Southwark Council (202403106)

Background

1. The resident first reported issues with the smell of cigarette smoke entering her property on 6 June 2022. The landlord investigated the issue and attempted different repairs throughout 2022 and 2023. The resident has informed the landlord of her vulnerabilities.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s reports of cigarette smoke entering her bathroom.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found service failure in the way the landlord handled reports of cigarette smoke entering the resident’s bathroom.
4. We found no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord investigated the smell of smoke and made several repairs. However, these repairs were delayed and it did not consider any steps to address the issue outside of these repairs. It did not take the resident’s vulnerabilities into account throughout this period.
6. The landlord followed its complaint policy.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

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.

7. A landlord cannot prevent a resident from smoking inside their home if the tenancy allows it. However, the landlord must still take reasonable and proportionate steps when a resident reports being affected by smoke. This includes investigating whether the issue is linked to disrepair, checking for breaches of tenancy such as smoking in communal areas, speaking to the neighbour where appropriate, offering practical advice, and considering mediation. The landlord should make clear the limits of what it can do but should not dismiss the concern without proper investigation.
8. The resident first reported the smell of cigarette smoke on 6 June 2022. The landlord inspected the issue and completed works on 11 October 2022. The landlord’s repairs policy says a non‑urgent repair should be completed within 20 working days. This repair took 90 working days, which was outside the policy timescale.
9. The resident told the landlord on 7 November 2022 that the repair had not resolved the problem. The landlord investigated again and carried out further works in the resident’s property. These works were completed on 9 February 2023, which was 66 working days after the resident’s report. This was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
10. The further repair did not resolve the problem, and the resident raised the issue again on 2 March 2023. The landlord then carried out works in the neighbouring properties on 8 November 2023 and 19 February 2024. The landlord had difficulty accessing these properties. However, the repairs still took 246 working days to complete.
11. The landlord investigated whether the smoke was linked to disrepair. However, there is no evidence that it spoke to the neighbour about the issue or offered practical advice to the resident. There is also no evidence that it considered mediation. The landlord focused its communication on investigating the matter as a fire safety concern and did not explain its position on smoking inside the building. While investigating the potential disrepair was appropriate, not considering or addressing the issue more broadly was not reasonable.
12. The resident told the landlord that she was unable to use her bathroom while the smell continued. She told us about alternative arrangements she made to access a bathroom. There is no evidence that she gave the landlord the same information. Although the resident described the impact to us, there is no evidence she told the landlord. The landlord cannot be held responsible for not acting on information it did not have.
13. There is no evidence that the landlord took the resident’s vulnerabilities into account when it was dealing with this matter. When the resident mentioned the impact on herself, the landlord did not enquire further about this or offer her additional support. The landlord’s communication generally was poor throughout the issue, with the resident’s communications often going unanswered. It did not manage its communication effectively and did not reply to a number of the resident’s attempts to make contact. This was not reasonable of the landlord in the circumstances.
14. The landlord accepted that there was a delay to a repair in its complaint responses and tried to put things right. However, it did not recognise all its failings. The evidence shows it carried out multiple repairs in the resident’s home and in neighbouring properties. While it is positive the landlord repeatedly investigated the issue, the time taken for the repairs did not meet its policy timescales at several stages. Some delays were due to difficulties accessing neighbouring properties, but this does not fully account for the extended timescales.
15. The landlord should have engaged with the resident’s vulnerabilities, offering support and taking them into account when conducting repairs and considering whether to offer further support. It should have considered the issue beyond just a repair. For these reasons, we find service failure for this matter. We may have found maladministration but for the landlord’s efforts to acknowledge its failings in its complaint responses.
16. The landlord offered the resident £425 compensation for the delays and for the distress and inconvenience caused. However, this amount did not fully reflect the length of time the issue remained unresolved, the repeated delays outside the landlord’s policy timescales, or the cumulative impact on a vulnerable resident. Taking account of the extended timescales, the landlord’s limited communication, and its failure to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities, we order it to pay an additional £125, taking the total compensation to £550.
17. The landlord’s compensation policy sets a rate of £5 per week for delays to repairs that cause low impact, capped at £250 per year. The total delays over a year. The landlord should therefore award an additional £25 in line with its policy. It should also pay a further £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of the failings described in this report.
18. We are aware that further action has taken place since its stage 2 complaint response, and the resident understands she can make a further complaint to us if she remains dissatisfied with those events.

19. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints in 5 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy says a resident should receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
20. The landlord acknowledged both the resident’s complaint and the escalation within the appropriate timescale. It responded to the stage 1 complaint in 4 working days and the stage 2 complaint in 12 working days. The landlord responded to both the resident’s complaint and the escalation on time.
21. The landlord followed its complaint procedure. It acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaint within the required timescales. It also took steps to put things right and appropriately provided the resident with its insurer’s details in response to her report of damaged belongings. We therefore find no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord’s records were generally detailed and showed good practice. This level of detail supports transparency and is positive. The records largely captured the full repair journey. However, on some occasions the landlord did not record a repair, or the record did not clearly show what work had been completed. The landlord should ensure it records all repairs accurately.

Communication

23. The landlord’s communication during the repair process was inadequate. The evidence shows the resident asked for updates on several occasions but did not always receive a response. The landlord did not provide regular or detailed written updates outside its complaint responses. This approach was not appropriate, particularly in light of the resident’s vulnerabilities. The landlord should monitor its approach to communicating about repairs, especially with vulnerable residents, to ensure it reflects the expectations set out in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Repairing Trust. It should consider utilising our centre for learning and the resources and workshops available there.