Southwark Council (202223684)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223684

Southwark Council

31 October 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. responsive repairs following leaks to her property.
2. subsequent complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy which began on 10 July 2017. The property is a 1-bedroom third floor flat. The landlord is a local authority. The resident has a number of medical conditions which includes emotionally unstable personality disorder, autonomic neuropathy affecting the heart and peripheral neuropathy affecting the feet, legs and eyes, which the landlord is aware of.
The resident reported a leak to her bathroom ceiling on 3 March 2022, which she said had been intermittently occurring for approximately 5 years. The landlord inspected the property on 21 March 2022.
On 4 September 2022 the resident complained to the landlord that there was still water leaking in through the bathroom ceiling. She said the landlord had inspected on 3 occasions but the repairs were still outstanding.
On 26 October 2022 the landlord sent its stage 1 response in which it said:
1. following the resident’s report on 3 March 2022 the landlord’s contractor had attended and reported that the leak was not a roofing problem
2. it had raised a works order on 7 April 2022 for repairs to be completed to the block, for which scaffolding would be required
3. it had to put the works on hold because a section 20 notice was required due to the cost of the required repairs
4. the contractor erected the scaffolding on 12 October 2022 and the works were completed
5. it had sent a request to its contractor to dismantle the scaffolding
6. it apologised for the delay in it completing the works
7. it would inspect the resident’s property on 7 November 2022 to confirm any damage caused by the leak, following which it would raise the relevant repairs
8. it offered compensation of £5 per week for 29 weeks delay from when the resident first reported the leak, a total of £145
On 22 November 2022 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. The resident said:
1. the landlord had not provided her with any update in relation to the repairs between April 2022 and September 2022, she had to repeatedly chase the landlord and contractor for updates
2. the repairs were outstanding and there was a constant damp smell in her home
3. the leak had spread to her kitchen and living room which the landlord had not acknowledged
4. the leak had caused damage to the decoration in the bathroom, kitchen and living room
5. an appointment had been made for 14 November 2022 for the landlord to inspect the damage caused to the resident’s flat, but no one turned up
6. the landlord had offered decoration packs instead of redecorating the affected rooms
7. the landlord had not shown any empathy towards the resident
8. the landlord had not taken into account the distress and inconvenience she had been caused over the 8 months of having a leak into her property
9. she was unhappy with the amount of compensation offered
On 13 March 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response in which it said:
1. it acknowledged there had been a lengthy delay in it resolving the leak into the resident’s bathroom, between 3 March 2022 and 26 October 2022, for which the landlord offered compensation of £145 at stage 1
2. it acknowledged that the compensation offered had not taken into account the inconvenience experienced by the resident for which it had decided to award additional compensation
3. it had raised a request to issue the resident with 2 decoration packages, it asked the resident to contact its repairs team to arrange delivery of these
4. it had completed an inspection of the resident’s property, both internal and external, on 7 February 2023, following the report of a leak into the resident’s living room, when it had noted the following issues:
  1. water stains to the living room ceiling
  2. a crack to the external brickwork above the balcony
  3. an external downpipe was disconnected
  4. tiles missing from the main roof
5. it had instructed a contractor to erect scaffolding, carry out further investigation and complete the required repairs to the roof tiles and downpipe, which it expected to complete on or before 23 March 2023
6. it had instructed a contractor to inspect the crack in the brickwork, which it expected to complete on or before 10 April 2023
7. it had raised a works order to repair the damaged plaster in the bathroom, kitchen and living room wall and ceiling, which it would complete after it had resolved the leak
8. it offered an additional £155 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble in bringing her complaint
The resident moved from the property in February 2024. In communication with this service the resident said the landlord completed the repairs in May 2023. She said she was unhappy with the amount of compensation the landlord had awarded because she felt it did not reflect the distress and inconvenience she had been caused. She also said she had been unhappy with the landlord’s decision to issue decorating packages instead of carrying out the redecoration itself. She said the landlord had not taken into account her disabilities when making its decision. As an outcome the resident said she would like the landlord to increase the amount of compensation awarded.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s responsive repairs

In line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obliged to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, the installations for the supply of gas and electricity, heating and hot water. These obligations are also reflected in the resident’s tenancy agreement.
The landlord’s repair guide says it will log a responsive repair as either an emergency, urgent or non-urgent repair. The policy sets out the following timescales:
1. emergency repairs – where there is a danger to health and safety the landlord will aim to attend within 2-4 hours, otherwise the landlord will aim to attend emergency repairs within 24 hours
2. urgent repairs – the landlord will aim to attend within 3 working days
3. non-urgent repairs – the landlord will aim to attend within 20 working days
The resident contacted the landlord on 3 March 2022 to report a leak which was coming in through her bathroom ceiling. Roof works were already being undertaken by the landlord due to a report of a leak in another property. The landlord’s records indicate that it inspected the resident’s property on or around 21 March 2022. The landlord’s repair guide states it considers repairs where there is rain penetration to be a non-urgent repair which it aims to attend within 20 days. The landlord’s attendance was therefore appropriate and consistent with its policy.
The records show that the contractor initially said it was not a roofing issue but there does not appear to be any record to show where the landlord believed the leak was coming from or what works were required to rectify it. The landlord is reminded to keep more detailed case notes to show what action it has taken.
The landlord raised works for the resident’s block on 7 April 2022 which it said would require scaffolding. The landlord said that it had to put a hold on the works due to it having to conduct a section 20 consultation. Where resident’s pay a service charge a landlord is required to carry out a section 20 consultation process when it is considering communal repairs. It is understood this process can take approximately 2 months.
While this service has not seen the section 20 notice, the Ombudsman considers it was appropriate that the landlord carried out this consultation with its residents prior to completing the works. However, where there is such a delay, the Ombudsman would expect landlords to keep residents fully updated throughout and also consider if there was anything it could do to mitigate any impact the delays would have upon the resident, for example if dehumidifiers were required. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord kept the resident updated during this period or that it offered dehumidifiers. This was not appropriate and a failure by the landlord.
The landlord erected the scaffolding at the beginning of October 2022 and completed the repairs by 26 October 2022, which was approximately 8 months after the resident first reported the leak. While it is understood that the works were delayed for a period of 2 months as a result of the section 20 process, the Ombudsman has not seen any reason to show why there was a further 6 months delay in the landlord completing the works. This was not appropriate and a failure by the landlord.
The resident informed the landlord that the leak had spread to her kitchen and living room in her escalation letter dated 21 October 2022. The landlord arranged to visit the resident on 14 November 2022 to inspect the damage caused to her property but the landlord did not attend. It is unclear from the landlord’s records why this appointment did not go ahead. The landlord is reminded to keep more detailed case notes to show what action it has taken.
The resident contacted the landlord on 10 January 2023 to report a leak to her living room ceiling. Following the resident’s contact, the landlord carried out an inspection on 7 February 2023, which was 20 working days after the resident’s report. This was appropriate because it was consistent with the landlord’s repair guide. The landlord noted water stains on the resident’s living room ceiling caused by the leak, cracks to the external brickwork above the balcony doors and an external downpipe which had become disconnected. The landlord also noted that there were some roof tiles missing from the main roof.
In its complaint response dated 13 March 2023 the landlord informed the resident that it had arranged for scaffolding to be erected to complete the necessary repairs to the downpipe and roof tiles, which it hoped to complete by 23 March 2023. It also said it would inspect the cracks in the brickwork, to establish whether this was or was not structural, which it hoped to complete by 10 April 2023. On this occasion, the landlord took the decision to waiver the section 20 consultation so that it could complete the repairs as quickly as it could and reduce the impact on the resident. It is understood that the landlord completed the repairs in May 2023, which was approximately 5 months after the resident reported the leak.
The Ombudsman understands that complex works where additional resources, such as scaffolding is required, can take additional time to complete. However, as stated above, when there are delays the Ombudsman would expect landlords to keep the resident updated, explaining the reason for the delays and whether there was anything it could do to mitigate the impact on the resident. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord did this in this case. This was not reasonable and a failure by the landlord.
With regards to the damage caused by the leaks to the resident’s property, the landlord said it would repair the damaged plaster on the resident’s bathroom, kitchen and living room walls and ceilings. However, it instructed its contractor not to commence these works until it had rectified the source of the leak, which was reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident moved from the property in February 2024. She confirmed the landlord had completed the external works in May 2023. With regards to the internal plastering, she said that the landlord’s contractor had attended and told her the walls did not need plastering. It told the resident to fill the holes in the bathroom wall herself and paint over them. The Ombudsman understands that this was frustrating for the resident because the landlord had said it would complete these works in its complaint responses. However, what it ought to have said was that it would inspect the damage and then advise the resident what works were required. The landlord raised the expectations of the resident in this case which was not reasonable.
The landlord had provided the resident with decoration packs, as it had promised in its complaint responses. The resident had expected the landlord would complete the redecoration works for her considering her medical conditions, which the landlord was aware of.
The landlord’s repair guide says that decoration of the property is the resident’s responsibility, unless the damage was caused by the landlord, for example, when completing a repair. In this case, the staining to the walls and ceilings had been caused by the leaks, which the landlord could not have foreseen. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord provide the resident with decoration packs so that she could either complete the work herself or instruct her own contractor. However, the landlord said it was aware of the resident’s medical conditions at this time and it ought, therefore, to have considered whether there was any further assistance it could have provided her with redecorating the affected rooms. The landlord did not do this which left the resident feeling that the landlord did not care.
Throughout the complaint, the resident repeatedly chased the landlord and its contractors for updates. She explained how the delays had affected her health and wellbeing. While the Ombudsman understands that complex repairs may require additional time for the landlord to complete, there is an expectation that the landlord communicates with the resident to keep them updated. There is no evidence that the landlord proactively communicated the delays to the resident in this case which is likely to have made her feel frustrated.
The landlord acknowledged in its complaint responses that there had been a lengthy delay in it completing the works to repair the leak in the resident’s bathroom which had been between March 22 and October 2022. It offered £145 for the distress and inconvenience caused, which was increased to £300 at stage 2. However, it did not acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in completing the leak to the living room ceiling, which had been between January 2023 and May 2023 and included in its complaint responses.
While the offer of redress made by the landlord shows good practice in trying to resolve complaints and learn from outcomes, the Ombudsman does not consider the compensation to be proportionate to the failings identified in this report. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that the complaint had a significant and detrimental impact on her ability to enjoy her home and she spent considerable time chasing the landlord for responses and updates on repair works. In summary, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s responsive repairs, in that it:
1. delayed unreasonably in completing repairs to fix the leak to the bathroom ceiling
2. delayed unreasonably in completing the repairs to fix the leak to the living room ceiling
3. failed to manage communications with the resident about the progress and timescales associated with some of the repairs which resulted in the resident having to chase the landlord for updates
4. failed to consider if there was anything it could do to mitigate the impact upon the resident, such as offering dehumidifiers
5. raised the resident’s expectations incorrectly telling her it would complete replastering to her bathroom, kitchen and living room
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which is available online, provides awards of compensation between £100 and £600 when there is evidence of maladministration by the landlord which adversely affected the resident. As set out, the resident said that the situation had been highly stressful for her and the enjoyment of her home was affected. The leaks remained unresolved between March 2022 and October 2022 and again between January 2023 and May 2023, which was approximately 54 weeks. Based on failures outlined in this report and in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, a fairer level of compensation would be £10 for each week the leak was unresolved. The Ombudsman has therefore made an order that the landlord pay the resident £540 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. At stage 1, the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within 3 working days of being made and will provide its response within 15 working days of being acknowledged. At stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge escalation of the complaint within 3 working days and provide its response within 25 working days of being acknowledged.
This service’s Complaint Handling Code (2022) (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. This includes an expectation that landlords will:
1. respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days
2. respond to complaints at stage 2 within 20 working days
The resident raised her initial complaint on 4 September 2022. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 6 September 2022 and informed the resident it would aim to provide a written response by 27 September 2022.
On 6 October 2022 the landlord informed the resident that it had not sent her stage 1 response due to it not completing the repairs. Paragraph 5.5 of the Code states that a complaint response must be sent to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue, are completed. The landlord’s decision to wait until it had completed the repairs to issue its stage 1 response was not appropriate because it was not consistent with the Code.
The landlord sent its response on 26 October 2022, which was 33 working days after the resident’s complaint was acknowledged. This was not appropriate as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy and the Code.
The resident remained dissatisfied and asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 22 November 2022. The landlord emailed the resident on 21 December 2022 to acknowledge her escalation to stage 2. It explained that its investigation had been delayed due to an increase in contact from residents. Paragraph 5.13 of the Code states that, where a landlord is unable to meet the timeframe set out in the Code, it should provide an explanation to the resident setting out a clear timeframe when she would receive the response. The landlord did not do this in this case, this was not appropriate and a failure by the landlord.
Upon no response being received, the resident contacted this service to ask for assistance in progressing her complaint. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 13 March 2023 requesting that it provide its stage 2 response to the resident by 18 April 2023.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 13 March 2023, which was 77 working days after the resident’s escalation. This was not appropriate as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy and the Code.
The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s complaint at both stages in line with its complaint’s procedure, meant it missed opportunities to address her concerns sooner and left the resident waiting for a resolution to her concerns. The landlord should have conducted a timely and appropriate investigation and response to the resident’s concerns. This was a failure by the landlord.
In summary, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint in that it:
1. unreasonably delayed in providing a response at stage 1
2. failed to provide a clear timeframe when the resident would receive the stage 2 response
3. unreasonably delayed in providing a response at stage 2
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which is available online, provides awards of compensation between £100 and £600 when there is evidence of maladministration by the landlord which adversely affected the resident. In this case, the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint would have delayed the resident in progressing the complaint through the landlord’s process. It would have also made her feel frustrated and that she was not being taken seriously and would have prevented her from exhausting the landlord’s internal complaints procedure so that she could bring the matter to the Ombudsman for an independent investigation. The landlord’s actions were not appropriate as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy and the Code.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the responsive repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. pay the resident £440 compensation in addition to that offered via the complaint procedure (£300) (£740 in total). The additional compensation is broken down as follows:
  1. £240 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the responsive repairs
  2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint
2. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of how it has complied with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.