Southwark Council (202218555)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218555

Southwark Council

25 September 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:
    1. Response to the resident’s:
      1. Concerns about its maintenance of drains.
      2. Request for compensation.
    2. Communication with the resident during its response to a leak.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord which is a local authority. The tenancy commenced on 1 July 2002. The property is a 2 bedroom first floor flat.
  2. The landlord has no vulnerabilities logged for the resident. In a call to this Service on 6 September 2024 the resident confirmed that she was disabled at the time of the complaint due to a diagnosis of tendonitis.
  3. On 16 March 2022 a leak from the property above penetrated the resident’s property. The landlord forced entry to gain access to the property above on 18 March and resolved the leak. On 8 May the resident submitted an insurance claim to the landlord’s insurers to claim for damage caused to her personal possessions including flooring. On 26 July the insurance company emailed the resident to advise that liability was denied. The landlord was not negligent and it was unable to make an offer of compensation.
  4. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 5 April 2022, as follows:
    1. She reported the leak on 16 March and called the landlord for an update on 17, 18, 20 and 22 March.
    2. She had to take 2 days off work while the leak was resolved.
    3. 2 plumbers attended but could not gain access to the property above.
    4. A third plumber attended and confirmed that the leak was being caused by a blocked waste pipe which was bubbling up through the sink. He determined this by looking through the kitchen window.
    5. She called the landlord on 19 March to chase the provision of dehumidifiers but was told it was not an emergency and to call back on Monday. When she did, she was advised that the job that had been raised had been cancelled and she asked why.
    6. She had laid new flooring “weeks ago” and now it needed to be removed. She had also disposed of items such as kitchenware that were contaminated.
    7. She was disabled and the exertion of dealing with the leak had caused so much pain she “could not squeeze toothpaste from the tube.”
    8. The landlord could have avoided the stress and suffering caused by the leak had it “proactively maintained the drains.”
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 11 May 2022, the main points being:
    1. It took action to resolve the leak by forcing entry to the property above on 18 March.
    2. It was neither feasible nor practical to carry out preventative maintenance to the drainage. Most blockages were caused by inappropriate items being placed in the drainage, including oils or grease. These items can cause drains to become overloaded and, ultimately, back surge.
    3. On 20 March the resident contacted its out of hours team to enquire about dehumidifiers. It asked her to call again during office hours. It said this complaint would need to be referred to its out of hours team.
    4. On 22 March it raised a works order to provide dehumidifiers however, this was cancelled as this had already been done by its leaks from above team.
    5. It confirmed actions had been taken to gain access to the property above and resolve the issue. However, it said it was unclear how much information it gave the resident regarding the actions and issues which delayed its response.
    6. It said that the resident should have been informed that the leaks from above team had arranged for its contractor to deliver dehumidifiers because this was why the job was cancelled.
    7. It did not replace laminate flooring and this should be claimed either through the resident’s own insurance or via its property and injury liability insurance. It provided the resident with the information she needed to be able to make a claim for the damaged flooring and for the loss of any personal possessions because of the leak.
    8. There was a pattern of communication issues” and its communication did not meet the standards it expected. It apologised for what the resident had experienced and for the inconvenience caused.
  6. On 8 September 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to say that she:
    1. Accepted that it may take time to force entry but she remained dissatisfied regarding delays with communication.
    2. Remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to its maintenance of the drains.
    3. She also said the landlord had not responded to her point about phoning to chase the dehumidifiers on 19 March to be told to call back during office hours.
  7. On 13 January 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to which it attached a property and injury liability form should the resident wish to submit a claim for damage to personal belongings.
  8. In the resident’s email to this Service of 24 April 2024 she confirmed that all remedial works had been carried out. She asked us to investigate her complaint about issues with the landlord’s communication and its response to her request for compensation.
  9. In a call to this Service on 6 September 2024 the resident also asked that we investigate the landlord’s response to her complaint about a lack of maintenance of the drains.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s repairs guide defines an emergency repair as one which poses a serious risk to health and safety, to the structure of the property and/or results in the property being insecure.
  2. Its complaints policy confirms that it will:
    1. Not consider financial compensation in relation to any matter settled via an insurance claim. If a resident is not covered by insurance it will use its discretion to compensate them in the case of especially vulnerable tenants.
    2. Acknowledge receipt of a complaint within 3 working days.
    3. Respond to stage 1 complaints within 15 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 25 working days.

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident made an insurance claim for her personal possessions which had been damaged due to the leak. The claim was declined and a payment for compensation could not be made. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the outcome of the insurance claim as this Service can only consider the actions of the landlord, and the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over the landlord’s insurers. However, this investigation has assessed the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation.

Drains

  1. An entry dated 18 March 2023 on the landlord’s repair logs reads “drain is blocked, kitchen sink is back surging affecting flats below.”
  2. In her complaints to the landlord the resident asserted that the blockage was caused by its failure to maintain the drains. However, there is no independent evidence to suggest that this was the case.
  3. In its stage 1 complaint response of 11 May 2022 the landlord advised that it could not reasonably prevent blockages caused by the actions of a resident. This suggested that the cause of the blockage arose from an action taken by the resident.
  4. However, the landlord’s evidence submission to this Service dated 14 February 2024 said that owing to the pressing need to clear the blockage there was no time to survey the drain to ascertain the cause. While this was a reasonable explanation, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to explain this in its complaint response. That it failed to do so meant its response was not transparent which was a shortcoming.
  5. The complaint handling code (the Code) requires landlords to provide a response to each point of the complaint. In the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 8 September 2023 the resident again raised her dissatisfaction regarding maintenance of the drains. However, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 13 January failed to provide a further response which was inappropriate.
  6. The landlord’s failure to provide a response at stage 2 amounts to service failure because it was a minor failure that may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £50 compensation for the failure.

Compensation

  1. The leak occurred on 16 March 2023. The resident made her stage 1 complaint on 5 April. In its stage 1 complaint response of 11 May the landlord signposted the resident to make a claim on its insurance.
  2. While it was appropriate for the landlord to signpost the resident to make a claim on its insurance it came late in the process, with the stage 1 response being almost 2 months after the leak.
  3. The stage 1 response itself acknowledged the failure, adding that it was part of a “pattern of communication issues stretching between the departments noted in your complaint, from the commencement of the problem right up to the final issues including why you were not provided information in regard being able to claim for lost items including decoration via insurance.”
  4. The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. Having been transparent about the failure the landlord then failed to demonstrate fairness or the requirement to put things right by offering compensation to the resident which was inappropriate.
  5. The landlord’s complaints policy confirms that it will not consider financial compensation in relation to any matter settled via an insurance claim. The insurer emailed the resident on 26 July and 14 October 2023 to advise that the claim was declined.
  6. It is therefore unclear why, in its stage 2 complaint response of 13 January 2023, the landlord once again signposted the resident to its insurer. Given the claim had already been denied on the basis that the landlord was not negligent there was no reason to expect a different outcome. Instead, it would have been appropriate for it to manage the resident’s expectations by setting out its position in relation to its complaints policy.
  7. The response unduly raised the resident’s expectations, causing time and trouble in making a second claim. In its response to this Service dated 14 February 2024 the landlord confirmed that this claim was also declined.
  8. The complaints policy says that if a resident is not covered by insurance it will use its discretion to compensate them in the case of especially vulnerable tenants. In her insurance claim form of 8 May 2022 the resident said she suffered with health issues and could not carry out her own decorating and DIY. In her stage 1 complaint of 11 May the resident told the landlord she was disabled. There is no evidence that it considered this information in terms of the policy and especially vulnerable residents. Therefore, an order has been made for the landlord to write to the resident to set out its position on this point.
  9. The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident regarding her request for compensation because it:
    1. Failed to signpost her to its insurer at the earliest opportunity.
    2. Referred her to its insurer for a second time at stage 2 of the complaints process.
    3. Failed to consider whether her disability and vulnerability may make her an exceptional case.
  10. The failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £150 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Communication

  1. The landlord’s repair logs show that on 17 March 2022 the landlord tried to call the resident and left a voicemail. The resident called later that day to seek an update but there are no records to show that contact was made. The resident called again on 18 March to chase.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 11 May 2022 set out calls and works orders made in relation to the case from 16 March to 22 March. There are no notes relating to communication between the landlord and resident with regards to checks on her welfare, seek an update on the leak or to provide an update on its response. Given the circumstances this was inappropriate and compounded the considerable distress already caused to the resident by the leak.
  3. In the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 5 April 2022 she advised the landlord that her disability caused her to be in “absolute agony” due to the physical demands of addressing the leak in her property. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 11 May failed to acknowledge the impact on the resident, showing a lack of empathy and concern for the resident’s welfare. It also demonstrated a lack of regard for its duty under the Equality Act 2010.
  4. During a call to this Service on 6 September 2024 the resident became tearful when recounting the experience because she had felt “abandoned” by the landlord and “traumatised” by the process.
  5. In its stage 1 complaint response of 11 May 2022 the landlord confirmed that while action had been taken to resolve the leak “it seems unclear how much information you were supplied in regard to these actions and issues which were delaying the council’s response.”
  6. The resident understood that dehumidifiers were due to be delivered on 18 March 2022 however, they did not arrive. In her stage 1 complaint of 5 April the resident said that when she called the landlord’s out of hours service to chase on 19 March she was asked to phone back after the weekend and during office hours. Given the definition of emergency repairs in its repairs policy the landlord’s response was reasonable.
  7. However, when the resident called back on 22 March 2022 she was told the order had been cancelled and was not told why. She then received a call later that morning to say the dehumidifiers would be delivered that day.
  8. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 11 May 2022 said it did not understand why she was not advised that the order was cancelled because the leaks from above team already had the matter in hand. This was a further communication failure.
  9. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response also referred to calls made to its out of hours service which it said it could not address and had referred to its contact centre for a response. This was inappropriate because this was an element of the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 5 April 2022. In accordance with the Code the landlord was required to gather relevant information to provide a comprehensive complaint response. That it failed to do so was inappropriate.
  10. The resident raised the omission in her stage 2 complaint of 8 September 2022. However, the landlord did not address this in its stage 2 complaint response of 13 January 2023 which was a further failure.
  11. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 11 May 2023 acknowledged that there had been a “pattern of communication issues stretching between the departments noted in your complaint, from the commencement of the problem right up to the final issues (…).” It went on to confirm that its standard of communication fell below its expectations for which it apologised.
  12. While it was positive that the landlord was transparent about its failures it failed to demonstrate its learning from the complaint. It failed to identify what had gone wrong and what it would do differently. It also failed to try to put things right for the resident. That it failed to do so was inappropriate.
  13. Furthermore, in her email to the landlord of 8 September 2022 the resident expressed her ongoing dissatisfaction with the lack of effective communication. However, the landlord failed to address this point in its stage 2 complaint response.
  14. The failures identified include:
    1. Lack of proactive communication about the landlord’s response to the leak and the resident’s needs while it took action to resolve the issue.
    2. Lack of effective communication regarding the delivery of dehumidifiers.
    3. Failure to provide a complaint response on the resident’s query regarding the outcome of her call to out of hours.
    4. Failure to learn from the complaint and to put things right.
  15. There was maladministration in the landlord’s communication with the resident because there were failures which caused significant distress to the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay £500 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 5 April 2022 but did not receive a response. The landlord failed to adhere to its complaints policy because it did not acknowledge the complaint within time. Furthermore, the resident was caused inconvenience, time and trouble when she contacted the landlord online on 14 April to chase. She attached a copy of her email of 5 April.
  2. The landlord emailed the resident on 19 April 2022 to acknowledge receipt of the complaint logged on 14 April. However, it failed to acknowledge or apologise for its failure to respond to the resident’s email of 5 April which was inappropriate. It said it would respond within 15 working days.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 11 May 2022. Although this was within 15 working days from the date it acknowledged the complaint it was 17 working days from the date of the online submission. Furthermore, it was 24 working days from the date the complaint was originally made. Therefore, its response was out of time.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord on 8 September 2022 to address its stage 1 complaint response of 11 May. She set out her ongoing dissatisfaction with some of the issues including communication.
  5. She did not receive a response so was caused further inconvenience, time and trouble when she contacted this Service for assistance on 5 December 2022. We wrote to the landlord on the same day to request that it provide a stage 2 complaint response by 12 December.
  6. The landlord failed to issue a response which caused the resident additional time and trouble when she contacted this Service for further support. We wrote to the landlord on 10 January 2023 to request that it issue its stage 2 complaint response by 17 January.
  7. The landlord issued its response on 13 January 2023. This was 26 working days after the date it received our letter dated 5 December. However, it was 87 working days after the resident first raised her stage 2 complaint on 8 September. Furthermore, the landlord’s response suggests it would not have provided a final response where it not for our intervention which was inappropriate.
  8. The complaint response times set out in the landlord’s complaints policy in place at the time of the complaint did not comply with the Code. However, the updated complaints policy published on the landlord’s website is compliant therefore it has not been necessary to make an order in this regard.
  9. The landlord delayed in issuing its complaint responses at both stage 1 and stage 2. It failed to acknowledge the delays and the efforts made by the resident to resolve her complaint. It therefore did not demonstrate the dispute resolution principles because in not doing so it was not fair to the resident. Furthermore, it did not put things right and failed to identify what went wrong and what it would do differently. The response times in its complaints policy did not comply with the Code.
  10. The failures amount to maladministration because they caused inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £250 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s communication with the resident during its response to a leak.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its maintenance of drains.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £950 compensation comprised of:
      1. £50 for the inconvenience caused by its failure in its response to the resident’s concerns about its maintenance of drains.
      2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s request for compensation.
      3. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its communication with the resident during its response to the leak.
      4. £250 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures.
    2. Write to the resident to:
      1. Apologise for the failures identified in the case.
      2. Set out its position with regards to the resident’s vulnerabilities and her claim for compensation by referring to its complaints policy.
    3. A copy of the letter should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54.g. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with a review to ensure that it undertakes an exploration of what went wrong with its communication and what it will do differently. It should set out how the lessons learnt are going to be incorporated into the culture and practices of the organisation.
  3. The landlord is to confirm compliance with the order to the Ombudsman within 6 weeks of the date of this report.