Southwark Council (202305827)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305827

Southwark Council

21 August 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 how the landlord handled:
1. The resident’s request for ventilation at her property.
2. The resident’s reports of a leak in her property.
3. The resident’s reports of being unable to reach the kitchen window to open and close it.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the property. Her tenancy began in September 2017. The property is a 2 bedroom flat on the second floor. The resident has asthma and her son has autism.
In July and August 2021 the resident reported a lack of ventilation in her home. The landlord made internal queries in August 2021 about whether a visit or works were required.
On 8 June 2022, the resident reported a leak in her property coming from the property above hers. The landlord attended to make safe the kitchen light and provided the resident with a temporary light on the same day.
The resident made a formal complaint on 8 June 2022. She informed the landlord that she was “suffocating” in the flat due to a lack of adequate ventilation. She also stated that the kitchen and passageway had flooded with water from the above flat. The resident provided the landlord with photographs to support her statements.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 10 June 2022 advising the resident that it aimed to respond by 1 July 2022.
On 17 June 2022, the landlord reinstated the kitchen light as the leak had stopped. On the same day the landlord stated it had reviewed the photographs and reiterated previous advice that it would not consider the resident’s request for additional ventilation as this was an “improvement” rather than a day to day repair. The resident stated that she required additional ventilation due to her medical condition. The landlord requested further photos to evidence the resident’s reports of damp.
On 30 June 2022 the landlord made internal queries to request for a technical quality officer to inspect the resident’s property and assess whether additional ventilation would be suitable in consideration of the resident’s reports about her medical needs.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 30 June 2022. In the response the landlord stated that an inspection had been booked on 7 July 2022 as a response to the resident’s complaint.
On 2 July 2022, the resident informed the landlord that the leak had stopped, however, there was damage to the kitchen door frame which required repair.
On 7 July 2022 during the landlord’s visit, the resident reported that she was unhappy with the performance of the fans in her bathroom. The resident also reported that the bathroom window was at a high level, making it difficult for the resident to close the window. The landlord noted the fans were working fine as part of its visit.
The landlord’s internal notes on 4 August 2022 noted that while both the windows in the bathroom and kitchen could be opened, they were of a “very bad design”. Internal notes also show that the staff member who visited the resident’s property was also unable to reach the window handles.
The landlord referred the request for additional ventilation to its communal repairs team on 8 August 2022, requesting for holes to be made in both the kitchen and bathroom window to allow a fan to be installed.
A request was made by the landlord on 14 October 2022 for scaffolding to be erected to the bathroom window for a fan installation. The resident chased the repair on 20 October 2022. The landlord informed the resident that the works could not be carried out till the scaffolding had been erected.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 9 November 2022 and noted that the windows were working as they should, but the resident was unable to reach the handles to open and close. The landlord also noted that an assessment was recommended to be done as the locking position of the window could not be changed.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 7 December 2022 as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports about the difficulties she was experiencing opening and closing the kitchen window.
The resident’s social worker made contact with the landlord on 18 January 2023 requesting an update on the outstanding repair requests.
The landlord made queries to its internal teams to identify whether a Teleflex system would be suitable and what the alternative may be if this was not suitable. Teleflex is a term used by the landlord to describe all remote window openers and winders. The landlord was advised by its repairs manager that a Teleflex system would not be suited for the specific windows in the resident’s property due to them being wooden windows. The landlord noted that the Teleflex system would damage the frame during the process of installation and therefore would not be a long term solution.
On 15 May 2023, the landlord apologised for the delay in responding to the resident at stage 2 of its complaints process. The landlord noted that it aimed to respond by 22 May 2023. During the landlord’s call with the resident, the resident informed the landlord that she had previously experienced a fall due to climbing on top off the sink to close the window. Following the fall she had resorted to getting her son to climb up and open the window.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 16 May 2023. The landlord noted that the initial complaint made by the resident was regarding her reports about a lack of ventilation and a leak from the property above. The landlord stated that in response to these reports it raised the necessary repairs to investigate the water ingress and resolve the lack of ventilation. The landlord acknowledged that the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 7 December 2022 as she was unable to open the window in her kitchen. The landlord apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint, however, it did not uphold the residents complaint. This was due to the following rationale:
1. Following the resident’s reports of a lack of ventilation in her property, jobs were raised for an extractor fan and a draught excluder to be fitted. The jobs were completed in December 2022 after scaffolding had been erected.
A job was raised on 24 October 2022 following the resident’s reports that she was unable to reach the kitchen window. The landlord arranged an inspection in response to the resident’s reports and while it queried whether a Teleflex system would be suitable, it was advised that it was not. The landlord encouraged the resident to make a referral to the occupational therapy team who may have been able to carry out the necessary assessments in relation to the resident’s son’s safety following the resident’s reports that her son was climbing the sink to close the window.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 17 May 2023. She explained that she wanted the landlord to install a handle for the window in a position where she could reach it as she felt the current position of the window handle was unsafe.
The resident continued to report the impact of being unable to reach the window handle on 10 June 2023.
On 14 February 2024, the landlord raised an order to fit an attachment to the handle to assist the resident with opening the window as part of a kitchen overhaul.
The attachment has since been installed and the resident has confirmed this has resolved the issue.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s request for ventilation.

The resident first reported a lack of ventilation in her property in July and August 2021. In response to the resident’s reports, internal emails suggest that while the landlord made queries about whether a visit or works were required, there is no evidence that further action was taken.
The landlord has an obligation to ensure its properties are habitable and in a state of repair. This includes ensuring a property is well ventilated.
The landlord’s repair guide states that reports of an extractor fan not working should be treated as an urgent repair and the fan should be repaired or replaced within 3 working days.
It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to arrange a visit to the resident’s property to assess the issue and identify whether any works could be carried out to remedy the reported issue. The landlord’s failure to take proactive action and arrange an inspection following the resident’s initial reports contributed to the overall delay in addressing the matter.
Whether the landlord would have considered additional ventilation or not, in accordance with its obligations, the resident would have expected the landlord to have investigated her reports, unless it was able to provide an assurance based on previous inspections that the property was habitable, in a good state of repair and was well ventilated.
As such the lack of communication from the landlord to the resident in response to her report was likely to have caused her distress, particularly as she stated she was still experiencing the ongoing impact of the reported issues.
Following the landlord’s inaction, the resident felt the need to make a formal complaint and raise the matter again on 8 June 2022. In response to this the landlord discussed the matter with the resident and informed her that it would not consider the request for additional ventilation as it categorised the request as an “improvement” and not a repair.
The landlord has a duty under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 to ensure that its properties are well ventilated. In the absence of information to the contrary, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to carry out an assessment before deeming the request to be for an “improvement”. It is unclear what the landlord used as its basis for its position that the property was sufficiently ventilated and any subsequent betterment of the situation to be an improvement, rather than a repair or need for a proactive measure to meet its obligations.
Poor ventilation in a property can lead to various issues such as mould and poor air quality, both of which can have an impact on health. The landlord should have given due consideration to the health and safety risks posed by poor ventilation and taken appropriate action to mitigate such risks within a reasonable time frame. The landlord’s failure to take timely action to assess the ventilation in the resident’s property contributed further to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as she continued to report the issue.
After repeated requests by the resident, the landlord instructed its technical officer to inspect the resident’s property on 30 June 2022. The visit took place on 7 July 2022. This was approximately a year after the resident’s initial reports.
The timeline shows there was an unreasonable delay to arrange the inspection, with no rationale provided to explain the length of time taken for the landlord to instruct its staff to undertake an inspection which should have taken place significantly sooner.
While the inspection did not find any pre-existing faults with the fans in the property, the landlord arranged for additional fans to be installed in the bathroom and kitchen. This suggests that the landlord believed the additional ventilation would be beneficial. The required works were carried out in December 2022 despite the landlord ordering the necessary works in August 2022. While this Service acknowledges that scaffolding was required before the works could be carried out, it is reasonable to expect that in the circumstances the landlord should have made greater effort to monitor and expedite the works due to the length of delay already experienced by the resident.
In its stage 2 response the landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint as it stated it had provided resolution with the additional ventilation having been installed. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge the significant delay experienced by the resident since her initial report, its poor communication in relation to explaining decision making and the impact both these service failures would have had on the resident. As the landlord did not acknowledge these failures, or make an attempt to put things right, its actions and resulting impact upon the resident amounts to maladministration in its handling of the resident’s complaint about the lack of adequate ventilation in her property.

The resident’s reports of a leak in her property.

The landlord’s repairs guide states that it is responsible for repairs in relation to a minor/major leak and it will aim to resolve any leaks that pose a danger to the structure of the building within 24 hours as an emergency repair.
The landlord’s repair guide states that non urgent repairs have a timescale of 20 working days.
The resident first reported the leak on 8 June 2022. The landlord attended on the same day to make safe the affected light fixtures. As the landlord’s policy states that it will make the situation safe following the report of an emergency repair, this was an appropriate and timely response to the resident’s report.
However, after making safe the resident’s property, the landlord should have investigated the leak to identify and rectify the cause of the leak. There is no evidence to show what action was taken after the light fixtures were made safe, therefore this Service is unable to comment on the reasonableness of the landlord’s subsequent actions. It is evident that the leak stopped soon after and the landlord reinstated the kitchen light following this. It was appropriate for the landlord to reinstate the light once the leak had stopped.
The resident confirmed on 2 July 2022 that the leak had stopped, however, she informed the landlord that there was damage to the kitchen door frame which required repair. The landlord does not appear to have followed up on this with the resident or completed any further repairs. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to raise a work order to inspect and repair the damage caused by the leak in the resident’s property.
In its stage 2 response, while the landlord noted that it had raised the necessary repairs to investigate the water ingress it did not address the resident’s requests to make good the damage caused by the leak. It was unreasonable that the landlord has been unable to demonstrate that it arranged the repair to remedy the damage. The landlord’s failure to do this has inconvenienced the resident who has had to chase the landlord to put things right.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in her property amounts to a service failure upon the resident. This was due to the fact that the landlord has not demonstrated it had taken any action to investigate the leak when it was active, nor did it action the resident’s reports of water damage caused by the leak. The landlord missed an opportunity to acknowledge and attempt to put its failings right in its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord should attend the resident’s property to assess whether there is any leak damage in the property which remains as an outstanding repair and take action to resolve this.

The resident’s reports of being unable to reach the kitchen window to open and close it.

The resident first reported the issue regarding her kitchen window being too high for her to reach on 7 July 2022. During the visit to the resident’s property, the landlord noted that the windows were of a “bad” design and it was acknowledged that the landlord’s staff member was also unable to reach the window handled.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), hazard 26 concerns ‘collision and entrapment’. This hazard includes the risk of physical injury from trapping body parts in building features such as doors or windows. Certain features such as window design defects and window location can increase the risk of entrapment.
When considering the resident’s reports, the landlord should have given due consideration to its obligations under the HHSRS. It is reasonable to expect that it should have taken a proactive approach to arrange for a risk assessment to take place, particularly when informed that the resident had experienced a fall and in order to open and close the window involved her son climbing up to operate it.
While the landlord noted during its visit on 9 November 2022 that an assessment was recommended, there is no evidence to show this was carried out. The landlord’s failure to carry out a timely risk assessment meant that the individual circumstances of the resident’s household were not taken into consideration when responding to her report.
Hazard 16 of the HHSRS concerns food safety and includes threats of infection resulting from inadequacies in provision and facilities for storage/preparation and cooking of food. With regards to the design, layout and state of repair of the facilities there should be suitable ventilation of the whole of the kitchen area, especially the cooking area.
As the window which was the subject of the resident’s concerns was in the kitchen, the landlord should have taken into consideration the impact of a lack of adequate ventilation. Due to the window being out of reach, there was a very likely possibility that the resident would not open the window as frequently as required whilst using the kitchen facilities. This could have led to risk of food safety and damp and mould. It is reasonable to expect that the landlord should have considered this and taken reasonable steps to mitigate such risks to keep the property in an acceptable state of repair and prevent any health implications on the resident. Its failure to do this, posed a risk to the health and safety of the resident.
Following the resident’s repeated reports, the landlord did discuss internally whether a the installation of a Teleflex system would be suitable. As part of a working solution to the resident’s complaint, prior to authorising the expense and repair order to install a Telefex system, it was reasonable that the landlord consulted its internal repair specialists as to the feasibility of the product working and providing a permanent fix to the resident’s issue. However, when the landlord was advised that a Teleflex system would not be suitable, it should have considered alternative options in a much reduced timeline to resolve the issue for the resident due to the health and safety concerns present. This was an oversight by the landlord, and contributed to the overall delay in appropriately dealing with the reported issue.
In its stage 2 response the landlord advised the resident to make a referral to the occupational therapy team in response to the resident’s reports about her son having to climb the sink to assist her with closing the window. The landlord felt the team would have been in a better position to carry out the necessary assessment in relation to her sons safety. The landlord’s suggestion failed to acknowledge what the resident’s actual concern was. While she mentioned that she had been allowing her son to climb up and assist her to open the window, it was evident that the main issue was that she herself could not open the window without a ladder, and she could not close the window without leaving her property and going out onto the walkway.
Furthermore, it should have been obvious to the landlord upon being informed the resident’s son was required to climb onto work tops to shut a window, whilst being a safety issue, should not have required an occupational therapy referral to prompt the landlord to act.
Therefore, it was not reasonable for the landlord to signpost the resident to the occupational therapy team as the reality of the resident’s complaint was that she could not open and close the window without a ladder or asking her son to climb on top of the sink. In signposting the resident to the occupational therapy team the landlord was diverting the requirement to find a solution elsewhere, rather than deal with the reported issue which was within its responsibility and duty as a landlord.
The landlord should have done more internally to identify what alternative solutions may have been available. It was not reasonable to expect the resident to climb a ladder or have her son climb the sink or a ladder every time she wanted the window open, nor leave the property every time she wanted to close it. This will have undoubtedly inconvenienced the resident and caused frustration, and the impact of this does not appear to have been acknowledged by the landlord.
As the resident continued to make reports about the issue in 2023, the landlord raised a work order on 14 February 2024 to overhaul the kitchen handle and window and fit an attachment to the handled to assist the resident with opening the window. The resident confirmed to this Service on 14 August 2024 that the attachment has now been installed and this has resolved the issue.
Overall, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of difficulties opening and closing the kitchen window. The landlord failed to adequately consider the hazards present and take appropriate and timely action. The landlord failed to acknowledge the impact on the resident and make an attempt to put things right. There was an unreasonable delay in the landlord making a decision to fit an attachment to the window handle to assist the resident with opening and closing the window. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £500 in recognition of the failures identified and the distress, time incurred and inconvenience, the delay to resolution has had upon the resident.
When retrospectively reflecting upon its handling of the case, it will be beneficial for the landlord to refer to the Ombudsman’s letter to all landlord Chief Executive’s on 10 July 2024 regarding window related complaints.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will acknowledge receipt of a complaint within 3 working days.
At stage 1 the landlord aims to respond to complaints within 15 working days, and 25 working days at stage 2.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will do the following when answering a complaint:
1. Address the issues raised.
2. Explain the basic policy/procedure or level of service that it provides.
3. Say how it has handled the matter including, where appropriate, a chronology of the events.
4. Give a clear outcome as to whether it upholds the complaint.
Where the landlord feels its services had fallen short of it standards, it notes that it will do the following:
1. Apologise for the failure in service.
2. Explain what went wrong.
3. Say what had been done to put things right.
4. Where appropriate, say how it has learned from the complaint
The resident made her initial complaint on 8 June 2022. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 10 June 2022, which was within the 3 working day timescale set out in its complaints policy. The landlord also appropriately issued a stage 1 response by 30 June 2022 which was within the 15 working day timescale in the landlord’s complaints policy.
However, the landlord’s stage 1 response consisted of a paragraph advising the resident that an inspection had been booked for the 7 July 2022. The complaint response failed to address all the issues raised by the complaint or explain how it had handled the matter following the resident’s initial report. The landlord made no attempt to assess whether the actions it had taken were in accordance with policies and procedures. This was a failure by the landlord as it meant the resident’s complaint had not been investigated appropriately, therefore leaving her without a resolution.
Had the landlord investigated the resident’s complaint appropriately and provided a complete response, it may have prevented the complaint from escalating further.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 7 December 2022. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint till 15 May 2023, and a stage 2 response was issued on 16 May 2023. This was approximately 108 working days after the resident’s escalation request, and 83 working days outside the timescale set out in the landlord’s complaint policy. This was an unfair delay which will have left the resident inconvenienced and reduced her confidence in the landlord’s complaint handling as she continued to report the ongoing issues
Overall, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s complaint process lacked customer focus, did not answer all of the complaint and took too long. The landlord also failed to acknowledge its failings and provide an explanation for the delay in responding to the complaint, therefore it missed an opportunity to put things right. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 to compensate for the inconvenience caused and deliver staff training to its complaint handling staff.

Determination

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 a lack of ventilation in her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports about difficulties opening and closing the kitchen window due to its design.
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 shall take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1100 compensation made up of the following:
  1. £300 for the failures identified in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a lack of ventilation in her property.
  2. £100 for the service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak.
  3. £500 for the failures identified in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of difficulties opening and closing the kitchen window.
  4. £200 for the failures identified in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. Deliver staff training to its complaint handling staff about the importance of following complaint handling process. A copy of the relevant training material and the delivery dates shall be provided as evidence of the training carried out and should be provided to this Service.
4. Consult with the resident and where necessary carry out a visit to the property to assess whether there is any outstanding leak damage and take action to resolve this.