From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Southwark Council (202326397)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326397

Southwark Council

13 May 2025

 

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 handling of the resident’s reports of a broken tile.

Background

  1. The property is a 5-bedroom house and the resident has lived there since 1984. The resident is an assured tenant and the landlord is a council.
  2. Due to essential roofing repairs, scaffolding was erected on 29 December 2022. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 3 January 2023, stating the contractor had cracked an external floor tile when putting up the scaffolding. The landlord acknowledged it the same day.
  3. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 2 February 2023 it said the contractor had requested photographs of the broken tile. The landlord noted it had spoken to the resident that same day and she would provide photographs when she was able. The landlord said it would remain in contact with her about the issue.
  4. The resident sent the photographs on 6 February 2023 and, over the following months, chased the landlord for an update.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint on 26 September 2023 and the landlord provided a stage 2 response on 1 November 2023. It said the contractor had to wait for the scaffolding to be removed before replacing the tile. It apologised for the time taken to do this as the scaffolding came down on 19 June 2023 and the tile was replaced on 13 October 2023. It offered £135 compensation (£75 for time and trouble and £60 (£5 per week for 12 weeks) for the time taken to repair the tile). While it was 16 weeks between the scaffolding being removed and the tile being replaced, the landlord said it subtracted 4 weeks allowance for the time it should have taken.
  6. The resident referred her complaint to us as she was not satisfied with the offer of compensation.

Assessment and findings

  1. It was appropriate for the landlord to request photographs of the broken tile, to establish the damage caused. However, there is no evidence it did so prior to drafting its stage 1 response. The response was therefore not very helpful as it asked for evidence from the resident rather than offering a resolution. The landlord could have asked for photographs soon after receiving the complaint, to allow for liaison with the contractor and a more meaningful response.
  2. The stage 1 response was provided 23 working days after the complaint. The landlord’s complaint policy in place at the time said it should be issued within 15 working days, so there was a slight delay. As the response did not resolve anything for the resident, but asked for evidence, its delay did not impact the substantive issue.
  3. In the response the landlord said it would remain in contact with the resident. Following the resident sending photographs of the broken tile on 6 February 2023, the landlord emailed her to say it had forwarded it to the contractor. The resident then emailed the landlord 3 times in April 2023 and twice in May 2023. The landlord responded on 2 occasions, stating it had sent the photographs to the contractor and the damaged tile would be addressed once the scaffolding was removed. This was not particularly helpful as there was no indication when this may be.
  4. Throughout June and July 2023 the resident chased the landlord multiple times and it responded only to say it had chased the contractor. While this may have been the case, there is only evidence of contact between the landlord and contractor after the stage 2 escalation. The landlord should have been more proactive in liaising with the contractor and updating the resident regarding timescales. The fact it did not constitutes a failure in service.
  5. When the resident escalated her complaint in September 2023 she had been waiting for the tile to be repaired/replaced for 9 months and had not been given clear timescales. This was unacceptable and was a failure in service. The landlord chased the contractor 3 times following this and was informed the contractor was struggling to source the same type of tile. The issue may have been somewhat out of the landlord’s control but it should still have communicated openly and regularly with the resident about it.
  6. The scaffolding was removed on 19 June 2023 but the tile was not replaced until 13 October 2023. This delay was unreasonable and the resident was not offered any explanation for it. The resident was understandably frustrated.
  7. The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 1 November 2023, 26 working days after escalation. The policy in place at the time said it should be within 25 days, so it was just acceptable.
  8. In its response the landlord said the contractor informed it that the tile could not be replaced while the scaffolding was up, to stop further breakages. The landlord admitted the time taken to replace it following the scaffolding being removed on 19 June 2023 was unacceptable. The landlord apologised for this. While the contractor was responsible for the repair, the landlord should have pursued it and provided communication and reliable timescales to the resident. It was therefore appropriate that it acknowledged these failings within its response.
  9. The landlord offered a total of £135 compensation and clearly explained how this had been calculated. Its compensation policy says £5 per week is suitable for an issue that had low impact on a resident. It was fair for the landlord to make this assessment, as a cracked external tile did not have serious impact or affect the resident’s use of the property. It is recognised the resident did not feel listened to and was understandably frustrated by the delay and lack of communication.
  10. There was a 9 month period between the resident complaining about the tile being damaged and it being replaced. However, as the contractor had advised the tile would be replaced after the scaffolding was removed, the delay was actually 4 months. There was no permanent impact and the landlord appropriately acknowledged its failure in its stage 2 response.
  11. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
  12. Considering the full circumstances of the case, and in consultation with our remedies guidance, the landlord’s apology and offer of £135 compensation is considered reasonable. Therefore, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of the broken tile. A recommendation is made for the landlord to pay the resident the £135 compensation, if not done so already. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in relation to reports of a broken tile.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to, if it has not already done so, pay the resident the £135 compensation it offered through its complaints process. The reasonable redress determination is made on the basis that this amount is paid.