Southwark Council (202434183)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat. He complained to the landlord about leaks from above causing damp and mould. While the landlord said it had completed repairs the resident remained dissatisfied and asked us to investigate.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks causing damp and mould.
3. We have also looked at the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks causing damp and mould.
5. We have found that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord did not complete all works and inspections in line with its policy. While it identified and offered compensation for some failings, it did not identify all its failures.
7. The landlord did not handle the complaint in line with its policy or the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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.

8. The landlord’s repairs policy explains that it is responsible for repairing leaks in its properties. It goes on to say that a minor leak is a non-urgent repair and will be completed within 20 working days. Reports of damp and mould should also be inspected within 20 working days.
9. The landlord identified several leaks affecting the property and has addressed these individually. We will address each of these in turn as part of our assessment of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns.
10. The resident first reported a leak from the flat above on 13 October 2023. The landlord made efforts to gain access to repair the leak but could not access the property when it first attended. The landlord completed works to the flat above on 29 November 2023. This was after 33 working days. While this is outside the timescale given in the landlord’s repairs policy, this is because it was unable to gain access to the property above.
11. The resident reported a leak from the bath affecting the property on 18 December 2023. The landlord attended within the timescale given in its policy, but no leak was identified. At this visit the landlord did identify that follow up works were needed to the roof. The landlord also identified that a mould wash was needed to the hallway which was carried out within its timescales. That the landlord proactively identified the need for these additional works was positive.
12. The landlord did not carry out works to the roof in line with its timescales. It identified this failing in its response to the resident at stage 1 of the complaints process. It said the repairs were delayed by 30 weeks and applied its policy of £10 per week for a low impact delay and offered a payment of £300.It is positive that the landlord identified that it had not acted in line with its policy. It provided adequate compensation in line with its compensation policy. We find that this was appropriate.
13. The landlord also arranged for cosmetic works to be completed to rectify areas that had been water stained by the leaks. These were planned for 3 and 7 October 2024. We have not seen any evidence that these works were completed. This points to a record keeping failure.
14. The actions taken by the landlord to remedy these issues were largely completed within the landlord’s policy timescales. There was one occasion that works were completed late because the landlord was unable to gain access, and one occasion where the landlord has offered compensation in line with its guidance because of a delay. The issues were all investigated and resolved and it took a proactive approach to managing the works needed. This was positive.
15. However, the landlord did not carry out a damp and mould inspection of the property following the resident’s reports of damp and mould as part of his complaint. The landlord should have completed this within 20 working days, we have not seen evidence that this was completed. This is a failing.
16. While the landlord has taken appropriate steps to compensate the resident for the failures it identified, it did not identify that it had not completed a damp and mould inspection. The landlord did subsequently resolve the issues with damp and mould, but this was not completed in line with its policy timescales.
17. Our remedies guidance says that when the landlord has identified failings but its efforts at putting things right have not fully compensated the resident a payment of £100 may be appropriate. This is in line with a low impact failing in the landlord’s compensation guidance.
18. To reflect the impact of failing to carry out all works and inspections in line with its policies the landlord must pay the resident £400, inclusive of the £300 it has already offered.

19. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that a complaint will be responded to within 15 working days at stage 1 and within 25 working days at stage 2. It says all complaints will be acknowledged within 3 days. These timescales are not in line with the Code which says that a complaint should be responded to within 10 working days of acknowledgement at stage 1 and within 20 working days of acknowledgement at stage 2.
20. The resident raised his complaint on 27 June 2024 and the landlord acknowledged it on the same day. This was in line with the landlord’s policy. It advised the resident it would respond by 11 July 2024.
21. The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident on 16 September 2024. This was after 57 working days and so was significantly outside the landlord’s policy timescale. This is a failing.
22. The resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 1 October 2024. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 19 November 2024. This was after 35 working days. This was not in line with the landlord’s published policy or the Code. This is also a failing.
23. The time taken to answer the resident’s complaint was not in line with the landlord’s published policy or the Code. These delays caused uncertainty for the resident and meant the issues the resident was complaining about took longer to resolve than necessary.
24. The landlord apologised for the delays in providing a stage 1 response and offered £50 compensation to reflect this. This was sufficient to remedy the delay at stage 1, however the response at stage 2 was also outside the timescale given in the Code. This failure has not been appropriately remedied. As a result, we find that there was service failure in the landlords handling of the complaint.
25. Our remedies guidance says that when a failure has not had a significant impact on the outcome of a complaint and has been of a short duration, a payment up to £100 may be appropriate. This is also in line with a low impact failing in the landlord’s compensation policy. To reflect the impact of the failures in complaint handling on the resident the landlord must pay the resident £100 compensation, inclusive of the £50 it already offered.

Learning

26. The landlord should make efforts to ensure that its complaint handling policy is in line with the Code.
27. The landlord should also make efforts to ensure that it follows the timescales given in its repairs policy.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord did not maintain adequate records about the repairs that the resident reported or the works that it had completed.

Communication

29. The landlord’s communication with the resident was good and it made multiple attempts to discuss the complaint by phone to better understand the resident’s concerns.