Southwark Council (202006676)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006676

Southwark Council

30 June 2021

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint concerns the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs following a leak from a radiator.
2. Decision not to replace the living room flooring damaged by the leak.
3. Insurance provider declining the resident’s request for compensation for damage to her possessions caused by the leak.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. After carefully considering all the evidence, following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The landlord’s insurance provider declining the resident’s request for compensation

Following the stage one response, the resident submitted a claim with the landlord’s insurer. This claim was declined, which the resident disputed this in her letter requesting an escalation of the complaint.
The Ombudsman is unable to investigate the resident’s concerns regarding the insurer’s decision. This is because the Ombudsman can only investigate complaints about social landlords, who are members of the Scheme. The insurer is not a member of the Scheme and therefore the Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints about its activities. The insurer is a separate organisation from the landlord and the landlord was not responsible for the insurer’s decision regarding the resident’s claim. However, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation and whether this was reasonable in view of all the circumstances.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a maisonette.in a communal building.
The landlord’s repairs guide describes what the landlord and tenant are each responsible for maintaining. This, in part, states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure of the property, including floors and ceilings; and that the tenant is responsible for decorations, floor coverings and carpets.
The landlord prioritises its repairs as emergency (attend within 24 hours), urgent (attend within three working days) and non-urgent (attend within 20 working days). The landlord describes an emergency repair as a repair that “poses a serious risk to health and safety”. It also noted that it will usually aim to attend an emergency repair within two to four hours to make safe, then return to complete repairs at a later date.
During the period of this complaint, the landlord’s services were restricted due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Up until 21 June 2020, the landlord was only attending emergency repairs and in the following weeks, it warned residents to expect delays in attending non-urgent repairs.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaint process. When a complaint is received, it will send an acknowledgement within three working days and provide a stage one response within 15 working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint. The landlord will then undertake a review and provide a stage two response within 25 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.

Summary of events

The landlord’s repair logs record a report made on 28 May 2020 of a burst pipe or radiator causing a major water leak in the property’s living room and into the properties below. An emergency repair was raised and attended to the same day. Further work was raised to inspect the electrics in the property. This was also marked as completed on 28 May 2020.
On 25 June 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord regarding the condition of the property following the leak. She explained that a radiator had burst, spraying black water into the property. This had left the floor discoloured and sticky and a member of the landlord’s staff had advised that the floorboards should be replaced.
The resident described the damage the leak had caused to her personal items and noted that she had not heard from the landlord since it had inspected the property.
The landlord received the resident’s letter on 29 June 2020 and acknowledged the complaint on 1 July 2020. The landlord called the resident on 3 July 2020 to discuss the elements of her complaint and on 22 July 2020 it sent a stage one complaint response.
The landlord informed the resident that following the inspection of the property, work was raised to renew the kitchen floor tiles, repaint and stain block the kitchen. The landlord also enquired if the living room wall also required repainting and that if it did, this would be added to the outstanding work. The landlord explained that due to the restrictions it was operating under due to the Covid-19 pandemic that there would be a delay before the work would be able to start, but that it expected its services to start to return to normal in early August 2020.
The landlord then explained that it was only responsible for maintaining the flooring in the kitchen and bathroom, and that the laminate flooring in the living room was the responsibility of the resident. The landlord also provided the resident with an insurance liability claim form in regard to her damaged personal items.
The resident called the landlord on 24 July 2020. The landlord’s notes of the call state that it agreed to add the repainting of the living room wall to the work order and that it also discussed issues surrounding the flooring.
On 5 October 2020, the resident called this Service to state her dissatisfaction with how the landlord had handled her complaint. Following further correspondence, this Service wrote to the landlord on 5 November 2020 and passed on the resident’s concerns.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 November 2020. It stated that it had sent a stage one complaint response that informed her that it was not responsible for floor coverings. It noted that the resident had subsequently made an insurance claim, which was declined on the grounds that there was no record of the landlord being aware of any issues with the radiator prior to the leak and that the landlord attended the property shortly after being notified of the leak.
The landlord explained that the resident would not be able to progress a dispute over the insurance claim through its complaint process and that she would need to contact its insurance provider directly, however it would consider escalating the complaint if she was dissatisfied with any other elements of its service. It asked her to contact it and describe any outstanding issues and her desired outcome to the complaint.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 29 November 2020. She described the grounds for requesting an escalation as:
1. She felt she was being punished for a situation that was outside of her control as there was no indication of a fault with the radiator until it burst.
2. It is the landlord’s responsibility to maintain the fixtures and fittings in the property.
3. When the property was inspected after the leak, she was informed that the flooring would be replaced.
4. She did not understand why the kitchen floor was replaced, but the living floor was not replaced when they were both damaged by the same incident.
5. The radiator was still not working properly six months after the incident occurred.
The landlord received the resident’s letter on 11 December 2020, escalated the complaint on 14 December 2020 and sent a stage two complaint response to the resident on 5 February 2021.
The landlord assured the resident that she was not being held responsible for the burst radiator and that it had been an unforeseeable event. As it was unforeseen, the resident would not have been able to report the matter and the landlord would not have been able to attend to the matter prior to the leak occurring.
The landlord advised the resident to make a claim on her own contents insurance as the responsibility to replace the living room floor covering is the resident’s as, per the terms of the tenants’ handbook.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs following a leak from a radiator and its decision not to replace the living room flooring damaged by the leak

When being informed by the resident that the radiator had burst, the landlord raised an emergency repair and requested that the contractor attend within two hours. This was in line with its repair policy.
The radiator was made safe that day. A survey of the property was then undertaken at the property on 17 July 2020 where follow-on work was recommended. Work orders were raised on 20 July 2020 to undertake work to the kitchen and living room, and to renew the radiator, the pipework and valves. However, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, there were delays to the start of the work and to when it was completed. The repair logs record all work being completed by 24 December 2020. The landlord kept its residents updated on the status of its service through the pandemic on its website. While these delays clearly caused inconvenience to residents, they were beyond the landlord’s control.
It would have been good practice for the landlord to have given this information to the resident in its stage two complaint response as the resident had enquired on the status of the radiator repairs in her escalation letter. However, overall the landlord followed its policies and procedures in responding to the initial burst radiator and arranging follow-on work. There is no evidence of service failure in how it responded to the burst radiator.
In relation to the living floor coverings, the landlord’s repair guide clearly states that carpets and floor coverings are the responsibility of the resident to maintain. It was therefore under no obligation to repair or replace the laminate floor covering in the living room as part of the raised works.
It was reasonable for the landlord to refer to resident to its insurer in response to her claim for compensation for loss of her personal possessions. As above, the landlord was not responsible for its insurer’s decision to decline the claim and it was appropriate for the landlord to say it would not consider this decision through its complaints process.
It is acknowledged that the resident was not at fault for causing the leak. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord was at fault for causing it either or that it could have taken any action to stop the leak sooner and prevent damage to the resident’s possessions.
In line with the tenancy agreement, residents are advised to take out their own contents insurance to cover any damage to their personal possessions due to unforeseen events such as leaks. This is because the landlord is not responsible for the cost of repairing or replacing residents’ personal possessions in this situation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs following a leak from a radiator.
2. Decision not to replace the living room flooring following the leak.