Southwark Council (202347450)

Background

1. The resident complained to the landlord about the length of time it had taken to clear vegetation from the gutters and repair the leak from the overflow pipe on her roof.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the gutter and associated repairs.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the gutter and associated repairs.
5. We have found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Reasons

What we did not investigate

6. Our Scheme explains we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident said that vegetation had been growing in the gutter since 2021. However, there is no evidence she raised a formal complaint which has completed the landlord’s complaints process at the time or that she was prevented from raising a complaint sooner. For that reason, we will not investigate the landlord’s handling of repairs to the gutter prior to May 2023.

What we did investigate

Repairs to the gutter and associated repairs.

7. The resident’s lease requires the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. This includes gutters and external pipes. The landlord did not provide a copy of its repairs policy as requested so it is unclear what timeframe it sets to complete routine repairs.
8. The resident reported vegetation growing from the gutter on 23 May 2023. The landlord attended on 14 June 2023 and found a leak from the overflow pipe causing vegetation to grow. The landlord required scaffolding to remove the plants before an investigation could be carried out on the roof. A plumber also needed to fix the leak from the overflow pipe. As we have not received the landlord’s repairs policy we cannot determine whether the timeliness of the attendance was in line with its policy, however 15 working days to attend a routine repair is fair.
9. The landlord issued a section 20 notice because it could not complete the work without consultation, as set out in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The landlord has not provided a copy of the notice or any related records, despite our request. This limits our ability to confirm the consultation process it undertook. The resident told the landlord the section 20 notice expired on 18 September 2023 and therefore it had exceeded the expected timescales for completion. While it is understood the section 20 process can take a minimum of 2 months from issue to complete, there is no clear audit trail within the landlord’s records that demonstrates when the notice was served, however it is evident the delay caused the resident frustration.
10. It is unclear whether the delay resulted from issuing the notice late or from not progressing the works promptly after the notice expired. Either way, the landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident which was unreasonable. The resident later contacted the landlord because it attempted to issue a further section 20 notice in September 2023. This was inappropriate, as the landlord should have held accurate records and been aware that the original notice had expired. This caused avoidable delays at a time when the outstanding repairs were causing damage to the property.
11. During the section 20 consultation, the landlord put the repair on hold. It did not conduct any interim work to deal with the vegetation in the gutter or the leak. This was unreasonable and would have been inconvenient for the resident. While the landlord could not complete the full repair during the consultation period, it could have taken steps to make the area safe. Doing so may have reduced the impact on the resident and limited further damage, as the leak was affecting the resident’s kitchen. The decision not to complete interim repairs would have caused the resident distress, frustration, and inconvenience.
12. The resident raised her complaint on 12 October 2023 because she was unhappy with the time the landlord was taking to complete the repairs and felt it had taken too long to issue the section 20 notice. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 1 November 2023. It said that once the section 20 notice expired, it had attempted to attend on 6 and 23 October 2023 but could not gain access. It confirmed that scaffolding would be erected on 10 November 2023 and that the repair works would start on 13 November 2023. This was fair, as the landlord had been unable to gain access, it provided clear dates for when the works would begin to ensure the resident was available for the works to take place. The landlord apologised for the frustration caused to the resident. This was appropriate and showed that it recognised the impact of the delays.
13. The landlord removed the vegetation from the gutter on 13 November 2023 by which time evidence shows that vegetation roots had grown beneath the roof tiles. Although the landlord recommended additional roof repairs, it did not carry out those works. This was not reasonable given the length of time the resident had already waited, and the damage caused to her kitchen. This would have been frustrating for the resident.
14. The landlord provided a further stage 1 follow on response on 6 December 2023.. It confirmed that a repair had been scheduled for 12 December 2023 to fix the leak from the overflow pipe. We recognise landlords are not always able to complete repairs before issuing complaint responses. Where repairs are still outstanding, we expect the landlord to set out what it is doing to complete the repairs, which it did in its response. However, as the leak was coming through the kitchen it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have prioritised the repair and communicate directly with the resident to offer a more timely appointment.
15. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £100 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident. This was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy however, it did not consider the delay from the resident reporting the repair to the landlord issuing the section 20 notice, which is unreasonable.
16. The resident escalated her complaint on 7 December 2023 because the leak from the overflow pipe had worsened and evidence shows that the landlord attended to repair it on 12 December 2023. However the leak continued to cause damage to the property the following day. It is not clear from the evidence whether the plumber returned to complete further works, but the resident has confirmed that it fixed the leak around the same time. As the landlord has not provided clear information about when the repair was completed or the cause of the delay, we cannot assess the reasonableness of its actions. However, the lack of records was inappropriate and the delay in resolving the leak was unreasonable.
17. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 15 February 2024. It clarified that the leak on 12 December 2023 was repaired and completed in line with its expected repairs timescales. However, we are unable to verify what the expected timescales were as the landlord did not provide its repairs policy in our request for evidence. The landlord directed the resident to its liability insurance to make a claim on the damages caused. This was a positive approach to recognise that the leak had caused damage to the resident’s kitchen.
18. There were several failings by the landlord in its handling of the repair. There was lack of appropriate record keeping with regards to the section 20 notice and it took too long to complete the repairs. It did not carry out any temporary works while the section 20 notice was in place which left the property leaking for a prolonged period of time, and it did not complete the recommended works after removing the vegetation from the gutter.
19. Positively, the landlord apologised for its failings. While it offered compensation to the resident, the amount was not adequate for the failings identified in this report. The landlord also did not show that it learned from the resident’s experience. Our principles say landlords should be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. It should fix the problem and take steps to prevent it happening again. In this case, the landlord did not provide evidence that it had reviewed its processes or implemented improvements based on the resident’s experience.
20. Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the gutter and associated repairs. The lack of evidence provided by the landlord has made it difficult to investigate the complaint, and its failure to provide further evidence when we requested it has contributed to these difficulties.Its record keeping was poor, andit is unclear whether it attended again after the resident reported that the overflow pipe continued to leak into the kitchen, or what work the plumber carried out when attending to the overflow pipe. The landlord’s communication was unsatisfactory because it did not keep the resident updated, which caused the resident avoidable time and effort when trying to obtain information about the progress of the repairs.
21. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £250 in compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused to the resident. This is inclusive of the £100 it has already offered in its stage 1 follow on response. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord’s offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

The associated complaint

22. The landlord has a 2 stage complaint process. It says it will log and acknowledge a complaint within 3 working days, and it will issue a decision in writing within 15 working days at stage 1, and 25 working days at stage 2. Its complaint policy is not in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) issued in 2022, which states that complaints at stage 1 must be responded to within 10 working days, and 20 working days at stage 2. The landlord has since aligned its timescales, and they are now in line with the Code issued in 2024.
23. The resident raised concerns about how the repair was handled on 4 occasions before the landlord agreed to treat her issues as a complaint. This is not in line with the Code which states a resident does not have to use the word “complaint” for it to be treated as such. It also explains landlords must ensure that efforts to resolve a resident’s concerns do not obstruct access to the complaints procedure or result in any unreasonable delay. The landlord did not follow this, and the resident experienced unnecessary time and trouble when trying to use the complaints procedure. This was not appropriate.
24. The landlord provided its response within 13 working days of the resident raising her complaint. We have not seen evidence of the landlord’s request for an extension, but it did say that it informed the resident that it needed more time to respond. This is in line with the Code, which allows landlords a 10 working day extension.
25. The landlord issued a follow on response, which was not in line with its complaint policy. The policy sets out a 2 stage process, and sending a follow on response caused confusion as to what stage of the process it was responding to the resident. It would have been more appropriate for the landlord to ask the resident if she wanted to escalate her complaint and then provide a stage 2 response in line with its policy.
26. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 7 December 2023. This means that 48 working days passed before she received the stage 2 response. Although the landlord apologised for the delay, it did not offer any compensation for the delay or time and trouble caused to the resident. The landlord did not show that it had learned from the complaint. This was not in line with its complaint policy or the Code, and it would have been frustrating for the resident.
27. We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time was not in line with the Code and the timescales to respond at stage 1 and 2 of the complaint process did not match the timescales set out in the Code. The landlord issued 3 responses which was not in line with the 2 step process in its complaint policy and the landlord delayed in providing its stage 2 response. We order the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation in recognition for the inconvenience caused. This is inclusive of the £20 it already offered.

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.

Recommendations

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