Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Southwark Council (202421325)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421325

Southwark Council

8 September 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 we have carefully considered it. 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of window issues.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a flat owned by the landlord. The lease was assigned to her on 31 October 2023.
  2. On 27 November 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to progress a window repair that the previous leaseholder initially reported.
  3. The resident made a formal complaint on 25 June 2024. She described the condition of the windows and said mould was accumulating in the bathroom as she was unable to ventilate the space. She explained she had been contacting the landlord frequently for updates between November 2023 and June 2024, and the repairs were still outstanding.
  4. On 30 July 2024, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaint procedure as she had not received a response.
  5. The resident’s legal representative submitted a Letter of Claim to the landlord under the Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Condition Claims (“pre-action protocol”).
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 18 February 2025. It confirmed it was handling the window repairs under the pre-action protocol. It said its legal disrepair surveyor had inspected the property and was drafting a legal report. It advised the resident to raise any queries through her representative.
  7. Following the stage 1 response, we have not seen a copy of the resident’s escalation request.
  8. On 12 March 2025, the landlord issued a stage 2 response. We note this had a different reference number to its proceeding stage 1 response. It recognised there were unnecessary delays logging her complaint and it did not respond within a timely manner. It offered £100 compensation.
  9. The landlord issued another stage 2 response on 9 May 2025. This had the same reference number as the stage 1 response issued in February 2025. It set out that it was unable to make a finding on her complaint as it was subject to legal proceedings.
  10. The landlord’s final complaint response dissatisfied the resident and so she referred the matter to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Within her complaint to the landlord, the resident said the state of the windows was causing her unimaginable mental and physical distress and anxiety. She said she had fallen ill 3 times during the winter within a span of 2 months. We empathise with her. However, the courts are the most effective place for disputes about impact to health. This is largely because it can appoint independent medical experts to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise, the court can examine oral testimony. Therefore, concerns about the health impact of the issue are better dealt with via the court.

Window repairs

  1. The landlord has not submitted a copy of its repairs policy to this Service. Neither party provided us with a full copy of the resident’s lease, thus we have based our assessment on the provisions of the landlord’s guide for leaseholders.
  2. The landlord’s guide for leaseholders states that residents are generally responsible for repairs inside of their home and the landlord is responsible for repairs to communal areas of the estate and the structure of the building. Timescales for repairs are not set out in this document.
  3. Once on notice of a repair, the landlord must conduct the works it is responsible for within a reasonable period, in accordance with its obligations under the lease and housing law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is – this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
  4. The resident said to the landlord that the previous leaseholder initially reported the window repair to it. The landlord has not provided repair records for the property prior to October 2023, so we are unable to evidence this. The resident has also not provided us with any document in evidence of her assertion.
  5. Records demonstrate the resident informed the landlord about the condition of the windows on 27 November 2023. It acted appropriately by arranging an assessment on 12 December 2023. The contractor reported that 7 windows had malfunctioning mechanisms and broken handles. They stated that more time and materials were required to complete the repairs.
  6. We have seen an email from the resident to the landlord dated 12 December 2023 in which she expressed concern that the contractor only took note of the handles. She outlined the other issues with the windows. The landlord responded a week later to say the contractor reflected in their notes that more works were required and they would contact her directly to arrange an appointment. We find the landlord missed an opportunity to clarify the scope of the follow on works with both its contractor and the resident. This was a failing in its management and oversight of the repairs.
  7. Two contractors attended on 10 January 2024. The landlord’s repair record shows the contractors recorded that the works required a specialist. They noted that almost every window in the property was damaged, and 22 windows needed repairs. They reported that the landlord should undertake a further inspection by a technical quality officer to agree on the works.
  8. Communication records show the resident chased the landlord for an update on 4 occasions between January and March 2024 before another appointment took place on 7 March 2024. We find the landlord’s communication here to be poor, with no meaningful updates provided.
  9. A further inspection took place on 7 March 2024 by a technical quality officer; however, the landlord has not provided evidence of their findings. A landlord ought to retain and provide accurate contemporaneous records of any assessments it undertook relating to the substantive issue such as photographs, written notes, or reports. Its failure to do so here was a shortcoming. Following this appointment, it did not update the resident for over a month. Its eventual update was very sparse and just said it had raised a new work order. It did not provide any further details or estimated timescales for repairs. This was inappropriate in the circumstances.
  10. External contractors attended to provide a cost estimate for the repairs on 12 April 2024. The landlord rejected their estimate around a month later, stating it would complete the works “in-house.” Following an email from the resident in May 2024, it said it would update her within 3 days once it had heard from contractors. There is no evidence it did so. This is an example of shortcomings in its communication.
  11. Records show the resident repeatedly chased the landlord for updates from May 2024 to December 2024 when she initiated a legal disrepair claim. We also note that in July 2024 it asked her to “provide us where you have been reporting the window issue and if you were given a reference. Unfortunately, this has not been found/raised on the system. “Considering the amount of correspondence on file, we find it to be a significant failure that it was unable to locate records of window issues on its system.
  12. The landlord informed this Service that “there have been numerous attempts to attend to the property to assess and work on the windows, however on frequent occasions no access has been given by the resident.” It has not fully demonstrated this within the repairs history provided. The records do not show that it always informed her about appointments and after listening to a call recording, it discovered it also advised her of an incorrect appointment time. This is an example of further shortcomings in its communication and repairs service.
  13. Overall, we find the landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident throughout a significant period. She did not receive meaningful updates, and it is clear she spent time trying to progress the works. It is evident she was concerned about the impact on her home, energy bills, and health. This impacted her enjoyment of her home. Furthermore, there were delays responding to her emails. While it is clear the landlord attended the property several times, it has not demonstrated that it defined a scope of work for the repairs or completed these within a reasonable period. To date, they remain outstanding. At the same time, we are aware that the pre-action protocol meant that discussions on the repairs would be taking place between the parties at the same time as the complaint.
  14. The landlord’s compensation policy contains various compensation tariffs. It submitted a copy dated 2021 to this Service. It is not clear whether this is applicable to this complaint or if there is an updated policy.
  15. The landlord did not offer compensation to the resident for its handling of the repairs. The £100 offered was to reflect the time and trouble she spent pursuing her complaint, which we have addressed below.
  16. In conclusion, we find the landlord failed to offer any redress to recognise the resident’s distress and inconvenience caused by the repair delays and the shortcomings in its communication. As such, we have ordered compensation in line with our remedies guidance which suggests compensation in the range of £100 to £600for failures which adversely affected a resident.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) is applicable to all member landlords. It specifies that a stage 1 response should be issued in 10 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with no more than a further extension of 10 days. A stage 2 response should be issued within 20 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with a further extension of 20 days if required. A landlord should not exceed these timescales without good reason.
  2. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. Its complaint handling timescales are in line with the Code.
  3. The resident initially complained on 25 June 2024 about the outstanding window repairs and lack of response from the landlord. It addressed these matters within 2 separate complaint responses. In our view, it ought to have considered matters under a singular reference. Its fragmented approach caused confusion to the resident and delays.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s window complaint on 18 February 2025, 167 working days after her initial complaint. Our request for action prompted this response. It said she escalated matters to stage 2 on 2 April 2025. It issued its final complaint response 24 working days later. The Code serves to illustrate that it kept this case open for an unreasonable duration at stage 1, far beyond the timescale set out in its own policy. Additionally, it failed to keep the resident updated.
  5. The stage 2 response was the landlord’s opportunity to put matters right for the resident. The Code states that, when responding to a complaint, the “remedy offer must clearly set out what will happen and by when, in agreement with the resident where appropriate.” A landlord should follow its proposed remedy through to completion. However, within its response it said it was unable to provide a finding as the complaint was subject to legal proceedings. It said its complaints team were not involved in decisions about the required repair works, timelines, or compensation.
  6. While the resident initiated the pre-action protocol, our view is that this does not become a legal process until the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim have been filed at Court. As of September 2025, the resident’s representative confirmed legal proceedings have not been issued.
  7. Our guidance (published on our website) recommends that landlords continue to use the complaints procedure when the pre-action protocol has commenced and until legal proceedings have been issued. This is to maximise the opportunities to resolve disputes outside of court. We have also referenced this within our spotlight report on damp and mould. We find the landlord missed an opportunity here to properly consider the resident’s complaint. This was a failure in its complaints handling.
  8. On 12 March 2025, the landlord issued a separate stage 2 response recognising the delays in logging the resident’s complaint. We have seen no evidence that it issued a stage 1 response for this issue. In only providing a singular response to the complaint, it did not allow sufficient opportunity for her to respond to its position. This was inappropriate and unjust. Furthermore, we find it ought to have considered the delays in its complaint handling within its complaint response issued on 18 February 2025, rather than as a separate decision.
  9. The landlord has a duty as a member to respond to complaints in line with the Code. Its failure to do so meant it missed opportunities to remedy the resident’s concerns, address, and resolve the wider aspects of her complaint, show empathy, and improve the landlord/resident relationship. This had an impact as she kept chasing for responses and felt frustrated and ignored. It also prevented her from accessing this Service. Considering the evidence available, the Ombudsman finds the landlord failed to treat this complaint with the necessary attention and importance it deserved.
  10. Under our dispute resolution principles, it is good practice for a landlord to identify clear learning points and outline actions to ensure similar service failures will not occur in the future. While it recognised some failings, it could have done more to reference specific learning from the resident’s experience within its final response to improve its service provision.
  11. Within the landlord’s complaint response dated 13 March 2025, it offered the resident £100 compensation for the time and trouble she spent pursuing a resolution to her complaint. Our remedies guidance suggests compensation in the region of £100 to £600 is reasonable where there was a failure which adversely affected a resident. While its offer was within this range, we consider £100 was not proportionate in the circumstances to reflect the impact of the shortcomings identified.
  12. Overall, we conclude there were significant failures in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. It did not use the complaints procedure as an effective tool in resolving the resident’s concerns. Due to the cumulative failings in its complaint handling and the impact on her, we have ordered an increased amount of compensation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of window issues.
    2. The associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, we order the landlord to:
    1. Apologise for the failings identified.
    2. Pay the resident £600 compensation. This replaces its previous offer of £100 and comprises:
      1. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her request for window repairs.
      2. £200 for the impact caused to her by its ineffective complaint handling.
    3. Write to the resident (via her legal representative if appropriate) to clarify the current situation regarding the pre-action protocol and associated window repairs, including timescales for any actions. It must share a copy of the letter with this Service.