Southwark Council (202125200)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125200

Southwark Council

30 September 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:
    1. response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the electrics and its impact on the resident’s ability to work;
    2. complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secured tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority.
  2. On 9 June 2021, the resident discovered that all the electrics in his house were not working as the levers in the fuse box were facing the wrong way. The landlord raised a job at 10:51am and advised the resident that an electrician would attend within two to four hours. Contractors attended on the same day at 4:15pm. 
  3. The resident formally complained on 23 June 2021 as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s delay in completing the work. The landlord issued a stage one response on 17 March 2022 where it apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord further explained to the resident that, as per the landlord’s repairs policy, emergency repairs are to be resolved within 24 hours, unless there are health and safety concerns.
  4. The resident requested an escalation of his complaint as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and requested compensation for his loss of earnings for that day. The landlord reiterated its position and informed the resident that, since the repair had been completed within the landlord’s policy timeframe,  compensation would not be awarded, and that it considered an apology was sufficient.
  5. The resident referred his case to this service as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and that it declined his request for compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman notes that the resident has raised concerns about window repairs. It is not evident, however, that this concern has completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. This is because a landlord must have the opportunity to consider and address any complaints prior to an investigation by this service. This concern will not, therefore, be considered as part of this investigation, however, a recommendation has been made bellow for the landlord to provide an update to the resident regarding the window repairs.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs handbook states that a contractor will attend within 24 hours for ‘emergency’ repairs. Where there is a danger to the resident’s health and safety, the landlord will try to attend within two to four hours of the resident reporting the repair.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy states that if the landlord cannot remedy a loss of opportunity. It also notes that where an apology under the circumstances does not seem to be enough, it may pay compensation.
  3. The landlord’s complaint policy states that complaints will be acknowledged within three working days, and a stage one response will be issued within 15 working days.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the electrics

  1. In accordance with the landlord’s repairs handbook, when a resident reports the loss of electricity within the property, contractors should attend within 24 hours of being notified. In this case, it is not disputed that the landlord’s contactors attended within the above stipulated timeframe. The resident reported the issue at 10:51am on 9 June 2021, and the landlord’s contractors duly attended at 16:15pm that same day and rectified the issue.
  2. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord raised the resident’s expectations by informing him that it would attend within two to four hours, whereas it actually attended after six hours.
  3. Although it would have been helpful if the landlord had been able to provide a more accurate timeframe in which it could attend, this would not necessarily constitute a failing by the landlord. Landlords can only give approximate timeframes, which, due to circumstances beyond its control, may or may not be strictly adhered to. In instances where there is a notable delay, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to provide an update regarding the delay and a new indicative timeframe, however, when it is the case that the delay is a only a couple of hours, the Ombudsman understands this is not always possible or practical.
  4. While the delay of two hours would have been understandably frustrating for the resident, the Ombudsman would not consider that a delay of two hours beyond the targeted timeframe to amount to service failure in the circumstances.
  5. The Ombudsman further notes that the landlord made appropriate use of its formal responses to highlight that according to the landlord’s repairs handbooks, in case of emergency repairs, a contractor would attend within 24 hours unless there would had been an immediate danger to the resident’s health or safety. Given that it is not evident that there was an immediate danger to the resident’s health or safety, this response time was reasonable.
  6. In summary, the landlord attended to the repair within the timeframes of its policy. The landlord also appropriately acknowledged the inconvenience caused to the resident, for which it apologised. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the apology given for the inconvenience was proportionate, taking into consideration the impact that it had on the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states that all complaints will be acknowledged within three working days, and a stage one response will be issued within 15 working days. In this case, it is not disputed that there had been an unreasonable delay by the landlord with regard to its complaint handling. The resident raised a formal complaint on 23 June 2021 and the landlord responded on 17 March 2022.
  2. While the landlord appropriately acknowledged the resident’s complaint after three working days as per its complaint policy, the Ombudsman notes that the resident had to chase the landlord to on two occasions, namely on 1 November and 5 December 2021, and subsequently had to request the intervention of this service on or around February 2022. Through the intervention of this service, the landlord issued its stage one response on 17 March 2022. This was a total of 188 working days, which was outside of the appropriate timescales for complaint handling as per the landlord’s policies.
  3. If the landlord expects a delay to occur and cannot respond in a timely manner, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to promptly communicate this to the resident and to provide the reasons for its delay. In this case, the landlord repeatedly failed to communicate with the resident by not providing regular updates and not responding to the resident’s request, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, is unreasonable.
  4. Furthermore, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to provide clear information in its formal responses about the resident’s options to escalate the complaint or to refer it to this service. The landlord’s stage one response did not provide the resident with any information about his right to escalate the complaint nor the reasons for its delay in responding.
  5. The Ombudsman also notes that along with the poor complaint handling (the several instances whereby the resident had to chase a response and the poor communication) the landlord did not offer compensation, nor apologise. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to acknowledge its failures and satisfactorily remedy them through an apology and compensation as per the Ombudsman remedy guidance, which the landlord failed to do. This amounted to service failure in the circumstances.
  6. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation, being £50 to reflect its poor complaints handling and poor communication with the resident and £50 for the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the matter. These amounts are considered proportionate in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as detailed above.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the electrics and its impact on the resident’s ability to work.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay £100 compensation for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident because of its complaint handling and communication failures.
  2. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its responsive complaints policies procedure, to seek to prevent a recurrence of its above service failure.
  2. The landlord is recommended to contact the resident and provide him with an update regarding the repairs to his window.