Southwark Council (202114476)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114476

Southwark Council

24 October 2022

 

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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp in 2021.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord.
  2. The resident has explained that she initially reported concerns with damp in 2019. She said the landlord attended, and then began major works to the building in late 2020 (the delay was due to the COVID-19 pandemic). She said the damp did not form part of the major works, and so she pursued the matter with the landlord in early 2021. The landlord attended on 30 March 2021 and recommended a surveyor to inspect. The surveyor attended on 21 April 2021. The landlord scheduled the surveyor’s recommended work for 24 June 2021.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint in April 2021 as she was dissatisfied with the length of time it had taken the landlord to address her damp problem. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response it explained what had happened since the resident submitted her complaint.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She also questioned why the surveyor had suggested she use mould resistant paint in her hallway. In the landlord’s final complaint response, it set out why it did not dispute the surveyor’s findings. It explained why it did not complete work in June 2021. It said it would complete the work on 17 September 2021. It offered £120 compensation for the delay completing the work, and her time and trouble chasing the matter.
  5. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she set out that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer of compensation, and its handling of her reports of damp. She also said the landlord insulated an area below her kitchen window but had not returned to paint the area, or fixed the seal around her front door despite being advised that it would be part of the major works programme.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Throughout the resident’s complaint she has referred to her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her report of damp in 2019. However, no evidence has been provided for this investigation of a formal complaint being raised with the landlord until April 2021. The Ombudsman requires complaints to be raised formally with a landlord within a reasonable period from when the issues complained about arose. Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that a reasonable period is usually six months. Given the amount of time between the original repair issue and the formal complaint, this investigation centres on the resident’s report from March 2021 and the landlord’s handling of the subsequent complaint.
  2. The resident raised concerns to this Service about the landlord not returning to paint an area in her kitchen or fixing the door seal. No evidence has been provided for this investigation to show the resident raising these matters as part of her formal complaint which exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure in July 2021. Therefore, in line with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, these issues will not be considered in this investigation. This is because the landlord needs an opportunity to investigate matters before the Ombudsman becomes involved. The resident should raise the issue with the landlord first, and then, once the landlord has fully investigated, she can bring the matter to this Service if necessary.

Handling of damp in 2021

  1. The resident’s lease sets out that the resident is responsible for keeping all walls in good repair and condition. The landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior of the flat and building. Its website specifies that the resident is responsible for internal walls, whilst the landlord is responsible for external walls. The landlord’s repairs guide explains that it will attend to emergency repairs (ones which pose a serious risk to health, safety, or structure of the property) within 24 hours. It will attend to non-urgent repairs (routine repairs) within 20 working days. It says that there may be a reasonable delay before it starts non urgent work as long as there is no risk to the resident’s health or safety.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it can offer up to £250 compensation for delay and distress when a resident has not suffered a significant inconvenience. It can offer from £50 to £250 for a resident’s time and trouble depending on the extent of the inconvenience experienced by the resident in finding a resolution to the issue. The landlord’s complaints policy explains that it will not normally consider complaints which are made more than 12 months after the resident first became aware of the issue they are complaining about.
  3. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (published on our website) sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation for distress and inconvenience. The Guidance suggests awards between £50 and £250 for cases where there has been service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant. Examples include failure to meet service standards for actions and responses (such as repair delays) but where the failure had no significant impact on the outcome of the complaint.
  4. Following the operative’s appointment on 30 March 2021, and the surveyor’s appointment on 21 April 2021 the evidence shows the resident chased the landlord on multiple occasions for an update in terms of the surveyor’s report, and any recommended work. The landlord advised the resident on 24 May 2021 what work the surveyor had recommended and gave her a further update on the surveyor’s findings on 4 June 2021 after she questioned how it would address the damp in the hallway. It arranged for work to take place on 21 June 2021.
  5. The landlord explained in its stage two complaint response that the work did not go ahead in June 2021 as it lacked the required materials and needed half a day to complete the work. It rescheduled the appointment for September 2021. It acknowledged its delay, apologised for it, and offered £60 compensation for it. It also offered a further £60 for the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the matter.
  6. The landlord’s offer of compensation was reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. This is because it was in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (as explained above), as even though the resident had to chase the landlord, and although there were delays on its behalf, they were not significant. The resident’s repair was not an emergency one in line with the landlord’s definition and as such although it is understandable that the delays would have been frustrating for the resident, none of the evidence provided for this investigation indicates that they had a long term or adverse impact on her.
  7. The resident set out that she was dissatisfied with the surveyor’s suggestion that she use paint to deal with the damp in her hallway. The landlord attempted to reassure the resident that the paint would provide an additional layer of damp proofing and as she had not provided any counter evidence, it found no fault with the surveyor’s finding. The Ombudsman cannot conclude whether the surveyor’s suggestion was appropriate as this falls outside of our remit and expertise. Nonetheless, the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff, and so it was reasonable for it to reiterate the suggestion. It also explained that if the paint was unsuccessful, it would investigate further, and as such reassured the resident that it would continue to find a resolution to the problem if necessary.
  8. The resident had concerns about dampness within the external wall and she raised this issue with the landlord in April 2021 however, I have not seen evidence from the landlord to suggest this area was investigated. The landlord has not provided evidence to show that this area was part of the initial survey and whether the signs of returning salts that the resident noted were indicative of damp within the brickwork. I also note that this aspect was not addressed within the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint. The landlord therefore failed to evidence that there was no structural defect in the external wall that was resulting in damp.

Complaint handling

  1. As part of her complaint the resident set out her dissatisfaction that her damp issue had been ongoing since 2019. As explained above, the Ombudsman will not investigate the landlord’s handling of her historical concerns. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to how the landlord responded to this aspect of her complaint. The resident also explained that once she realised the landlord was not addressing the damp as part of its major works programme, she contacted it in January 2021. She said she then chased it on two occasions in February 2021, and once in March 2021 before submitting her formal complaint in April 2021.
  2. The landlord’s complaint responses addressed its actions from April 2021 onwards. It did not acknowledge the resident’s comments that she had chased it in the months leading up until her complaint, or that the issue had been ongoing for two years. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (also issued on our website) sets out that it expects landlords to respond to all aspects of a complaint. In this case, the landlord failed to address all of her concerns. Even though its complaint policy sets out that it will not consider historical issues, it should have explained this to set the resident’s expectations rather than ignoring an important aspect of her complaint. The Ombudsman would not expect a landlord to consider matters from three years beforehand, but would expect it to acknowledge the months leading up to a complaint, especially given that the resident highlighted that these months and the landlord’s actions during them were what gave rise to her formal complaint. This was a failing in terms of complaint handling by the landlord.
  3. Ultimately, although the landlord provided adequate redress for the resident’s time and trouble pursuing the repair, and the stress caused, however it failed to address the entirety of her complaint. It will therefore be ordered to pay the resident £75 compensation in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (as explained above) for the distress and inconvenience caused from not addressing the entirety of her complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the complaint about damp.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to arrange for a full damp survey within the next four weeks to assess the exterior kitchen wall ensuring the results of the survey and any subsequent repair actions are shared with the resident.
  2. The landlord is ordered to compensate the resident £250 for the length of time that it has taken for the landlord to address her concerns about the external kitchen wall.
  3. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £75 for the inconvenience experienced as a result of the service failure identified with the landlord’s complaint handling.
  4. These payments are in addition to the £120 previously offered for the resident’s time and trouble and should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when the payment has been made.
  5. The payments and survey should be arranged within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when the payment has been made.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is recommended to contact the resident within the next four weeks to confirm when the area that was insulated externally outside the bedroom window will be repainted.