Southwark Council (202527042)

Background

1. The resident lives in a house with her young children. The resident is disabled. In December 2024, the resident reported that there was a large gap around the front door of the property which was letting in cold air, and she felt the door was unsafe. She complained about the landlord’s handling of the door repairs.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of front door repairs.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found the landlord responsible for maladministration regarding its handling of front door repairs.
5. We have found the landlord responsible for no maladministration regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handing of front door repairs

6. There were unreasonable delays in the landlord scheduling a repairs appointment following the resident’s reports and it did not offer sufficient redress to resolve the complaint. The landlord fully resolved the issues by replacing the door more than a year after the resident first reported the issues, which was an unreasonable overall delay.

The landlord’s complaint handling

7. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its complaints 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.

8. The landlord’s repairs guide states that it will complete non-urgent repairs within 20 days.
9. The resident first reported front door repairs on 23 December 2023. The landlord said it raised a works order on the same date. The resident chased the landlord on 13 January 2025 and it said it inspected the door on 21 January 2025. However, the landlord has not provided records of this visit and the outcome is unclear.
10. The landlord arranged for a carpenter to attend on 24 January 2024; however, the records show the visit did not take place due to a vehicle breakdown. The landlord did not evidence that it rescheduled this appointment until 17 February 2025, which was outside of the 20-day timeframe for non-urgent repairs.
11. A carpenter attended on 26 February 2025 and found the door was twisted and sitting 5-6mm proud. The carpenter recommended a draught excluder, which was fitted on 11 March 2025. In its stage 1 response, the landlord offered the resident £120 compensation for a 7-week delay in this repair appointment taking place. It calculated this amount in line with its compensation policy. This was sufficient to remedy the impact of the delay in completing the initial repairs.
12. The landlord accepted that the door remained bowed but said it would not replace the door. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said its current policy was to repair doors wherever possible. It said the door remained in a serviceable condition and met legal requirements for fire safety and security. The landlord did not provide contemporaneous records of its January 2025 inspection, and it therefore did not show its specific considerations when assessing the door.
13. The landlord is entitled to follow the advice of its trained staff and contractors when deciding how to progress repairs. However, it should keep full records of its decision making. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on repairs complaints emphasises the importance for landlords to maintain accurate, clear and accessible records of repairs appointments and inspections.
14. On 21 March 2025, the resident said the draught excluder was a hazard for her young children and the front door was still letting cold air in. She reported the issues again on 14 April 2025. A request was made for the landlord’s repairs team to raise a job on 28 April 2025, which was an unreasonable delay.
15. The resident contacted the landlord for an update on 12 and 19 May 2025. The landlord confirmed it had asked its contractors to arrange an assessment of the door. The resident was required to chase the landlord about the repairs again on 28 May 2025 and 5 June 2025. On 17 June 2025, the contractor told the landlord it had left a message for the resident about arranging an appointment.
16. This reflects that 3 months passed between the resident initially raising concerns about the door and draught excluder and the contractor’s attempts to schedule an appointment. This was a failure by the landlord to act in line with the 20-day timescale set out in its repairs guide. The delay also indicates a failure by the landlord to monitor the contractor’s handling of the repair and to take the resident’s concerns about the safety of her children seriously.
17. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged repairs delays and offered £50 compensation for a 10-week period between 24 April and 30 June 2025. We consider the amount offered was insufficient to remedy the failure identified.
18. At stage 2, the landlord said it had tried to contact the resident to arrange the repairs but was waiting for her to respond to its latest message.The landlord’s notes state that ittried to contact the resident to arrange an appointment in August, October and November 2025, but was unable to get through. In March 2026, the resident informed us that the landlord had been contacting the previous tenant and had not updated its records with her contact details. It is therefore possible that the landlord was contacting the incorrect phone number to schedule the repairs during 2025. We are unable to investigate whether the landlord updated the resident’s contact details as this did not form part of the original complaint. The resident has the option of raising a new complaint about this.
19. The landlord replaced the front door in March 2026. It made the decision to replace the door after issuing its stage 2 response. We therefore cannot consider why it changed its position or how it handled these works. It is positive that the landlord ultimately resolved the issues, but it appears that there were long delays in it reaching that resolution.
20. Overall, we find that the landlord did not offer sufficient redress for the repairs delays and it did not show that it carried out a thorough assessment of the door after the resident raised safety concerns. We have also taken into account that it took more than a year for the issues to be fully resolved.
21. Where there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord offered suitable remedies in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. The landlord took steps to put things right by offering the resident £170 compensation. However, the amount offered was insufficient to remedy the impact of the failures identified.
22. The resident experienced distress and inconvenience due to her concerns about safety and that the door was letting cold air into the property, resulting in increased energy bills. She also incurred time and trouble in chasing the landlord about the repairs after it installed the draught excluder. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £200 compensation in recognition of the impact of the failures identified in this report. The overall amount of £370 is in line with our remedies guidance for when there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and is sufficient to remedy the complaint.

23. The landlord’s complaints policy that was in place at the time stated it would acknowledge receipt of a complaint within 3 working days and issue a stage 1 response in 15 working days. and stage 2 responses in 25 working days.
24. The resident raised her complaint on 4 February 2025 and the landlord acknowledged this the following day. It issued its stage 1 response on 19 February 2025 which was within the required timeframe. The resident escalated her complaint on 23 May 2025 and the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 26 June 2025, which was again in line with its policy. We have therefore found no maladministration.

Learning

25. It is noted that the resident was required to chase the landlord several times regarding the compensation payment following the stage 1 response, which indicates poor complaint handling. It is unclear whether it made the payment to the resident. The landlord should ensure it does not unreasonably delay compensation payments offered through the complaints process.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. Our Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance highlights that clear record keeping is an essential part of providing a repairs service and responding to complaints. It allows a landlord to monitor outstanding works and contractor performance, as well as provide accurate information and an effective service to its residents. The evidence indicates the landlord did not adequately monitor the contractor’s handling of the repairs and it did not maintain clear records of its assessment of the door.

Communication

27. Clear and timely communication is essential when managing repairs. The landlord should give regular updates so residents do not need to chase for information.