Southwark Council (202213094)

Back to Top

 

 

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213094

Southwark Council

13 February 2024

 

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 repair and subsequent compensation offered by the landlord.
  2. The Ombudsman assessed the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy on a 2-bedroom maisonette owned by the local authority landlord. The tenancy agreement began on 14 March 2016. The resident lives with his wife and 2 children. No vulnerabilities are recorded for the household, although the landlord had adapted the property for the previous occupant, fitting it with a wet room and an electric shower.
  2. The resident reported to the landlord numerous times since December 2020 that there was a concealed leak from the shower, which affected the rooms downstairs, including the kitchen and lounge. The landlord sent its operatives several times to trace and remedy the leak.
  3. On 16 February 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that the shower was blocked entirely, the water from the tap was smelly, and stagnant water was pooling at the base of the shower, which he could not unblock. On 18 February, the resident raised a formal complaint. He said the shower had been broken for four days, and no one attended to fix it. He said he had no alternative but to wash with wastewater.
  4. The landlord’s operatives visited the resident’s home on 21 February 2022 and noted: “Disabled electric shower blocked and leaking into rooms below, issue of 6 years”. The shower pumped wastewater back into the cold-water storage tank, causing contaminated water to flow through hot taps. The operatives said a specialist drainage contractor was required to clear the main stack affecting the whole flat.
  5. Overall, it took the landlord three weeks to complete the required work in the resident’s home, which included renewing waste pipes, unblocking the pumps, and recommissioning the shower. The work was completed on 10 March 2022. The landlord sent its first stage response on 12 May 2022. It said that as the resident did not report further issues after 10 March 2022, it was satisfied that the repair had been completed successfully. It counted 3 weeks that the resident was without shower facilities, and it awarded £60 in compensation made up of £30 for time and trouble, and £30 for the distress caused.
  6. The resident responded on the same day and said he was upset with the landlord’s handling of the repair as it did not show interest in carrying out the repair effectively. The resident said it chased the landlord for 3 years to carry out repairs to the shower. This was in addition to the fact that his family did not have any washing facilities for three weeks in February 2022. He asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2.
  7. The landlord sent its final response letter on 16 September 2022, stating it could not find any issue with its handling of the complaint nor the level of compensation awarded. However, it said it recognised that the first stage response was 3 months late, and it increased the compensation by an additional £50, bringing the total amount to £110.
  8. The resident contacted this service on 21 September 2022. He said it took him 3 years until the landlord finally took the repair seriously and solved the problem. He asked for increased compensation to account for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s repair and subsequent compensation offered by the landlord

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles, which include treating people fairly, following fair processes, putting things right, and learning from outcomes. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failure on the landlord’s part occurred and, if so, whether this adversely affected or caused detriment to the resident. If a failure by the landlord adversely affected the resident, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord took enough action to ‘put things right’ and learn from the outcome.
  2. The tenancy agreement reflects the landlord’s obligations under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep the water supply and sanitary installations in repair and proper working order, including pipes and drains.
  3. In this case, the resident reported leaks from the shower repeatedly since December 2020. According to the evidence, the resident raised the repair on 3 December 2020, 9 April, 13 April, 21 April, 26 May, 21 July, 3 August, 7 September, and 20 September 2021. The evidence shows that in December 2020 the landlord completed works to refix the shower back to the wall. No other evidence is provided regarding leaks. In April 2021, the evidence shows that on 14 and 15 April 2021 the landlord confirmed that no leaks were found and the sealant around the shower base was due to be cut out and renewed; as well as this, the landlord was due to fill the holes from the previous shower seat that had been removed. Based on the evidence, this Service can see that the job was completed on 22 April 2021.
  4. Following this, the evidence shows that on 28 May 2021, the resident explained that an operative did not attend the house and the shower was not working. It is unknown if this matter was dealt with after this report. In July 2021, this Service can see that further issues were raised on 21 July. The evidence shows that on 28 July 2021, the landlord decided that a new low pressure electric shower was required. On 3 August 2021, the resident raised issues regarding the shower, this Service can see that the landlord attended on 6 August 2021 to cut out and renew the sealant around the shower base. On 8 September 2021, the evidence shows that a new low pressure shower was installed, but this was subsequently replaced on 27 September 2021 due to the fact that an incorrect shower was previously installed. It is further noted that due to reports of a leak in the shower, repairs were completed on 22 September 2021. The next issue began in February 2022, which is the main consideration of this investigation.
  5. Having reviewed the evidence and considering everything above, it is concerning that so many reports of issues with the shower had been raised in 2021. This Service cannot see evidence that further issues were raised with the shower following the repairs to the leak and installation of the new low pressure shower in September 2021, up until February 2022. Under the circumstances, while there were delays in attending the property and replacing the shower, this Service can see that the landlord attended to review and resolve the issues on each occasion they were raised. It is important to note that the landlord’s specific handling of the issues raised in 2020 and 2021 were not considered within this investigation due to the lapse of time. The historical issues were noted within this investigation, given that multiple issues were raised relating to the shower and consideration had to be given as to whether the landlord took reasonable action to deal with the issues raised.
  6. Moving on, the resident raised the repair again on 16 February 2022. The landlord attended the property 5 days later, on 21 February 2022, which was outside the timeframe set out in its policy. The landlord’s repairs policy says an emergency repair is where there is a serious risk to health and safety, which would be attended to within 24 hours. Partial loss of hot water from 1 October to 31 March is considered an emergency repair. There was a delay of 4 days from the outset, which was not appropriate. It aggravated the situation and caused additional distress for the resident.
  7. Leaks in a home can sometimes be challenging to trace, may have more than one cause, and may not be straightforward to fix. In this case, the landlord identified on 21 February 2022 that the “electric shower was blocked and leaking into rooms below – 6-year issue”. The operatives noted that the shower pumped wastewater back into the cold-water storage tank, causing contaminated water to flow through hot taps, affecting the entire property. The operatives said a specialist drainage contractor was required to clear the main stack.
  8. While the landlord may have thought that its earlier works in 2020 and 2021 to fix the leak had been effective, its operatives made the connection between the historic repairs of 2020/2021 and the condition of the shower as it was found in February 2022. The resident also clarified in his escalation request that this was a continuous unresolved matter for three years. The landlord did not dispute the resident’s assertion at that time. It would have, therefore, been appropriate for the landlord to consider the background context of the complaint and not simply look at the 3 weeks where it completed the repair in isolation.
  9. On 24 February 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and stated he had no other means to shower. He asked that the landlord bring the repair forward. There is no evidence that the landlord attempted to bring the repair forward. There is also no evidence that the landlord considered any interim solution during the 3 weeks that the resident’s shower was out of service. The landlord exacerbated the delay by not communicating with the resident about appointments it had made, leaving the resident chasing for updates. This was not appropriate.
  10. Overall, in not considering the entire history of the repair, the landlord missed an opportunity to view the broader context of the situation, mainly that the issue was more complex than simply considering each repair in isolation. This would have better informed the landlord’s complaint response and given it a greater appreciation of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident and his family.
  11. In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, this assessment takes into account a range of factors, including any distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s acts and/or omissions. In this case, the ongoing leak caused the resident distress. The leak affected the room below, and the electrics in the living room had to be isolated for days at a time. The situation peaked in February 2022, when the sewage back surged and entered the cold-water tank and into the hot water taps, affecting the entire property for 3 weeks in winter. This caused significant distress, inconvenience, frustration, and concerns for the resident who was concerned for his children’s safety.
  12. The landlord’s handling of the works further damaged the relationship between the resident and the landlord. The resident had to chase the landlord for updates, and there were no communications from the landlord about the plan to restore the shower at the property or when the next operative visit might be. Consequently, the landlord’s offer of compensation did not go far enough to remedy the adverse effect on the resident and his family. An order has been made below to put this right for the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. Against a target of 10 working days, the landlord’s first stage response took 58 working days. At stage 2, against a target of 20 working days, the landlord’s 5 final response letter took 90 working days. Overall, during a delay of 118 working days, the landlord did not attempt to explain the delay, nor did it send a holding letter to the resident.
  2. In its stage 1 response, the landlord failed to recognise any shortcomings in its handling the complaint. At stage 2, it paid £50 in compensation for the delay in stage 1, but it failed to recognise the repeated delay in its stage 2 response. Inadvertently, the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint reaffirmed the resident’s assertion that the landlord did not take the complaint seriously. This undermined the landlord’s internal complaint process and was not appropriate.
  3. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s claim that the issue was ongoing for 3 years. The landlord failed to explain its position to the resident, leaving the resident’s complaint unresolved. Furthermore, the landlord’s offer of compensation did not go far enough to remedy the time and trouble the resident described as having gone into getting the matter resolved – the repeated appointments, chasing the landlord for updates, and not being informed on the progress of the repair.
  4. Finally, there is no indication that the landlord has ‘learned from outcomes’ in this case or detailed any actions it would take to prevent similar issues from recurring. A further order is made below to address this.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s repairs and subsequent compensation offered by the landlord.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must write to the resident and apologise for the shortcomings in its handling of the repair and its handling of the associated complaint. It must also outline what it learned from the case and what action has been/will be taken to ensure delays such as these are minimised as much as reasonably possible in the future. A copy of its letter must be sent to this service.
  2. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must pay into the resident’s bank account £450 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience broken down as follows:
    1. £300 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience, caused by its handling of the repair and subsequent compensation offered.
    2. £150 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience, caused by its handling of the associated complaint.
    3. This is in addition to the compensation amount of £110 the landlord had already paid the resident. A proof of payment of the above amount must be sent to this service.