Southwark Council (202219624)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219624

Southwark Council

28 June 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. Handling of a leak in the resident’s bathroom and the subsequent damage caused.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, she resides in a 3 bed flat.
3. On 22 April 2022 the resident reported a leak on her bathroom radiator. Due to the uncontrollable nature of the leak the resident also contacted the fire service, who swiftly attended, turned off the water supply and capped the leaking pipe. The resident reports that approximately 2 inches of standing water flooded the bathroom.
4. The landlord attended the same day, by which point it observed that the  resident had cleared up most of the standing water. An inspection was carried out on 29 April 2022 and subsequent repairs were raised to ‘Renew sheet flooring and sub-base in bathroom’. This was carried out on 11 and 12 May 2022.
5. On 20 July 2022 the resident made the decision to remove the bathroom floor sheeting and vinyl due to a ‘foul’ lingering odour. She informed the landlord of this via email and provided photographic evidence showing that the original damp, mouldy subbase had been left in situ rather than removed as agreed. The landlord raised a new job to rectify this.
6. On 4 August 2022 the resident raised a compliant about the works not being carried out as specified. In addition, she complained about the behaviour of one of the operatives and the lack of action in regard to the provision of a dehumidifier or aquavac. She also felt that the landlord had ignored her concerns about the impact the damp and mould was having on her health
7. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 18 November 2022. It said that the flooring works to the bathroom were carried out within the target timeframe and were now complete, it also confirmed that a dehumidifier was delivered on 6 May 2022. With regards to the behaviour of the operative, the landlord said that this would be addressed directly with the individual and training would be provided. Finally, in response to the resident’s concerns over damp and mould, the landlord said that it followed its policy at the time, it went on to say that it was unable to comment on the detrimental impact upon the resident’s health, as it was not ‘medically trained to do so’.
8. On 9 December 2022, the resident escalated her complaint as she was unhappy with the responses provided. In addition to this, following a further leak in November 2022, the resident was of the opinion that a ‘full bathroom renewal’ had been agreed’.
9. The landlord’s final response on 18 January 2023, focused on the events surrounding the most recent leak. It partially upheld her complaint, concluding that the burst water pipe did cause damage to her flooring, however, her request for a full bathroom renewal had been declined. It said that a post inspection would be scheduled on or before 23 January 2023 to ensure all works were satisfactory.
10. Following satisfactory completion of the works in January 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman service. She felt that the landlord’s stage 2 response did not adequately address all of the concerns she had raised, nor did it appropriately acknowledge the detriment caused to her.
11. In April 2024, the landlord informed this Service that it had reviewed the complaint and wished to offer the resident compensation of £1030, broken down as follows:
    1. Delay – £390 (39 weeks @ £10 per week medium impact)
    2. Distress – £390 (39 weeks @ £10 per week medium impact)
    3. Time & Trouble – £250 Total

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks within her bathroom and the subsequent damage caused.

12. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for installations that directly or indirectly bring services into the property, including water pipes. Emergency repairs such as burst pipes causing internal flooding will be attended to within 24 hours.
13. In this case the landlord did appropriately attend on the same day as the leak was reported and confirmed that this had been stopped by the fire service. It observed that the resident had soaked up most of the sitting water. The resident states that prior to the operative’s arrival she had made a request for an aquavac. She was told to speak directly to the operative, however, he was unable to provide this. There is no evidence to suggest that this request was then escalated by the operative, demonstrating a lack of proactive communication.
14. In addition to this the resident was not offered a dehumidifier until she contacted the landlord to specifically request this. Given the nature of the leak and the fact that it had saturated the flooring it would have been appropriate for this to have been provided as soon as possible. The dehumidifier was delivered on 6 May 2022, 14 days after the leak.
15. Following the leak and the immediate remedial works a further job was raised to ‘remove sheet flooring and renew the sub-base in the bathroom’. Shortly after this job was completed on 12 May 2022, the resident informed the landlord that there was a ‘foul damp’ smell lingering in bathroom. The landlord inspected but no further action was taken. The resident reports that she was told ‘some people are more sensitive than others’. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to carry out a full post job inspection to ensure that the works had been carried out to the correct specification.
16. The evidence shows that in July 2022, the resident removed the vinyl tiles and the overboarding. Upon doing so she identified that the original damp sub-base had not been renewed, confirming her concerns that the landlord had failed to carry out an appropriate repair. It was not appropriate for the landlord to board over the existing damaged sub-base, therefore it failed to carry out an effective repair.

17. While it was reasonable of the landlord to point out that the resident did not follow the correct procedure and removed the flooring without permission, the language used was heavy handed in the circumstance. However, despite the landlord’s stance that the resident had essentially ‘vandalised’ the property, it did agree to raise a new job.
18. The follow on job was raised in July 2022, however, it was not completed until January 2023. This amounts to a substantial delay of 39 weeks. The evidence shows that a further leak was reported in November 2022 which may have contributed to the delay. However, it is evident that the resident was left with an unsealed floor and an unpleasant odour for an unreasonable amount time, far exceeding the landlord’s policy. During this period, she spent a considerable amount of time contacting the landlord and chasing the repair.
19. Within its complaint responses, the landlord failed to appropriately address the delays and did not offer any compensation for the time and inconvenience, nor the distress caused to the resident.
20. The landlord responded to the residents’ concerns about damp and mould by stating that its policy at the time was to send out a damp pack in the form of a leaflet and ask the resident to then observe for 3 months. The landlord says that it did carry out an inspection following the leaflet and concluded that no damp or mould was visible.  The landlord has failed to provide any evidence as to when this inspection occurred, so I am unable to determine if this was a reasonable response.
21. However, given that the resident highlighted that the damp and mould was having a detrimental effect on her health, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not do more to investigate the cause. A landlord is obliged, in accordance with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced in the Housing Act 2004, to identify and mitigate any potential hazards to a resident’s health which may be present in a property. Damp and mould are one such potential hazard and, despite the resident relaying that she had needed to attend her GP for health issues linked to the damp and mould, the landlord failed to address this.
22. It is noted that since the resident’s complaint the landlord has updated it damp and mould policy  in line with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report published in October 2021.
23. In summary, the landlord’s initial response to the residents report’s of a leak was reasonable and in line with its policy and obligations. However, following this, the landlord failed to carry out an effective and lasting repair for 39 weeks. It did not communicate effectively with the resident, nor did it show appropriate empathy to her situation. Its complaint responses in relation to the delay were poor and did not go far enough to put things right.
24. In 2024 the landlord informed this Service that it had reviewed the case. It said that following completion of the works in January 2023 it should have considered compensation. It has since offered £1030 in recognition of the delays and the impact upon the resident. The landlord’s more recent actions cannot be considered reasonable redress as they took place a year after the end of its complaint process. However the revised financial offer was reasonable to its more recent identified failures and the Ombudsman will not be making a further order of compensation

The landlord’s complaint handling

25. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two-stage internal complaints procedure, where a stage one response should be provided to the resident within 15 working days of receipt of the complaint. At the final stage, it should provide a full response within 25 working days. On both occasions the responses were provided to the resident outside of the timescales specified in its complaints policy. The landlord provided the stage one complaint response 60 days late and its final response was provided one day late. The landlord failed to explain or acknowledge these delays and the time and inconvenience it caused to the resident.
26. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), specifies that a landlord should respond to all points raised in a complaint, and consider all information and evidence carefully. The landlord’s responses at both stages did not appropriately address all of the concerns raised.
27. The lack of acknowledgement by the landlord of the resident’s concerns caused distress for her. She felt that her questions had not been answered, specifically regarding the provision of the aquavac and dehumidifier. Furthermore, there is no evidence that her health concerns or the overall detrimental impact upon her had been considered. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide a response which was more empathetic to these concerns.
28. In addition to failing to provide a thorough response, the landlord’s stage 1 reply in November 2022 was also inaccurate. It concluded that the flooring works were now complete, however, the evidence shows that this was not done until January 2023.
29. In summary, the landlord’s complaint responses failed to appropriately address all of the concerns raised by the resident. The responses were not issued in a timely manner, and they did not adequately indicate any learning. In addition, on both occasions the landlord failed to acknowledge the impact the issues had upon the resident, the distress caused to her, or the time and inconvenience expended by her in chasing the repairs. The landlord’s more recent actions cannot be considered reasonable redress as they took place a year after the end of its complaint process. However the financial offer was reasonable to its more recent identified failures and the Ombudsman will not be making a further order of compensation.

Determination

30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks within her bathroom and the subsequent damage caused.
31. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders and recommendations

32. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write an apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay compensation of £1030 directly to the resident. This sum includes:
       1. £390 already offered for the delay in carrying out an effective, lasting repair.
       2. £390 already offered for the distress caused to the resident.
       3. £250 already offered for the time and trouble caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling.
       4. Any amount already paid can be deducted from the total sum.
33. Provide the Ombudsman with evidence of the above payment.