Southwark Council (202322564)

Decision
Case ID	202322564
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Southwark Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	16 April 2026

Background

1. The resident paid for a private fire safety inspection after raising concerns to the landlord that his front door was not fire safe. The inspection identified that remedial action was required to make the door fire safe. The landlord said it would replace the door but would not reimburse the cost of the inspection. The landlord is the freeholder of the flat.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The time taken for the landlord to install a new fire door.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be reimbursed for a private fire door inspection.
   3. The handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:

1. There was maladministration in the time taken to install a new fire door.
2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be reimbursed for a private fire door inspection.
3. There was reasonable redress offered for the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. There were unreasonable delays and poor communication in the landlord’s handling of the door installation. While it offered compensation, its offer did not reflect the full extent of the delay or consider the distress the delay and lack of communication caused to the resident.
5. The landlord was not required to reimburse the costs incurred by the resident for the private fire safety inspection.
6. Although there were significant delays in the landlord’s handling of the complaint, it offered reasonable redress proportionate to the failure identified.

 

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident an additional £210 made up as follows:        £60 for repair delays       £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. This is in addition to the £300 previously offered to the resident which has been paid already.	No later than 13 May 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
18 April 2023	The resident submitted a formal complaint because: He was unhappy with the length of time it was taking for the landlord to inspect his front door. An appointment was missed and one appointment was attended outside the agreed time slot. As a result of the delays, he paid for a private fire inspection which he wanted the landlord to reimburse him for.
11 May 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said following its attendance on 28 March, the door had been found to be functioning properly, but the resident was concerned that the door did not meet fire safety regulations. It said after it had reviewed photos and the private inspection report obtained by the resident, it authorised a replacement door which could take up to 12 weeks to manufacture.
13 August 2023	The resident requested escalation of his complaint because: Due to the landlord’s inaction, he felt he had no choice but to hire a private company for the fire safety inspection so he felt the landlord should reimburse his cost. The new door installation was still outstanding and he said he had not received any updates.
8 February 2024	The landlord issued its final response. It detailed the complaint and repair history and partially upheld the complaint. But it did not agree to reimburse the resident’s inspection costs. It offered compensation as follows: £100 for time and trouble related to complaint handling. £50 for a missed appointment. £150 for delays to the door installation calculated at £10 a week for 15 weeks.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaint to us as he was unhappy with the level of compensation offered and was seeking reimbursement of the cost for a private fire inspection.

 

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The time taken for the landlord to install a new fire door
Finding	Maladministration

7. The landlord did not provide a full copy of the lease, but its guide for leaseholders says it is responsible for repairing front entrance doors and frames. Its repairs guide says routine repairs should be completed within 20 working days, but there may be reasonable delays for planned major works.
8. The landlord has not provided a copy of the resident’s original repair report but confirmed that a repair job was raised on 13 February 2023 for damaged mastic and deformed smoke seals on the door. An appointment was scheduled for 6 March, which was within the expected routine repair timeframe, but it failed to attend.
9. The landlord acted fairly by apologising for the missed appointment and offered £50 compensation. This amount was reasonable as it was in line with its compensation policy for the inconvenience caused by a missed appointment.
10. An appointment was rescheduled for the afternoon of 28 March, but the resident said the contractor arrived in the morning instead, causing him inconvenience. The landlord acted fairly by apologising for this and provided a reasonable explanation for the early attendance. We consider that this was sufficient to put this right.
11. We have not been provided with the contractor’s notes from his visit on 28 March, but the landlord said he observed that the door and locks were functioning properly but did not have a smoke seal fitted. The contractor referred the resident’s fire safety concerns back to the repairs team to decide if a further inspection would be required. Although the contractor observed no immediate danger, a risk had been identified. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to quickly decide what action it would take.
12. The resident chased for an update on 3 April, but the landlord’s records do not show if he was given any timeframe for a response. Given the resident’s concerns about the safety of the door, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to clearly set out what action it would be taking and when. The lack of clarity on the next steps caused the resident avoidable uncertainty and distress.
13. The landlord next contacted the resident 6 weeks later on 10 May to advise that a job order for a new door had been raised and door replacements could take up to 12 weeks to manufacture. The new door was ordered on 12 May, meaning it was expected to be ready by early August 2023.
14. On 31 July, the resident requested an update and estimated delivery time. The landlord told him that he could expect confirmation of a delivery date within a couple of weeks, meaning he was expecting an update by 14 August. He was not contacted about the door again until 10 weeks later on 27 October 2023. The lack of communication and updates during this period caused the resident further anxiety and distress.
15. While the manufacturing period of 12 weeks was reasonable and outside the landlord’s control, it did not explain why the resident received no updates for 6 weeks between 28 March and 10 May or the 10 weeks between 14 August and 27 October. As there was no explanation for the lack of action and communication during these periods, these delays were unreasonable.
16. The landlord acted fairly by apologising for the delay in installing the door. It sought to put this right by offering £150 compensation calculated at £10 a week for 15 weeks for delays between May and November 2023, minus the 12 weeks for manufacturing. However, its compensation offer was not sufficient as it should have also included the 6 week delay between 28 March and 10 May. Using the same calculation method as the landlord for consistency, this equates to an additional £60 which it must pay to the resident.
17. Although the landlord also apologised for the frustration caused from the lack of communication, this alone was not sufficient to put things right. It has not shown that it considered the full impact or distress to the resident from the lack of clarity, action and significant gaps in its communication. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay a further £150 compensation, which is in line with our compensation guidance where there is a failure which has adversely affected the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the resident’s request to be reimbursed for a private fire safety inspection
Finding	No maladministration

18. The landlord explained to the resident that it would not reimburse his costs because the door was its responsibility and it had not instructed him to arrange a private contractor. This explanation was reasonable, as the landlord is entitled to decide whether an inspection is required and who should carry out any inspection.
19. As the landlord was not given a reasonable opportunity to consider if it would authorise the resident to arrange the inspection himself, it is not obliged to reimburse the resident’s privately incurred costs.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

20. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) March 2022 which applied at the time of this complaint, required landlords to respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. The landlord has provided its complaint policy from 2021 which did not comply with the timescales in the Code. The landlord has since updated its policy but for the purposes of this case, we have relied on the policy in place at the time the initial complaint was logged in April 2023.
21. The landlord took 15 working days to respond at stage 1 which was a small delay. Its stage 2 response was comprehensive but took 125 working days to issue. This significantly exceeded the timeframes set out in its own complaints policy and the Code.
22. The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging and apologising for its complaint handling failures. It put things right by offering £100 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble. It also identified a learning need for an internal review. This was proportionate to the failures identified and the amount offered shows it had considered the effect these failures had on the resident. Its offer was also in line with our compensation guidance where there is an adverse impact on the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and Communication.

23. The landlord provided some repair records which were not relevant to this case and did not provide repair records which would have been relevant. In addition, it did not provide a full copy of the resident’s lease. Maintaining accurate, detailed records and providing relevant information will help to improve transparency and accountability. 
24. As this report sets out, the landlord’s overall communication with the resident was inadequate. It would have been helpful if the landlord had explained any steps it was taking to improve communication residents in the future.
25. The landlord can gain further insight into the importance of record keeping and communication by reading our spotlight report, a copy of which can be found here Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM).