Southwark Council (202202296)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202296

Southwark Council

1 November 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 resident complains about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. repairs to the cooker/electrics, and;
    2. the associated request for compensation.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident reports that he contacted the landlord in December 2020 about issues with the kitchen electrics, which had resulted in his being unable to use the cooker. The first note of this matter in the landlord’s repair records is a job raised on 13 January 2021 as ‘electrics keep on cutting out’ and attended that same day. The landlord has stated that the finding at this attendance was that the cooker circuit had been wired incorrectly, and a further attendance was required by an electrician to remedy this.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint on 24 February 2021,setting out his concerns about the time it was taking to resolve the issue. He noted that an electrician had attended twice, but a carpenter was required to provide access to the cooker electrics. The resident said that he had been unable to use the cooker since December 2020, and was having to buy takeaway food for his family, which they could ill afford.
  4. The landlord issued a stage one response on 25 March 2021, in which it said that its contractor had attended and disconnected ‘dangerous DIY wiring’ from behind the cooker on 22 February 2021, and follow on works were due to be completed on 25 March 2021.
  5. The repair was completed on 26 March 2021.
  6. The records show the landlord making various internal enquiries over the following months, relating to a request from the resident for compensation for money spent on takeaway food. In an email to the resident dated 27 October 2021 it declined this request. It said that an ‘illegal electric supply’ to the cooker was disconnected on 22 February 2021 and reconnected on 26 March 2021. It said that it had investigated how the illegal supply came about, and had determined that this was work that had been carried out ‘independently’ and was not something that it was responsible for. In addition, it noted that 10 years ago it had removed ovens and hobs to create a free-standing cooker space, and so the resident’s cooker ‘…could have only been installed after the property was handed to you.’ In light of this, the landlord declined to compensate the resident for the cost of takeaway food. It offered an apology for the delay in providing the outcome to the compensation claim following the initial complaint.
  7. An internal record dated 15 December 2021 noted that the resident remained dissatisfied and wished to escalate the complaint. Records show that this was logged on 13 January 2022 with a response due by 17 February 2022. The resident had stated that the cooker/electrics were in place when he moved in and he was not responsible for the ‘illegal supply’.
  8. In its final response, dated 17 February 2022, the landlord stated that its records verified that the electrics in the property were safe at the commencement of the resident’s tenancy and that this supported the electrician’s assessment on 22 February 2021. The landlord could not find fault with the stage one finding that it had not installed the unsafe wiring and so was unable to overturn the decision regarding the reimbursement of takeaway food costs.
  9. Regarding the handling of the repair, it said that its repairs guide set out that an urgent repair to make safe should be completed within 3 days (which was achieved) and that the timeframe for non-urgent repairs was 20 working days, stating, ‘Your repair was completed within 23 working days. I do however, acknowledge that there was a delay in arranging the follow on works from 22 February 2021 until 23 March 2021 and I apologise for any frustration caused.’ It also apologised for a delay in issuing a response to the stage one complaint. It said that it was awarding £5 per week for the delay in raising the follow on works, and an additional £50 for ‘time and trouble in the handling of your complaint.’
  10. The resident brought the matter to this Service as he remained dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord, as he spent £1,500 on takeaway food for his family from December 2020 to March 2021 as they had no cooker. The resident also raised concerns about how repairs were organised.

Assessment and findings

Policy and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s ‘Repairs Guide’ as was in place at the time set out that it would attend ‘urgent’ repairs (which included partial loss of electrical supply, such as no working electricity in one room) within three days. Non-urgent repairs would be carried out within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy in place at the time set out that that £5 per week should be awarded if a resident had experienced ‘low impact’ delays where there had been no significant inconvenience. This increased to £10 per week for ‘medium impact’ delays. A minimum of £50 and maximum of £250 could be awarded for time and trouble.
  3. The landlords complaint policy in place at the time noted a 15 working days response time for stage one complaints, and 25 working days for review.

Scope

  1. In his complaint to the landlord and this Service, the resident has referred to repair issues dating back to 2010. Generally, the Ombudsman would expect a resident to raise a complaint within six months of the issues occurring. However, there is no indication that a formal complaint was made to the landlord about these issues until February 2021. In its response to the complaint raised in February 2021, the landlord focussed on the current, presenting repair issues. As such, this investigation will focus on matters from December 2020 onwards.

Assessment

Repairs to the cooker/electrics

  1. Once it was made aware of the repair problem, the landlord was obliged to address it in line with its ‘repairs guide’. There is a discrepancy between the landlord’s records, which show it being made aware of the issue on 13 January 2021, and the resident’s account, where he reports that he informed the landlord of the issue in December 2020.
  2. The repair records themselves lack detail and are somewhat unclear, however in its responses to the complaint the landlord has set out the following sequence of events:
    1. 13 January 2021 – Job raised as ‘electrics keep cutting out’ and completed on the same day. It was noted that the cable at the back of the cooker was made safe, having been left unsafe by ‘the installer’. The cooker circuit was wired incorrectly and a follow on job was required for an electrician. It was further noted that the job would need to be carried out ‘after lockdown unless extremely urgent’.
    1. 19 February 2021 – Job raised as ‘Electrical connection to cooker needs reinstating’, with an appointment made for  22 February 2021. On this date the electrician disconnected the cooker, noting ‘disconnected dangerous DIY wiring behind oven’ but advised they couldn’t do anything further as a carpenter also needed to attend to allow the works to be completed.
    2. 11 March 2021 – The resident contacted the landlord to chase up the outstanding repair.
    3. 23 March 2021 – Job raised as ‘electrical repair – fix electrics behind work tops’, which was attended on 25 March 2021. On that day it was found that a carpenter was required to allow the works to be completed. The job was then completed on 26 March 2021, where it was noted that ‘…the illegal wiring was disconnected, made safe and reconnected oven.’
  3. From the landlord’s own account here it took over two months for the works to be completed. While it has stated that the follow on works that were required after the 13 January 2021 attendance would need to be carried out after the Covid-19 lockdown that was in place at the time, there is no indication that the resident was advised of this. It is unclear why, given the comments that the jobs would have to wait until after lockdown, the landlord then attended the following month, when lockdown was still in place. There is no indication that the landlord progressed the works after the 22 February 2021 attendance, and the resident had to chase this up on 11 March 2021. The landlord then did not arrange for a carpenter to provide access, which resulted in two attendances taking place (on 25 and 26 March 2021) instead of one.
  4. As part of the investigation into this matter, the Ombudsman asked the landlord for an explanation of any difficulties or obstacles which hampered its ability to carry out the repair, but no direct response to this was provided.
  5. Overall, there is little indication that the resident was kept updated on the repair, and there was a lack of follow up on the part of the landlord. In its February 2022 stage two response the landlord recognised some failings on its part, saying that there was a delay in arranging the follow on works from 22 February 2021, which were not done until 26 March 2022. While it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged this, and went on to offer compensation for the delay, it did not:
    1. Address the resident’s concern that he had in fact reported the issue in December 2020.
    1. Fully explain why the follow on works from January 2021 were not progressed.
    2. Address the failure to arrange for a carpenter to attend in the first instance.
  6. This was a failing on the part of the landlord, which should have fully addressed the concerns raised. This would have been frustrating for the resident.
  7. The landlord did attempt to ‘put right’ the failings that it had identified (not progressing the works after the 22 January 2021 attendance), by awarding compensation of £5 per week for the delay, which it had defined as “low impact”. It said that the repair should have been completed in 20 working days, but took 23 working days, calculating this from 22 February 2021 to 26 March 2021. It is unclear why, if it calculated the delay as three days, it then awarded four weeks compensation at £5 per week. It is also unclear why it began the calculation from 22 February 2021, rather than 13 January 2021 when it first was made aware of the issue, and so would have been the appropriate date to base this on (with the twenty working days being 10 February, so making the delay six weeks). Further, given that a lack of cooking facilities would be significantly inconvenient for a family, the compensation could more reasonably have been assessed as ‘medium impact’ at £10 per week.
  8. Overall, and while the Ombudsman acknowledges that Covid-19 may have had an impact Services, the landlord has not fully addressed  or remedied the resident’s concerns about its handling of the repair. Therefore, orders for remedy is made below.

The associated request for compensation

  1. In response to the resident’s request for compensation for money spent on take away food, the landlord referred to its voids inspection report from September 2008 which it said showed that the electrics in the property met the required safety standards when it was let to the resident, and concluded that it therefore was not responsible for the faulty wiring. As such, it was not responsible for the cooker not working, and so would not offer compensation for takeaway food.
  2. The evidence available shows that the landlord obtained copies of the electrical installation certificate and void report, and checked these with an appropriate staff member, who confirmed that these showed that the landlord had not installed the faulty wiring. The contractors that attended also found that that the wiring was ‘DIY’. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident disagrees with this position, it was reasonable  for the landlord to rely on the evidence available and the view of its professional staff. Taking all of the circumstances of the case into account, the landlord acted reasonably here.

Complaint handling

  1. While the initial stage one response dated 25 March 2021 was provided in a fairly reasonable timeframe, albeit slightly outside of the 15 working days set out in its policy, the follow up response to the request for compensation took around six months. It is unclear why there was a long delay. Further, although it was noted in the records that the resident wanted to escalate the complaint in December 2021, this was not done until January 2022. These delays would have been frustrating for the resident.
  2. The landlord did acknowledged some mishandling of the complaint, but its offer of £50 compensation was inadequate given the failings identified here. Therefore, an order for remedy is made below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the cooker/electrics.
    1. No maladministration in the associated request for compensation.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within one month of the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident a total of £260, comprised of £60 for the ‘medium impact’ of the six week delay in the repair, £100 for the failure to fully address the resident’s concerns about the handling of the repair, and £100 for the delay in the complaint handling.

 

 

 

Recommendations

  1. If it hasn’t already done so in the last six months, the landlord should review its processes for dealing with follow on works, to ensure that these are communicated and actioned effectively.