Southwark Council (202400615)

Decision
Case ID	202400615
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Southwark Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	18 March 2026

Background

1. In January 2024 the resident reported that roof tiles had fallen during a storm. The resident lives with his partner and 5 children. He expressed concern about the delay in completing the repairs, stating it posed health and safety risks to his household and resulted in water ingress. He told us he has MS and PTSD, which he said increased the impact of the situation for him.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. Reports of roof repairs.
   2. Associated complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to roof repairs.
   2. Service failure in relation to the associated complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Roof repair

4. The landlord unreasonably delayed the roof repair and did not keep adequate records or oversight to explain the prolonged delay. It failed to provide regular updates and there is no evidence it considered the resident’s known vulnerability, or that it took a risk-based approach to its response to the repairs. It did acknowledge some failings, apologised and offered financial redress, but it was not sufficient to reflect the full extent of the impact of its delays, poor communication and record-keeping.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord missed the resident’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint requests, it provided a response outside of its policy timescales, resulting in protracted complaint handling. While it offered some redress, this did not go far enough to reflect the extent of its complaint handling failings.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 16 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £810 made up as follows: £370 offered by the landlord at stage 2. £40 for the for the distress and inconvenience caused by additional delay in repairs. £200 for the distress and inconvenience and impact caused by the landlord’s failure to consider household vulnerabilities. £100 for the distress and inconvenienced caused by delays in fulfilling the expectation the landlord had set at stage 2 to provide a paint pack. £100 for additional complaint handling failings. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 16 April 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
February and March 2024	On 13 February, the resident made his complaint to the landlord. He said he was awaiting scaffolding needed for the landlord to complete its inspection of the roof following his report of lost roof tiles on 4 January. He reported a health and safety issue owing to roof tiles and debris falling onto the front path. On 12 March, he contacted the landlord a second time to ask to escalate his complaint to stage 2 due to no further action. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on the following day.
15 April 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the resident’s complaint. It said: The landlord initially raised a job in January which it cancelled and reassigned to a roofing specialist. It could not complete its initial inspection to assess the required repair works without scaffolding. It had scheduled an appointment for 17 April 2024 to establish where scaffolding should be placed to assess the required remedial works. It provided information to the resident about how to make an insurance claim for damages to personal belongings.
April – July 2024	On 17 April, the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint. He said following the landlord’s inspection materials fell from the roof and almost hit his young son. The resident said he has MS and the stress was detrimental to his illness. On 27 June, he made further contact with the landlord to chase the lack of a response to his request to escalate his complaint. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 2 July.
22 July 2024	The resident made a further complaint about the quality of works and poor customer service of its operatives.
19 August 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It upheld the resident’s complaint. It said: The landlord set out the actions it had taken to progress the repairs, which included an inspection to assess scaffolding required on 17 April, which was then in place on the week of 29 May. It inspected on 27 June to establish the scope of works and agreed to extend the scaffolding after concerns raised by the resident on 2 July. The landlord had completed remedial works on 20 July. It completed further inspections on 29 July to assess the additional scope of works and on 7 August to assess the follow-on works required to the rear of the property and agreed to follow on works including render to the extension and repairs to the bay window The landlord gave advice to the resident not to use the scaffolding for safety reasons. The landlord apologised for the failure in service by its contractors. It apologised for its delay in providing a stage 1 response which it said it should have identified in its former complaint response, and for its failure to escalate the resident’s complaint.  The landlord apologised that it had not put things right for the resident, for its customer service failings, and the sub-standard quality of work which required further works to rectify. It said it had requested the work be prioritised and it would monitor the works. In recognition of the delay in remedial works, it awarded compensation of £160 in line with its policy for a low impact delay at £5 per week for the period of 32 weeks, between 1 February and 31 August. It said it would review accordingly if the repair took longer. In recognition of its complaint handling delay, and the resident’s time and trouble, it awarded compensation of £50.
19 August 2024	The resident complained the compensation offered had not sufficiently considered the impact the delayed works had given the vulnerabilities of the household and his safety concerns. The landlord said it increased its compensation offer to reflect its policy for a medium impact delay at £10 per week over 32 weeks bringing the total of compensation offered, including £50 for complaint handling failings, to £360 (correct calculation £370). It also offered to provide the resident with a paint pack to redecorate rooms damaged due to water ingress.
Referral to the Ombudsman April 2024	The resident brought his complaint to us before his complaint completed the landlord’s internal complaints process. On 4 April, he said that the landlord needed to complete repairs because debris had fallen from the roof and presented a health and safety concern. On 29 April, the resident said there was water ingress in the children’s bedrooms. The resident said this was causing stress which was impacting on his mental and physical health.
October to December 2024	Over this period the resident copied us into communications with the landlord about his dissatisfaction with the contractors attending without notice and the quality of the further works.  On 8 October, the resident contacted us to state that the roof repair was unresolved. On 11 December, the resident said the scaffolding was still up and causing him anxiety and health issues.
3 March 2026	–       Following contact with us, the resident reported potential damp and in the property. We gave notice to the landlord indicating that there could be a hazard which could fall under Awaab’s Law obligations on this date.

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.

Complaint	Response to roof repair.
Finding	Maladministration

6. The landlord was responsible for keeping the structure and exterior, including the roof, in repair in accordance the terms stated in its tenancy agreement and its obligation under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Its repair policy states it will respond to an emergency repair within 24 hours which includes health and safety repairs reported that could cause injury or damage to property. In this situation it will attend to make safe until it can carry out a full repair. Its policy classes slipped or missing tiles and most roofing faults as non-urgent repairs that have a target for completion within 20 working days.
7. The resident told us he believes the roof repair remains outstanding because he does not believe the landlord completed works to a satisfactory standard. We cannot investigate issues the landlord did not address in its final complaint response as it would not be fair to consider matters that the landlord has not had the opportunity to address. Therefore, we will primarily focus on events from the date of the first repair on 4 January 2024 through to the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 19 August 2024.
8. However, as the repairs continued to be outstanding for another month after the final response, and the landlord said it could review its redress in these circumstances, we will also consider this as part our overall assessment. References to later events after the final complaint response are for context only. There is no evidence that those matters have exhausted the landlord’s complaints process therefore they fall outside of the remit of this assessment. It would be for the resident to raise any new repair issues or complaints with the landlord in the first instance.
9. The resident reported fallen tiles on 4 January 2024. The landlord set a target date of 1 February 2024 to complete remedial works, which aligned with its policy. When it issued its stage 1 response in April 2024, the landlord had not inspected the roof. It said it had scheduled an inspection for 17 April to identify where to place scaffolding to inspect and complete works. The resident escalated his complaint after the inspection because of the lack of action despite several reports of falling debris and water ingress over this period. The records show the landlord did not complete remedial works until 20 July 2024. This was around 121 working days beyond its target due date.
10. The records show there were repeated coordination issues between the landlord and its contractors about the scaffolding approval and the scope of works. The landlord’s work order records do not provide a clear, chronological audit of actions, follow-ups, or reasons for delays in the approval of works. For example, the roof contractor attended on 23 January and 17 April 2024 but could not inspect due to missing scaffolding; the records refer to a hold on works placed without explanation, and a work order raised to the wrong contractor. These gaps mean the landlord has not demonstrated it exercised adequate oversight and record-keeping during the outstanding repair. Our Spotlight report On Knowledge and Information management (2023) highlights how such practice can contribute to delays and uncertainty, and in this case, resulted in the resident having to chase progress.
11. The records show limited proactive updates from the landlord while works were outstanding. The resident reported contractors attended on 18 July 2024 without notice. The landlord’s policy states it should provide reasonable notice at least 24 hours before attending. In the absence of appointment records and the absence of records about its communication of its updates to the resident, it is not possible to establish whether the landlord complied with its policy expectation, which was also a communications and record keeping failing.
12. On 22 July 2024 the resident disputed the quality of the works and the scope of the work completed by its contractors on 20 July. The resident also raised concerns about the tidiness of the site. The resident said contractors left debris on the roof and gutters which blew into gardens.
13. The landlord issued its stage 2 response in August 2024. It confirmed it had failed in its first attempt to put things right due to inadequate works by its contractor, and further remedial works were necessary. The landlord said it had already inspected on 29 July and 7 August to identify the extent of the follow-on works and it was in the process of agreeing the necessary work order. Despite its delay in raising a work order, this was appropriate action for the landlord to take.
14. The resident has told us the delays and his experience of dealing with the landlord and its contractors caused stress which can exacerbate his medical condition. We cannot assess if the landlord’s actions or omissions directly impacted on a person’s health which would be fairer, reasonable and appropriate for another more suitable civil process or court to consider. We can however consider the distress and inconvenience caused to a resident as a result of any identified failings.
15. The landlord was aware of the resident’s medical vulnerability. The records do not show that this informed its risk assessment or escalation, or its communications with the resident following his reports of falling debris and water ingress. There is no evidence of a health and safety risk assessment of the resident’s individual circumstances in line with best practice expectations. In these circumstances, it would have been good practice for the landlord to document a risk-led approach, including timely inspection and scaffolding approvals and to demonstrate it provided proactive updates. It did not reflect on these omissions as part of its stage 2 response.
16. Where the landlord has admitted failings, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and satisfactorily resolved the resident’s complaint in the circumstances. In doing so, we consider if the redress offered aligns with our Dispute Resolution Principles – to be fair – put things right – learn from outcomes, and our remedies guidance.
17. At stage 2, the landlord apologised for the unsatisfactory standard of service provided by its contractors and said it expects its contractors are trained to reflect the landlord’s values when carrying out remedial repairs. However, it did set out meaningful actions to show learning or how it would improve contractor oversight to prevent recurrence.
18. Overall, the landlord said it would monitor progress of repairs at stage 2. It apologised and offered redress for low impact delay at £5 per week for the 32-week period between 1 February and 31 August, which it said it would review when it completed the repair. It later increased its offer on the same date to reflect a medium impact at £10 per week over 32 weeks which amounts to £320. It also offered to provide a paint pack to the resident, which he said he never received. The records show the landlord completed additional works on 1 October 2024.
19. Under our remedies guidance, the revised level of compensation for the period of unreasonable delay to 31 August is appropriate. However, there was also further delays until 1 October 2024. To reflect that additional period, we order the landlord to pay to pay compensation at £10 per week over 4 weeks, amounting to £40.
20. Further, while the landlord apologised, acknowledged failings, and made some attempts to put things right, it did not address the full extent of the identified failures, specifically, it prolonged delay well beyond its policy timescales, poor communication, inadequate record‑keeping and oversight, and the absence of a risk‑led approach despite known vulnerability and reported safety concerns. It did revise its compensation offer after its stage 2 response, but this did not sufficiently reflect how these shortcomings unfairly impacted the resident given the uncertainty and the time and effort in chasing the repairs which likely increased the resident’s distress and inconvenience, which we consider amounts to maladministration.
21. The compensation therefore was not proportionate to the overall impact of these failings. We therefore make a further order for the landlord to apologise and to pay compensation of £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused.
22. The resident told us he did not receive the paint pack the landlord promised in its revised stage 2 response. The landlord told us in February 2025 that the resident was due to receive the pack, but there is no evidence it was provided. On balance, given this was still outstanding more than a year after the landlord first offered it, we accept the resident’s account. We therefore order the landlord to pay £100 to reflect this avoidable distress and inconvenience caused by the delay.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

23. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition (April 2024). It sets out the landlord should acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and respond to a complaint at stage 1 and stage 2 within 10 and 20 working days respectively. Any extension should not exceed 10 or 20 additional working days respectively.
24. The landlord has a published its complaints policy dated April 2024 which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of response timescales. However, it does not set a timescale for extending its complaint response. Instead, it states it will explain when a complainant can expect a full response and seek to agree a new timescale.
25. Over the period of the resident’s stage 1 complaint, the landlord was operating its former complaint policy in which it set out to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 3 working days and respond in 15 working days.
26. The resident raised a complaint on 13 February 2024, which the landlord did not acknowledge. The resident raised a further complaint on 12 March 2024. The landlord acknowledged this on the following working day and said it aimed to reply by 27 March 2024. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 15 April 2024, which was 24 working days later and fell outside of its expected timescale. The records do not show the landlord had discussed its requirement to extend its complaint response. In its stage 1 response, the landlord did not acknowledge its missed opportunity to record the resident’s initial complaint, and it did not offer any redress for the delay in its complaint handling.
27. The resident requested an escalation of his complaint to stage 2 on 17 April. The resident chased his request to escalate the complaint on 27 June. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate his complaint within 3 working days, on 2 July. However, it issued its stage 2 response 37 working days later on19 August, which was 87 working days after the resident’s initial escalation request, which far exceeded its expected timescale. The records do not show that the landlord had contacted the resident within that time to update him or to request an extension.
28. At stage 2, the landlord acknowledged its delay in providing its stage 1 complaint and its missed opportunity to escalate the resident’s complaint on 17 April. The landlord apologised for its poor management of the resident’s complaint and offered redress for its delay in providing a stage 2 response and to account for the resident’s time and trouble for having to escalate his complaints. However, the landlord did not acknowledge its missed opportunity to log the resident’s first request to log a stage 1 complaint in February, or resident’s need to chase the stage 2 escalation in June. Therefore, the landlord did not fully recognise the significance of the extent of its complaint handling delays and how this further impacted the resident.
29. Where the landlord has admitted failings, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and satisfactorily resolved the resident’s complaint in the circumstances. In doing so, we consider if the redress offered aligns with our Dispute Resolution Principles – to be fair – put things right – learn from outcomes.
30. It is positive that the landlord recognised its complaint handling failures at stage 2 and offered £50 redress to put things right. However, in our view the landlord’s offer did not go far enough to sufficiently recognise the unreasonable delay in its complaint responses, or the adverse impact caused to the resident for their time and effort and distress and inconvenience at chasing the landlord for a response. Therefore, a higher level of redress is appropriate in line with or remedies guidance.
31. The landlord must apologise and pay compensation of £100 compensation in addition to the £50 already offered which we consider satisfactorily reflects the landlord’s complaint handling failures in view of the landlord’s recognition that its service fell below its expected standards.

Learning

General learning

32. The landlord should consider its triage process to ensure repairs are prioritised based on the health and safety risk according to the needs and vulnerabilities of the household.
33. The landlord should ensure its contractors are cognisant with its code of conduct and adhere to its values when attending residents’ homes to complete works

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

34. The landlord’s record were unclear and did not demonstrate it had considered the resident’s vulnerability. The landlord should ensure it maintains accurate and reliable chronology of its work orders and its actions following a resident’s reports.

Communication

35. The landlord did not provide timely and effective updates to the resident which eroded the resident’s trust in the landlord tenant relationship. The importance of improved communication between landlords, residents and contractors is vital to building trust as set out in our Spotlight report, Repairing Trust (May 2025).

Complaint handling

36. The landlord should review its complaint handling policy to align with the Code in relation to providing service level timescales to complainants when extending its complaint responses.