Southwark Council (202410508)

Background

1. The tenancy started on 28 August 2023. In October 2023 the resident complained that the landlord had not removed a gas pipe from the living room floor as requested.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the removal of a gas pipe from a floor containing asbestos.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the removal of a gas pipe.
5. 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

Gas pipe

6. The landlord agreed to remove the pipe. However, there were delays caused by incorrect classification of the repair, failure to identify possible asbestos at an earlier stage, and a gas leak which occurred during the work that resulted in a lack of heating and hot water for 18 days. It also did not investigate some missed appointments as promised. It acknowledged some failures and offered compensation but this did not reflect the detriment caused.

Complaint

7. Overall, the complaint handling was effective. However, there were minor delays in providing the complaint responses and the landlord did not apologise for this or offer any other remedy.

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 lettable standard does not say that it will remove gas pipes that are no longer required prior to letting a property. We have seen no evidence that suggests that the property was not at a lettable standard due to the gas pipe.
9. There is evidence that the resident called the landlord on 19 September 2023 and advised it she wanted it to remove a gas pipe that was protruding from the living room floor. The landlord agreed to do this but acknowledged that it incorrectly logged the issue initially which caused delays. This error cost the resident time and trouble attending an appointment with an electrician and contacting the landlord to chase the issue.
10. The resident also advised the landlord that she had taken further time and trouble due to 3 missed or late appointments to rectify the issue. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord agreed that operatives missed 1 of the appointments and said that it would investigate the other missed appointments further. However, we have seen no evidence that it did so or that it informed the resident of the outcome of the investigation. This error meant that it did not find out the reasons for any missed appointments and compensate the resident accordingly.
11. When a gas engineer attended on 27 October 2023, they found that they could not complete the work because the pipe was set in concrete. This caused further delays because a builder also needed to attend to dig up the floor so that the engineer could access the pipe. It was not until 10 November 2023, when the builder attended, that the landlord identified that the floor tiles may contain asbestos. This further delay in identifying a possible asbestos issue meant that the resident was waiting longer for a resolution.
12. The landlord’s asbestos awareness policy says that if its operatives discover or suspect asbestos, they should assess the risk before completing any repairs. If they consider that there is a risk they must stop all works, inform the resident, and review the issue. If there is still a suspected risk, the job is referred to the landlord’s asbestos team. The landlord would then arrange tests to confirm the presence of asbestos.
13. In this case the landlord arranged for a contractor to complete an asbestos survey on 1 December 2023, which was an appropriate action to take in the circumstances. The survey recommended that it removed the floor tiles from the living room and bedroom.
14. The resident asked the landlord if it should have considered removing the floors while the property was empty. The landlord’s asbestos awareness procedure says that asbestos containing materials should usuallybe left undisturbed if they are not damaged. It advised the resident that the floor was not damaged when it inspected it while the property was empty. We asked it for a copy of the void inspection report and any photographic evidence to support this. However, it has not provided this. This record keeping failure means that we are unable to fully investigate this element of the complaint.
15. The landlord advised the resident that contractors could remove the flooring on 8 December 2023, however she asked it to start the work later, on 18 December 2023. During completion of the work a gas leak occurred resulting in no hot water or heating at the property until the job was completed on 5 January 2024. The landlord failed to acknowledge that the leak had occurred and provide a timeframe for a resolution in its stage 2 complaint response. Although the resident was not living at the property at that time this issue caused her distress and inconvenience, particularly as it was during the winter.
16. The landlord offered £100 compensation to the resident for the inconvenience caused and to reflect a missed appointment. Our compensation guidance says that payments of £15 per day are appropriate for a loss of heating and hot water. In addition, payments of up to £600 are appropriate to put right failings where the landlord has made some attempts to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident £270 for the loss of heating and hot water plus a further £250 to reflect the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by its other failings.

17. The Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) says that landlords must respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of acknowledgement and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of acknowledgement.
18. In this case the landlord took 14 days to respond to the stage 1 complaint and 23 days to respond to the stage 2 complaint. Although the delays were not significant, there is evidence that the resident took time and trouble to chase a response.
19. Our compensation guidance says that payments of up to £50 are appropriate where the complaint response was delayed by several days and the resident was compelled to chase a response. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to pay £50 compensation to the resident to reflect the time and trouble caused.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The landlord should identify why it was unable to provide a copy of the void inspection report.

Communication

21. The landlord identified that the resident had asked for a gas engineer but the landlord logged the job for an electrician. The landlord should consider why this communication error occurred if it has not already done so,