Southwark Council (202503168)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom maisonette with her partner and young children. She was pregnant during the period of the complaint. She complained to the landlord that she had no heating and her windows were broken.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
   1. No heating.
   2. Window repairs.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found the landlord responsible for maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of:
   1. No heating.
   2. Window repairs.
5. We have found the landlord responsible for service failure in its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of no heating

6. The landlord did not put right the detriment caused by the period without adequate heating.

Reports of window repairs

7. The landlord did not put right the failings it had identified, and it took no action after further reports.

Complaint handling

8. The compensation offer did not fully reflect the time and trouble the resident experienced because of the stage 2 delay.

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.

9. The landlord accepts that there were failings in how it handled the resident’s reports. When this happens, we assess if the complaint was resolved fairly and if the landlord offered suitable redress. We also look at whether the landlord followed our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
10. The landlord acknowledged that the resident’s first report of having no heating was sent to the wrong contractor and offered £50 in recognition, which was reasonable. Its records also show that it raised a new order on 17 January 2024, but it did not attend until 20 January 2024. This was outside its 24-hour emergency repair timescales.
11. The landlord’s records stated that there was no access when it attended. However, it is unclear whether the resident had been told about the appointment, and there is no evidence that the landlord tried to attend again. This was despite the resident reporting on 23 January 2024 that she had no heating, was pregnant, and that her child was suffering. Instead of following up, the landlord closed the job on 29 January 2024. This was inappropriate and caused the resident distress, as well as time and trouble, as she had to raise the issue again 2 days later.
12. The landlord attended on 2 February 2024, and its records again stated that there was no access. It is unclear what happened, as the resident told the landlord the same day that she had been at home all day waiting for the contractor. Despite this, the landlord did not raise another order until 6 February 2024, 4 days later. This showed a lack of urgency and a failure to follow its policy timescales.
13. The contractor also missed this appointment, causing further distress to the resident, who by this point had been without heating for more than 2 weeks. The landlord acknowledged this missed appointment in its final response and said it had processed another missed‑appointment payment. However, it is unclear whether this was paid to the resident, and we have taken this into account in our overall compensation order.
14. The landlord attended on 8 February 2024 and found that the radiator needed new valves. These were replaced on 15 February 2024, a month after the resident first reported the issue. Its records show that it refilled the system and tested it to make sure it was working properly.
15. In March 2024, the resident told the landlord that the heating only worked at times and would switch off at night. There is no evidence that the landlord carried out any checks on the heating system until December 2024, almost 9 months later. Its records show that it identified further issues with the heating system and some radiator valves. Although the landlord’s records from June 2025 state that the system was working, the resident told us that the radiators are in poor condition, have mould, and are extremely noisy. Given this, we have ordered the landlord to inspect them.
16. The landlord’s final response acknowledged a significant delay in addressing the problem and accepted that missed appointments made the delays worse. It apologised for this. However, its £90 compensation offer did not go far enough to address the distress caused by the failings identified in this report.
17. When determining an appropriate level of compensation, we considered the detriment caused to the resident, including her circumstances at the time of the complaint, the fact that she had a young child living with her, and that the issues occurred during the winter months. We have also taken into account the impact on the resident having likely lived with inadequate heating for more than a year.
18. Our compensation award is in line with our remedies guidance, which recommends awards from £100 where failings have had an adverse effect on a resident.

19. On 15 January 2024, the resident reported that her bedroom window would not open or close properly. The landlord’s final response stated that it attended the same day and secured the window, which was in line with its emergency repair timescales. However, its repair records are unclear on this point, which suggests possible issues with the landlord’s repair record-keeping. We have highlighted this as a learning point below.
20. In any case, the landlord acknowledged that it should have communicated more clearly, as the resident was not aware that she should not open the window until a permanent repair was carried out. As a result, she opened it unintentionally, and the landlord had to attend again on 18 January 2024. The landlord’s repair records also noted that the windows in the living room, bedrooms, and kitchen would not open or close properly. Its final response stated that it had inspected and repaired the kitchen window, but it is unclear what, if any, work was completed on the other windows. This again suggests issues with its repair record-keeping.
21. Following this visit, the landlord raised a follow-up job to repair the broken bedroom window. This repair was completed on 8 February 2024, within its routine repair timescales. The landlord then acted fairly by carrying out a post-inspection on 22 February 2024. Its records stated that although there were slight draughts, the windows were in good order, and no further work was required.
22. However, on 18 March 2024, after the resident asked the landlord for its final response to her complaint, it said that although it had booked an inspection for 22 February 2024, it could not find any notes on the system. It then asked the resident to confirm what had been discussed during the visit. This is concerning, as it is unclear why the landlord did not have a record of the post-inspection outcome.
23. The resident told the landlord that the problems with the windows were still unresolved, that the situation had worsened, and the landlord had advised her that the issue was structural, and the windows needed to be replaced. However, there is no evidence that the landlord took any action in response. This led the resident to raise further complaints in August 2024 and February 2025. Again, there is no evidence of a follow-up inspection or response to these concerns. This caused the resident distress, and she felt unable to continue living in the property.
24. She recently told us that noise and wind continue to enter the property through the windows, and that rainwater is leaking through the frame of one window. And the landlord had taken no action to resolve this.
25. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused by the multiple appointments. However, it did not address the resident’s continued reports that the windows were still broken after the post‑inspection, an issue she raised before the landlord issued its final response.
26. Instead, it advised her to use heavier curtains to help manage the draughts. This overlooked the fact that the problem was not limited to draughts. The resident believed there were outstanding window repairs. The landlord also failed to carry out a further inspection, despite being aware of the household’s circumstances and the resident’s safety concerns.
27. Our compensation order is to address the distress caused by the failings identified in this report. This is in line with our remedies guidance, as outlined in the previous section. Our order of an inspection is so the landlord can determine what work, if any, is needed to the windows.

28. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 within its policy timescales and in line with our Complaint Handling Code. However, it took almost 9 months to issue its stage 2 final response. This caused time and trouble for the resident, who had to chase the landlord for an update and felt it necessary to raise another complaint about some of the same issues.
29. Although the landlord apologised for the delay and offered £50 in compensation, it did not explain the reason for the delay or identify any learning. This fell short of our dispute resolution principles, which require landlords to learn from outcomes.
30. Taking this into account and given the length of the delay, which was considerable, we have ordered additional compensation in line with our remedies guidance. This guidance suggests awards of up to £100 where the landlord’s offer does not fully reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident.

Learning

31. The landlord should ensure that it manages repairs with appropriate urgency, considering the circumstances of the situation, and that jobs are not closed until the issue has been fully resolved and evidenced through proper follow-up.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. Some of the landlord’s repair records were unclear and lacked detail. The landlord should improve its repair record-keeping so that all appointments, inspections, outcomes, and follow-on actions are accurately logged.

Communication

33. The landlord acknowledged that its communication fell short. The landlord should communicate clearly and proactively with residents about appointments, repair outcomes, and required actions, ensuring that residents understand what has been done and what will happen next.