provided a similar response at stage 2 of its complaint process. It said it attended to confirm the required location of the scaffolding on 12 October 2023 and the contractor would contact him to arrange the works to re-glaze the window. Given the internal email on 9 October 2023, it is unclear whether the landlord was being entirely transparent about its intentions on how to proceed with the work.
  8. The resident told the landlord on 2 November 2023 that the condition of the windows was allowing water to enter the property. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord reassessed the window condition upon receiving this report. It is reasonable to expect that the condition would have deteriorated as it had been boarded up for several years. If the landlord was unable to promptly re-glaze the window, at a minimum it should have assessed whether further interim works were required to ensure the window was weatherproof.
  9. In its final response, the adjudicator instructed the landlord to arrange to replace the window before Christmas 2023. The landlord internally stated on 20 December 2023 “The property is on the 11th floor and management do not want to address any window replacement in isolation due to potential knock on for the remaining flats”. While there can be practical reasons for grouping repairs, in this case the approach was unreasonable. The resident has continued to pursue the repairs throughout 2024, and they currently remain outstanding.
  10. It is evident that the landlord has failed to fulfill its repair obligations in relation to the window repair, which had a significant impact on the resident. The resident reported no access to daylight in the bedroom, which the landlord’s stage 3 adjudicator noted could impact his mental health, that he was unable to let in fresh air in hot weather conditions, there was increased noise transference from outside that impacted his son’s sleep, and energy efficiency concerns. He also raised concerns regarding the safety of the temporary window, particularly as he has young children and lived on the 11th floor. The resident pursued the repairs numerous times, including through the mayor. He should not have to go to such lengths for the landlord to complete a repair.
  11. In its final response, the landlord offered £350 compensation for its poor standard of service. As it did not differentiate how much compensation was allocated for each of the repair issues, we have acted on the assumption that £70 was allocated for each repair. While it was reasonable that the landlord somewhat recognised its failings, it has largely overlooked the impact on the resident. As such, the compensation is not sufficient.
  12. While this report has not shared a view on the events that took place before October 2022, the landlord had a responsibility to provide a permanent and lasting fix soon after it had temporarily made the resident’s window safe. In the Ombudsman’s view, a reasonable amount of compensation would be £50 per month for 50 months calculated from 13 August 2020 (20 working days after the window was made safe, which is the landlord’s repair timeframe for such works) until the date of this report, as the reglazing remains outstanding. This would equate to a total of £2500 and would be an appropriate amount of compensation as it is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies where the landlord has repeatedly failed to provide a service which has had a detrimental impact on the resident. The £70 already offered can be deducted from the additional compensation to pay.
  13. It is understood that the resident is not currently living in the property due to damage caused by a recent fire in the building. The landlord should repair the window within 3 months of this report. It should complete the work before the resident moves back into the property and provide a clear explanation if it determines it is not possible to do so.
  14. There is no evidence that the landlord reviewed its arrangements for contractors replacing windows, as recommended by the stage 3 adjudicator. An order has been made below for the landlord to review its handling of window repairs in flats to prevent similar failings occurring.

The landlord’s handling of the front door replacement

  1. A contractor sent a letter to the resident on 22 February 2021 stating that the landlord had contracted them to replace the front door for fire safety and security improvements. It would complete the initial survey in the coming weeks. In his complaint on 17 October 2022, the resident said the property had a temporary door. While the landlord had committed to making improvements, there is no evidence to suggest that the resident had reported any issues with the door. As such, at this stage, the landlord’s role was to provide any relevant updates on the progress of the replacement programme.
  2. The landlord said on 30 October 2022 it had passed the resident’s concerns to the major works team. However, there is no evidence that it provided any further updates, so it failed to manage the resident’s expectations regarding the expected timeframe of the replacement.
  3. The landlord’s repair records show that on 9 December 2022 the resident said a temporary door had been in place for a long time, which was draughty and unsafe. The landlord said it had raised it with the relevant department as it “isn’t a repair”. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to ask for further information or inspect the door to assess whether it was a suitable condition, given the concerns raised by the resident. It is reasonable for landlords to complete replacements as part of a larger scheme of works to manage costs and provide a good service to all residents. However, it should not neglect any individual repair issues that may arise before the scheduled works.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 22 March 2023 as the landlord did not inform him it had cancelled the appointment for the door. The contractor told the landlord the appointment was to measure the door, not replace it, and the original door was incorrectly sized due to an existing service pipe. There is no evidence that the landlord advised the resident of the reasons for the delay until 24 May 2023, after he had raised concerns to the mayor. It then told the resident it had re-surveyed the door, and the manufacturing time was approximately 10 weeks. While the delay was somewhat outside of the landlord’s control, it should have promptly informed the resident of the reasons for the delay and the expected timeframe as soon as it became aware, to manage his expectations.
  5. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said its contractor spoke to him on 24 July 2023 to explain the front entrance door was available, but it needed to relocate the gas pipe before it could install it. It advised him a gas contractor would be attending on 4 August 2023. It is unclear whether the landlord could have identified this at an earlier date to prevent the delay.
  6. The landlord missed a scheduled appointment on 18 October 2023 to replace the front door and it was subsequently replaced on 20 November 2023. It therefore took almost a year for the landlord to replace the door, following the resident raising concerns about its condition, which was unreasonable. Due to the limited repair records, the Service is unable to determine whether the door was fit for purpose prior to the replacement. Nonetheless, it is evident the landlord failed to consider whether the matter should have been handled as a repair, rather than a planned replacement, properly address the resident’s concerns with the condition of the door, or reasonably manage the resident’s expectations regarding the timeframe for the repairs and reasons for the delay. This had a detrimental impact on the resident as he was concerned about the security of the door, which understandably would have caused distress and inconvenience.
  7. As discussed above, the Service has acted on the assumption that the landlord awarded £70 compensation for each of the complaint matters. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance a further £100 compensation has been ordered as  this more proportionately reflects the detriment experienced by the resident as a result of the delay.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak, damp and mould

  1. The landlord’s damp mould and leaks policy states that it will treat reports seriously and clearly communicate with residents about the actions it will take. As such, when the resident initially reported the leak, damp, and mould, it should have promptly assessed the issue and determined appropriate actions to resolve the matter.
  2. The resident reported a leak from the flat above on 3 March 2023. He then reported it to the mayor on 9 May 2023. In both its response to the mayor and its stage 1 response, the landlord told the resident to report the issue to its repairs team. As the resident had made the landlord aware of the leak, it was somewhat unreasonable for it to require him to further report it to the repairs team for it to progress the matter. While information on how to best report repairs would be helpful to prevent any future delays, the landlord should have taken accountability for the matter and referred the repair itself to ensure it addressed it as soon as possible.
  3. In its stage 2 response on 13 October 2023, the landlord said it had referred the matter to its leak access team to investigate to prevent further delays. It therefore took over 7 months for the landlord to raise the matter to the correct department following the resident’s initial report, which was unreasonable. There is no evidence to confirm how it subsequently handled the leak. Due to the limited records, the severity of the leak and the scale of the impact on the property are unclear. There is also no evidence to confirm whether the landlord identified the cause of the leak or that it took sufficient action to resolve it in full.
  4. The landlord scheduled damp and mould inspections on 7 August 2023 and 23 October 2023. The Service has not seen any repair records relating to the outcome of the inspections, so it is unclear whether the landlord took appropriate action. An inspection report on 7 December 2023 found that the living room and main bedroom were not watertight and rainwater entered through the defective window seals, the extraction rate in the bathroom was poor and caused heavy mould growth, and there was heavy condensation on the windows throughout the flat. The contractor recommended to install secondary glazing in the bedrooms, living room, and kitchen, install a ventilation system, and replace the extractor fans.
  5. The landlord noted that it did not initially raise the damp and mould works due to a system outage between 15 December 2023 and 21 December 2023. It then raised a work order on 16 February 2024 for mould treatments. While the initial delay was outside of its control, it was unreasonable that it did not re-raise the works for a further 2 months. The landlord completed a mould treatment on 6 June 2024 and the recommended remedial work on 16 July 2024. It therefore failed to demonstrate that it took any meaningful steps from the resident’s initial report of damp and mould in March 2023 until June 2024, which was an unreasonable delay. There is also no evidence to confirm whether the landlord provided a dehumidifier to alleviate the damp and pay £10 a week towards the running costs, as recommended in the stage 3 response.
  6. The resident reported the issue is ongoing. Due to the insufficient evidence to confirm the repairs have been resolved in full, an order has been made below for the landlord to complete a further inspection and any necessary repair works to resolve the leak, damp, and mould.
  7. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report entitled “Damp and mould: It’s not lifestyle” outlines that ‘landlords should recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of the resident and should therefore be responded to in a timely manner’. It continues that ‘landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly to manage resident’s expectations’. In this case, the resident was left exposed to damp and mould in his property for a prolonged period because the landlord failed to promptly coordinate necessary inspections and remedial works.
  8. In its final response, the landlord recognised that it should handle leaks, damp, and mould as a priority and the delays were unreasonable. The Service’s remedies guidance states £100-£600 compensation is appropriate in cases where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, but failed to address the detriment to the resident and the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified in this investigation. As such, in addition to the £70 already offered, the landlord should pay the resident £600 for the extensive delays in addressing the leak, damp and mould issues.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of broken electric sockets

  1. The landlord’s website states it is responsible for repairs to partial loss of electrics. The resident reported on 3 March 2023 that several electric sockets were not working due to water entering them. The landlord should have promptly assessed whether the sockets were a potential safety issue, but there is no evidence it did. The resident further pursued the repair in his correspondence with the mayor on 9 May 2023. In response, the landlord said it had not received any reports of broken electric sockets. It is therefore evident that the landlord failed to acknowledge or record the resident’s initial report, which delayed completing the necessary repairs. 
  2. The landlord then provided the resident with contact details for its repairs team to raise the repair. As referenced above, this was not the best approach for the landlord to take as it delayed resolving the matter. There is no evidence to confirm whether the resident further pursued the repair.
  3. The landlord raised a work order on 4 August 2023 to repair the broken sockets and said in its stage 1 response it had arranged an appointment for 8 August 2023. The repair records show that it completed follow-on works on 16 August 2023. It therefore acted appropriately once it raised the repairs.
  4. Due to the landlord not acknowledging the resident’s initial report, or promptly raising the repair following the mayor’s enquiry, the electric socket repairs were outstanding for over 5 months, which was an unreasonable delay, particularly as it was a potential safety issue. The landlord should have a more cohesive approach to repairs and better communication between departments to prevent the resident having to report repairs several times before it takes action. A recommendation has been made below to reflect this.
  5. After the completion of the complaints process, the resident chased the repairs on 3 January 2024 and there is no evidence the landlord addressed his concerns. The landlord told the Service it had completed the repairs in full, but the resident disputed this. 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 this case, there is no evidence to confirm that the landlord assessed the sockets when the resident re-raised his concerns. In view of this, the landlord is ordered to complete an electrical safety inspection and ensure all the sockets are working correctly.
  6. The £70 offered in the landlord’s final response was not sufficient for the length of the delays. The Ombudsman does recognise that the resident said not all sockets were impacted, which somewhat reduced the impact. It is understood, however, that the matter caused him distress and inconvenience as he thought the sockets were dangerous. In view of this, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a further £100 compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of high carbon monoxide levels

  1. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) outlines that carbon monoxide can cause several serious health impacts. It states a hazard assessment should include visual inspections of the gas/oil/solid fuel appliances, flues, and ventilation, and further investigation and a safety report is required if there is indication of above average risk.
  2. The resident’s partner’s doctor contacted the landlord on 19 July 2023 as she had high levels of carbon monoxide in her breath tests on 19 May 2023 and 7 July 2023. The landlord did not address the issue until its stage 2 response on 13 October 2023, 3 months after it was notified of the potential safety issue in the property. It was reasonable that the landlord identified in its stage 3 response that it did not treat the doctor’s letter with sufficient urgency, and it should immediately respond to professional reports that concern carbon monoxide levels
  3. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it discussed the matter with its heating team on 13 October 2023 and subsequently called the national gas emergency service. This is in line with the government’s guidance on what to do in cases that carbon monoxide is present in a property, so was appropriate action to take. Regardless, it should have taken such steps when it was initially notified of the potential carbon monoxide in the property.
  4. A safety warning notice on 13 October 2023 stated that the carbon monoxide detector installation was deemed as immediately dangerous, and it left a sealing disc in the meter due to the medical symptoms. It noted that the landlord needed to test appliances and had been notified of the unsafe situation. There is no evidence that the landlord subsequently addressed the repair issues, which was entirely unreasonable given the safety concerns. The landlord therefore must arrange a gas contractor to inspect and complete any necessary repairs to ensure the property is safe.
  5. The resident told the landlord on 3 January 2024 that an investigation officer stated in a report on 12 December 2023 “the Carbon Monoxide (CO) presented in the air is above 96% and it is a kind of slow poison for adults and especially for children when being inhaled”. He said the landlord had ignored the finding. The Service has not seen a copy of this report, so is unable to comment on the findings. Nonetheless, there is no evidence that the landlord addressed the email sent on 3 January 2024. This was entirely unreasonable as the resident was clearly concerned for his family’s wellbeing and the landlord has an obligation to ensure the property is safe.
  6. £70 compensation offered by the landlord was not sufficient for the potential health and safety risk the landlord put the resident at for not taking timely action to mitigate the risk. The landlord should pay the resident an additional £400 compensation. This is in line with the Service’s remedies guidance which states awards of £100-£600 are appropriate in cases where the landlord has acknowledged failings but failed to properly address the detriment to the resident.

Review of policies and practice

  1. In this investigation, failures have been identified in the landlord’s handling of its repairs and record-keeping – similar to those identified in case 202124577. We have not, however, made any further orders for the landlord to improve this. This is because a wider order was made as part of case 202124577 which the landlord has now complied with. We expect the landlord to take forward the lessons and improvements it shared with this Service following the wider order and will monitor the progress of this. Moreover, the Ombudsman is currently undertaking a special investigation into the landlord. This is conducted under paragraph 49 of the Scheme and allows the Ombudsman to investigate beyond an individual complaint to establish whether there is evidence of systemic failings. The findings of this report will therefore contribute to the outcome and action needed following the completion of the investigation.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord had a 3-stage complaint procedure at the time of the resident’s complaint. It said it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 and 3 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The Service’s complaint handling code states that a complaint must be defined as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting a resident or group of residents.” It also states, “whenever a resident expresses dissatisfaction landlords must give them the choice to make a complaint.”
  3. The resident raised an enquiry to the landlord on 17 October 2022 and said he had been complaining about the temporary door and window in the flat for 2 years. The landlord should have accepted this correspondence as a complaint, but it failed to do so or explain how he could raise a complaint.
  4. The resident then contacted the mayor on 9 May 2023 and the landlord responded on 24 May 2023. Again, the landlord did not recognise this as a complaint or explain how the resident could progress the issue if he was dissatisfied with the response. This was a further missed opportunity for the matter to be handled as a complaint.
  5. The landlord ultimately recognised the matter as a complaint on 21 July 2023. This was 9 months after the resident initially reported dissatisfaction with the handling of the repairs and was an unreasonable delay. This also delayed the resident’s referral rights to the Service for independent review which may have delayed reaching a full resolution on the substantive complaint issue. Once it acknowledged the complaint, the landlord handled it appropriately and in line with the relevant timeframes set out in its complaints policy.
  6. The delay in raising the complaint would likely have had a detrimental impact on the resident’s relationship with the landlord as it failed to demonstrate it took his concerns seriously. The failure to recognise the complaint further impacted the resident as the landlord did not meaningfully progress the substantive issue of the complaint outside of the complaint process, which delayed putting in place a full resolution.
  7. The landlord has not recognised its failings, so the issue remains unresolved. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, £200 compensation is warranted as the landlord did not acknowledge its failings or attempt to put things right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a broken window.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The front door replacement.
    2. The resident’s reports of damaged electric sockets.
    3. The resident’s reports of a leak, damp, and mould.
    4. The resident’s reports of high carbon monoxide levels.
    5. The complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. In addition to the £390 compensation already offered the landlord must pay the resident:
    1. £2430 due to the 50-month delay in completing the window repair.
    2. £100 for its failings in handling the front door replacement.
    3. £100 for its handling of the resident’s reports of broken electrical sockets.
    4. £600 for its failings in handling the resident’s reports of a leak, damp, and mould.
    5. £400 for its failings in handling the resident’s reports of high carbon monoxide levels.
    6. £200 for the delay in raising the complaint. 
  2. The landlord must provide the Service with evidence of the total payment of £4220, inclusive of the compensation offered in its stage 3 response.
  3. Within 4 weeks, the landlord must provide a schedule of works (for the repairs outlined in paragraph 69) to the resident and the Service, outlining the expected timeframe for the works and if it anticipates any delays due to the recent fire.
  4. Within 12 weeks the landlord must:
    1. Repair the broken window. It should complete the repair before the resident moves back into the property and provide an explanation if it is unable to do so.
    2. Complete a damp and mould inspection and assess whether the leak is ongoing. It should then arrange any necessary repairs to resolve the leak, damp, and mould.
    3. Complete an electrical safety inspection and ensure all the sockets are working correctly.
    4. Arrange a gas contractor to inspect and complete any necessary repairs to ensure the property is safe and it resolves any issues with carbon monoxide.
    5. Provide the resident and the Service with a copy of a post-inspection report to confirm all the works are completed to a suitable standard.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 54.g. of the Scheme, within 12 weeks the landlord must carry out a review of how it handles window repairs in flats. The review should be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation and should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
    1. An exploration of why the failings identified in this investigation occurred and what it has learned from the case.
    2. An assessment of its arrangement with the contractors responsible for window repairs and consideration of how this can be improved to provide a better service.
    3. Any changes it will make to prevent a recurrence of similar issues, including how it will share any learning and embed changes across the organisation.
    4. Identification of any residents with similar outstanding window repairs and the steps it will take to ensure the necessary works are completed as soon as possible.
  6. The landlord must provide the Service with evidence that it has complied with the orders within the relevant timeframes.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its approach to raising and recording repairs, particularly when they are not reported directly to the repairs team by the resident. It should review its internal communication to ensure its properly raises repairs upon residents’ initial report.