Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Southwark Council (202316009)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316009

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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of faulty windows.
    2. The associated complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local council. The property is a 3-bedroom maisonette. She has lived there with her children since 18 October 2021.
  2. The landlord has no vulnerabilities for the resident, or her household, recorded on its systems.
  3. At the end of January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and reported faults with the windows. The landlord inspected the windows on 2 December 2022 and raised some follow on works to replace one window and repair the windows on the landing and in the kitchen and bathroom.
  4. On 23 February 2023, the resident complained to the landlord. She said the work to the windows was taking too long and since the inspection in December 2022, she had heard nothing. The resident chased the landlord for a response to her complaint and received an acknowledgement on 22 March 2023.
  5. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the delays and apologised for any inconvenience caused. It offered compensation of £290 (£5 per week) from 26 February 2022 to 14 April 2023, when the work was due to start. On 17 April 2023 the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaint process. Due to a fault with the landlord’s online escalation form, the escalation was acknowledged on 9 May 2023.
  6. On 14 July 2023 the landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response. It confirmed the window replacement and repairs were booked for 31 July 2023. It apologised for the continued delays and offered £75 (£5 per week) compensation from 14 April to 31 July 2023. The landlord also acknowledged its response was delayed and offered £50 compensation for the delay and inconvenience.
  7. On 31 July 2023 the window repairs were completed. The new window had not been delivered so the window was not replaced. It was delivered on 1 October 2023 and on 12 October 2023 the landlord completed the replacement.

Post internal complaints process

  1. Following the Ombudsman request for evidence, in relation to this case, the landlord arranged a complete window inspection at the property. The resident expressed her concerns that she could only open the bottom half of a bedroom window. She said she would feel more comfortable opening the top half, for safety reasons. On 25 March 2024 further window repairs were raised for the kitchen, bathroom and a bedroom window. The resident has confirmed all window repairs are completed.
  2. The resident has told the Ombudsman that throughout this matter, she had not been offered any assistance through periods of extremely cold weather. As of 29 October 2024, the resident had not been further compensated by the landlord.
  3. On 30 May 2024 the landlord told the Ombudsman it intended to offer the resident a further £825 in compensation for delays, distress and time and trouble. The landlord has confirmed it has not made this offer to the resident.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of faulty windows

  1. The landlord has a statutory duty under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, as well as the installation and supply of water, gas, and electricity. It is obliged to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe. The resident’s tenancy agreement acknowledges this duty within its terms and conditions.
  2. The landlord’s repair booklet for residents tells us where there is no legal time limit, the landlord has set itself strict targets for when a resident can expect their repair to be completed. There are 3 repair categories:
    1. Emergency – 24 hours.
    2. Urgent – 3 working days.
    3. Non urgent (routine) – 20 working days. Broken sash window, dry rot, wet rot and timber treatment are listed under this category.
  3. From the 26 January 2022, when the resident reported her faulty windows, it took the landlord 216 working days to inspect the windows. From 8 December 2022, when the follow-on works were raised, it took 160 working days to complete the repairs and 212 working days to complete the window replacement.
  4. From start to finish the landlord took 431 working days to resolve the resident’s repair request. This was neither a reasonable timeframe as stipulated in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 nor in keeping with the landlord’s strict targets within its repair guide. The landlord acted inappropriately.
  5. The landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident. There was some confusion as to whether 1 or 2 windows were meant to be replaced. Despite the complaint responses stating 2, only 1 was replaced. It was later confirmed by the landlord that 1 replacement was correct, but no evidence has been seen to show this was clearly communicated and explained to the resident. She was not kept updated about her windows and had to chase the landlord to find out what was happening. The landlord acted unreasonably. It was not customer focused and demonstrated a lack of ownership for the repairs.
  6. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) was introduced under the Housing Act 2004 and applies to residential properties in England and Wales. It sets out 29 categories of housing hazard. Each hazard has a weighting which will help determine whether the property is rated as having category 1 (serious) or category 2 (other) hazards. Excess cold is one of the 29 categories. The Government guidance on the HHSRS tells us that a healthy indoor temperature is 21 degrees. Serious health risks can occur when the temperature drops below 16 degrees with a substantially increased risk of respiratory and cardiovascular conditions.
  7. To properly assess the hazard an assessment must consider:
    1. The dwellings characteristics.
    2. The energy efficiency of the property.
    3. The effectiveness of the heating system.
    4. Adequacy of the heating, insulation, and ventilation.
    5. Any other factors that may affect the indoor temperature such as dampness, disrepair to the structure, or to space or water heating systems.
  8. The resident complained to the landlord about the excess cold in April 2023. To fully assess the resident’s concerns, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to carry out an assessment under the HHSRS guidance. The landlord’s inaction and delays meant the resident had to purchase extra heat sources, not knowing for sure when any repairs would take place and if they would make a difference.
  9. When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether any redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress (for example an apology, compensation and a commitment to improve communications in future), was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  10. On 15 April 2023 the landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord set out the situation and provided the resident with:
    1. An apology.
    2. Compensation of £5 per week for 58 weeks totalling £290. This was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for a delay of low impact.
  11. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord increased its compensation offer for the delays by £75, which was £5 a week from 14 April to 31 July 2023, in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for a delay with low impact.
  12. The Ombudsman does not consider this a fair remedy nor a low impact situation. The landlord did not provide an explanation for the delays. On 12 April 2023 the landlord’s repair team told the complaint team it could find no specific reason for the delays. The repair had been incorrectly recorded as a UPVC window, but the repairs team offered no explanation as to whether this would have contributed to the delay or by how much. It would have been honest and transparent of the landlord to share this information with the resident and tell her how it intended to make sure it did not happen again.
  13. In the resident’s original complaint, she told the landlord her daughter’s bedroom was unbearably cold and she was struggling to get the room warm. She mentioned her concern about the cost of gas and electric. On 17 April 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 and gave the landlord the following information:
    1. Her daughter was facing unbearable nights trying to sleep in a room where the temperatures dipped below freezing, where a window was rotten and did not close.
    2. That she had spent considerable amounts of money on both gas heating and electrical fan heating.
    3. Contacting the landlord to try and resolve the issues was affecting her overall wellbeing, causing stress and anxiety.
  14. Given the information the resident told the landlord, it would have been reasonable of the landlord to offer more support to the resident. Its complaint responses acknowledged the delays, but they did not acknowledge or empathise with the resident’s documented reports of excess cold, financial hardship and well-being concerns. A quick search on the landlord’s website found links for financial support, energy support, help with household costs and mental health and wellbeing support. There is also a link to a cost-of-living support booklet. At the least the landlord could have provided these links in its complaint responses. It was unreasonable that it did not. It may have contributed to the resident feeling like the landlord was not committed to resolving her faulty windows or supporting her.
  15. It would have been reasonable of the landlord to consider offering financial compensation for time and trouble and distress. Its compensation policy offers a maximum payment of £250 for time and trouble, and the same tariff for distress as for delays:
    1. £5 per week for low impact.
    2. £10 per week for medium impact.
    3. £20 per week for medium impact.
  16. The landlord has told the Ombudsman that it intended to offer the resident further compensation, as of 30 May 2024 of £825, made up of:
    1. £5 a week for delays from 26 January to 25 February 2022.
    2. £5 a week for distress from 26 January 2022 to 12 October 2023 (omitting the week 2 to 7 December 2022 for orders to be raised).
    3. £250 for time and trouble.
    4. £5 per week for delays and £5 per week for distress for the new repairs from 15 March 2024 to 30 May 2024.
  17. This would have resulted in a total compensation offer of £1240. This would be in keeping with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where the circumstances for maladministration apply and the redress needed to put things right is substantial. In this case this is due to the severity of the delays in completing the repairs. Furthermore, the landlord confirmed it would also compensate from 30 May 2024 to the completion date of the March 2024 repairs.
  18. Had the landlord made this offer of financial compensation at the time, provided support to the resident and identified learnings from the case, a finding of reasonable redress may have been found. However, it did not do this within the internal complaints process, and the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of faulty windows. Orders are made below with the intention to put things right for the resident.

Associated complaint handling

  1. The resident made an online complaint to the landlord on 23 February 2023. On 20 March 2023 she chased the landlord as she had not heard from them. The landlord sent a complaint acknowledgement 2 days later. The landlord saw a copy on the resident’s online form from 23 February 2023. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response did not acknowledge this form or offer an explanation, apology or compensation for its failure to acknowledge the resident’s initial complaint. The landlord acted unreasonably.
  2. Once acknowledged, the landlord told the resident it would respond within 10 working days, by 4 April 2023. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was sent on 15 April 2023, 15 working days after the landlord’s acknowledgement. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time tells us that it will complete the first stage of its complaint process within 15 working days. Regardless of the fact the response adhered to the landlord’s policy’s timescale at the time, it had told the resident to expect a response in 10 working days. In the documentation provided to the Ombudsman as part of this investigation, there was no evidence that the landlord asked for an extension. Paragraph 5.1 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) tells landlords that if they require an extension, they must tell the resident with a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. It should have updated her when it was unable to meet its deadline. The landlord acted unreasonably. The resident did not know what was happening with her complaint and had to call the landlord to find out. It was not customer focused.
  3. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time was not in keeping with the response timescales recommended by the Code. The Code 2024 is now a statutory code, and the Ombudsman acknowledges the landlord has amended its corporate complaint policy to meet the timescales within the Code.
  4. On 17 April 2023, the resident tried to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the internal complaint process. The online form was faulty, in that it registered the complaint with the date 15 August 2023. On 3 May 2023, the resident told the landlord the form was faulty and sent it screenshots of her escalation. The landlord acknowledged the escalation 3 working days later, in line with its complaint policy. The landlord acted appropriately, once it had received the form.
  5. Within its escalation acknowledgement the landlord told the resident the investigation would be delayed due to an increase in contact from residents. While it was a positive step to communicate the delay as quickly as it did, the response did not offer any idea of a timeframe for the resident to expect a response. Paragraph 5.1 of the Code tells landlords they must provide a clear timeframe to residents. The landlord acted unreasonably. The resident did not know what was happening with her complaint.
  6. On 16 May 2023 the landlord contacted the resident again and provided a date, 7 June 2023, by which the resident could expect a stage 2 complaint response. On 10 July 2023 the resident asked the landlord where the response was and on 14 July 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. This was 28 working days after the resident expected it, and 62 working days from when the resident initially tried to escalate her complaint. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to suggest the landlord proactively kept the resident informed about the delays nor that the resident agreed to any extensions. Its actions were not in line with its own complaint policy or the Code. The landlord acted inappropriately. The resident’s complaint journey was prolonged and drawn out, with little communication from the landlord evidenced.
  7. In her escalation request the resident asked why the compensation started a month after her repair request was made. The landlord’s response did not answer her question. Paragraph 5.16 of the Code tells us that the response must include the decision on the complaint and any reasons for those decisions. The resident specifically queried one of the decisions made and the stage 2 response should have explained it. The landlord acted unreasonably. The resident was left without an answer to her query, so was unable to determine if it was fair or not.
  8. Since the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, the landlord has told the Ombudsman that it intends to offer compensation for delays and distress from 26 January 2022, the date the repair request was made. However, the landlord has not informed the resident of this.
  9. The landlord apologised for its complaint handling and offered the resident £50 compensation because its stage 2 complaint response was delayed. It also explained that the issues with the online forms had now been fixed. Its explanation was thorough. However, considering the length of the delay and the lack of communication throughout the complaint, an offer of £100 would have been more appropriate. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a finding of service failure, where the landlord has made an offer, but it is not quite proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation. An order is made below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of faulty windows.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s associated complaint handling.

Orders and Recommendation

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to apologise, in writing, for the impact of its failures on the resident.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £1180, made up of:
    1. £290 offered at stage 1 of the complaint process, if not already done so.
    2. £125 offered at stage 2 of the complaint process, if not already done so.
    3. £25 for the delays from 26 January to 26 February 2022.
    4. £440 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident because of the landlord’s failures in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of faulty windows at the property.
    5. £250 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident because of the landlord’s failures in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of faulty windows at the property.
    6. £50 for the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident because of the landlord’s failures in relation to the associated complaint handling.
  3. Within 12 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to complete a case review that considers and accounts for the failings in this case. A copy of the report must be provided to the Ombudsman. The review report should set out:
    1. How the current systems and processes allowed a repair to go unallocated / untracked for nearly a year.
    2. What needs to change to ensure this does not happen in the future.
    3. How the landlord will ensure its compliance with the Government guidance on HHSRS and in what situations it will apply the guidance.
    4. Any process changes and associated staff training that will ensure any changes are implemented.

Recommendation

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to consider paying £330 compensation to the resident, for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident because of the landlord’s failures in relation to the delays to the repairs raised in March 2024.