Summary: Mrs X says the Council has failed to repair the front door to her property. The Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X said that the Council was wrong to contact the Police who then broke into her flat. She says the front door was broken and the Council has failed to carry out the necessary repairs. Mrs X says also states that internal doors were also broken and require repair. She also says that money and a toolbox went missing at the time of the event.
2. Mrs X says that the failure to carry out the repairs means that she is living in fear.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information provided by Mrs X and spoke to her on the telephone. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response. I sent Mrs X and the Council a copy of my draft decsion and invited their comments before issuing my decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mrs X is 87 years old and lives alone in a two bedroomed flat. The Council’s records state that Mrs X was recently diagnosed with Alzheimers.
7. On 9 July 2019 Mrs X called the ambulance service complaining of feeling breathless. Mrs X was not taken to hospital but agreed to a referral to adult social care. The Council’s records show that it attempted to contacted Mrs X by telephone the next day but there was no response.
8. On 11 July the Council carried out an unannounced visit to Mrs X’s home address. There was no response and Mrs X’s neighbours reported that they had not see her. The Council contacted local hospitals to check whether Mrs X had been admitted as a patient but there was no record of this. The Council made enquiries with Mrs X’s GP and her local charity (Charity A) as Mrs X was well known to them. The Council also recognised that Mrs X had a history of saying she felt suicidal.
9. The Council informed the Police of its concerns for Mrs X’s safety and wellbeing. The Police forced entry into Mrs X’s property. Mrs X was not at home. The Police confirmed that the front door had been damaged but remained secure. It was reported that an external communal door provided an additional level of security. The Police left a note for Mrs X explaining the decision to force entry int other home.
10. Later the same day the Council carried out another visit to Mrs X’s home address. The Council explained the basis for its decision however Mrs X remained angry and felt the forced entry into her home was unnecessary. The Council’s records stated “External door is very secure but attention required to internal door. Handy person from [Charity A] has been contacted requesting their assistance” Photographs of the damage to the internal door were taken.
11. Mrs X requested that the Council pay for the door repair. The Council agreed and sought advice from Lambeth Housing about sourcing a locksmith. The Council subsequently contacted Company B who agreed to visit Mrs X on 26 July. Company B recommended a new door. The Council requested an estimate of costs to replace the door. No response was received and the Council continued to chase Company B for a quote. The Council update Mrs X by telephone.
12. On 16 August, the Council approach Lambeth Housing for further advice. Although Mrs X was a private homeowner, Lambeth Housing agreed to progress the repair through Company C and a quote for the door repair was requested. Council records show that a quote was received on 25 September. The Council agreed to the quote on 14 October and asked Company C to confirm a date to fit the new door. Lambeth Housing informed the Council that this would take 28 days.
13. On 8 November the Council carry out a home visit to Mrs X about a separate social care issue. The Council told Mrs X it was waiting for a date for the repair. The Council noted that the internal door was secure. On 25 November the Council chased Lambeth Housing for a response.
14. On 6 December Company C attended to Mrs X’s home to carry out the repairs. However, Mrs X was not at home. A few days later Mrs X contacted the Council and said that her door had not been fixed. A new date was arranged for 23 December. When Company C arrived Mrs X told them that she did not want to proceed with the repairs and requested that they be completed after Christmas.
15. On 9 January 2020, the Council contacted Charity A with a view to carry out a joint visit to Mrs X. Mrs X did not agree to a visit. On 14 January Mrs X contacted the Police about her door. The Police asked the Mrs X when she would like the door repaired. Mrs X said she would check her diary and get back to the Council the following week.
16. On 28 January Company C and the Council arrived at Mrs X’s property to compete the door repair. Mrs X declined the repair. Two weeks later the Council contacted Mrs X again and she said she would get back to them in “a week or so”.
17. On 6 March the Council visited Mrs X at home to discuss the door repair. Mrs X did not agree to the repairs because she was concerned about the Coronavirus.

Back to top

Analysis

18. Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to force entry into her property. I am satisfied that the Council took appropriate steps before it contacted the Police. The Council was concerned about Mrs X’s welfare following a referral from the ambulance service. The Council was not at fault.
19. Mrs X says that the Council has failed to carry out the repairs to her door. I have considered the evidence provided by the Council, such as case records written at the time of the event, telephone records and emails between third parties. There was an initial delay by the Council in sourcing a contractor to carry out the repairs. However, I do not consider this caused Mrs X an injustice because the Council had assessed the door and found it to be safe and secure. Records show that the Council made several attempts to agree a date for the repair. In December 2019 Company C could not get gain access to carry out the work. When the Company did gain access on 28 January 2020 Mrs X refused the repairs. The Council attempted to engage with Mrs X again in March but Mrs X did not want to agree a date for the repair.
20. Mrs X reported that money and her toolbox had been missing since the forced entry. The Council explained to Mrs X that the alleged theft related to an incident that Mrs X reported to the Police in September 2019 when her bag was stolen. The Police have spoken to Mrs X about this incident. I am satisfied with this and I do not propose to investigate this part of the complaint any further.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I have found no fault in the way the Council managed the repair of Mrs X’s front door. I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman