Southwark Council (202326338)

Background

1. The resident, who has visual and mobility impairments, was required to vacate her 1-bedroom flat in November 2022 due to a sewage back-surge. She reported issues including repair delays, and unsuitable offers of temporary accommodation. The landlord was aware of her vulnerabilities.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s application for permanent rehousing.
   2. The resident’s reports of sewage flooding into her flat.
   3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s application for permanent rehousing is outside of our jurisdiction.
4. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of sewage flooding into her flat.
   2. The complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. We found that the landlord recognised its failings, apologised to the resident, and awarded appropriate compensation.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. We can only investigate complaints about councils when they act as landlords under a licence, lease, or social housing tenancy. In this case, the council was not acting in that role. Housing allocations and banding are local authority decisions, so we cannot investigate the resident’s rehousing application. She may wish to contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

What we have not considered

7. The resident said that the landlord’s actions harmed her mental health. The courts are best placed to deal with health disputes as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness or injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
8. The resident told us that she had concerns about ASB within the block and pests within her property. She did not raise these matters with the landlord as part of this complaint. Therefore, we have not considered them within this report. She may wish to raise a new complaint about these matters.

What we have considered

9. Between December 2022 and March 2024, the landlord advised the resident on 4 occasions about making an insurance claim and sent a form via her support worker to offer assistance. This was a reasonable approach and showed consideration of her vulnerabilities.
10. The landlord appropriately referred the resident to make a claim upon insurance for damaged items. Landlords may use insurance to manage such claims and there is no obligation for them to consider claims outside of the insurance process.
11. The resident informed us that she received a settlement offer from the landlord in response to her application under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. We have not assessed the adequacy of this offer as it is a process outside of the complaint procedure.
12. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
13. 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 tenancy agreement and housing law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is. This depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
14. The landlord’s repairs booklet sets out repair timescales of up to 20 working days. Major works may take longer.
15. Between September and November 2022, the resident reported blocked waste pipes and back-surging drains. Contractors attended on several occasions and identified further works.
16. The evidence indicates that the landlord faced challenges in carrying out repairs because the resident could not always provide access, missed appointments, and delayed responding. In July 2023, her legal representative explained she had a bereavement, which understandably affected her availability. While the landlord is not solely responsible for the delays, it did contribute to them, particularly with a long gap between December 2022 and May 2023 when it failed to arrange follow-up work.
17. The landlord identified the cause of the back-surge was other residents pouring cooking oil down the sink causing the drains to block. It acted appropriately by writing to all residents, asking them to desist with this action and reminding them of their tenancy obligations.
18. As the resident had made a claim under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the landlord communicated in part via its solicitor to the resident’s legal representative. This was reasonable once she had initiated the legal process. We have not seen copies of all the correspondence between the parties and so we cannot fairly assess its communication.
19. The landlord’s surveyor initially stated that it could carry out repairs while the resident remained in the property. However, on 6 July 2023, they advised that thorough sanitisation and material removal might be necessary to eliminate health risks from bacteria. This raises concerns about the validity of the comment that she could remain in the property.
20. The resident said the landlord offered temporary accommodation twice: one was a men’s hostel where she said she experienced harassment, and the other was unsuitable due to steps and distance from her carer. The landlord later provided an invoice for a ground floor double room from 28 November 2023, located approximately 9 miles away from her home. It provided no other information to us about the properties or its consideration of the resident’s needs. This has affected our ability to assess this issue.
21. The landlord informed us that the resident opted to stay with her mother for the duration of the repairs and it agreed to pay her mother. It has submitted no evidence about this arrangement or what payments, if any, were made. This is an example of a shortcoming in its record keeping.
22. The resident said the landlord charged her for communal heating while she was unable to live in the property. Records suggest contractors left the heating on to dry the flat. The landlord has not provided any information, affecting our ability to consider this aspect of the complaint. It also stated that neither the resident nor her representative made a submission for costs as part of her claim. We note she has not provided evidence of the costs incurred to us. We have made a recommendation in relation to this.
23. The resident was worried about paying rent and council tax while not living in her home. At stage 2, the landlord explained she was still responsible for these costs, even if she had moved into temporary accommodation. It acted appropriately by clearly stating its position. This was also in line with its policy.
24. In its final complaint response, the landlord offered £925, comprising £545 for delays in repairs and £380 for distress. This covered the period up to 10 May 2023, when the resident made her legal claim. This offer aligned with both our remedies guidance, and the landlord’s own policy for high-impact cases.

25. Under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of acknowledging a complaint, with a possible 10-day extension. Stage 2 responses are due within 20 working days, extendable by another 20 working days. These timeframes should not be exceeded without valid justification.
26. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on time. It issued its stage 2 response more than 20 weeks after the resident’s escalation request, following intervention from us. This was not in line with the Code or its complaints policy.
27. At stage 2, the landlord apologised for the delay. It offered the resident £150 compensation for her time and trouble pursuing the complaint. This sum is in line with our remedies guidance for failings which adversely impacted a resident with no permanent impact.