Southwark Council (202331563)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331563

Southwark Council

9 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 the landlord’s handling of a persistent leak into the resident’s property.
  2. This Service has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy started on 18 March 2002. The property is a 2 bedroom terrace house. The resident is disabled. She has a serious spinal condition which has required major surgery.
  2. The resident first reported a leak into her property on 6 March 2023. The landlord raised various repairs in an attempt to find the source of the leak and rectify the issue, however, the leak persisted.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint on 14 August 2023 as the leak had caused significant damage to her home. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 16 October 2023. It apologised for the delays and upheld the resident’s complaint. The landlord offered the resident £260 compensation for the delay and inconvenience caused.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 as she was unhappy with the level of compensation awarded. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 12 December 2023. It said it could not award the resident any more compensation as it had correctly applied its policy at stage 1.
  5. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has raised, as part of her complaint, concerns that the landlord’s public liability insurer has not offered sufficient compensation for the damage caused to her belongings. Under paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (“the Scheme”), the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
  2. Therefore, we are unable to consider this matter, as this is not under the remit of this Service. The resident is advised to contact the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) for further information and advice on taking this element of her complaint further.
  3. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under the Act, the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled. Although this Service cannot find that a landlord has breached the Equality Act, we can decide whether a landlord has had due regard to its duties under the Equality Act.
  4. The resident has expressed concerns regarding the impact the situation has had on her health. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. Claims for personal injury must be decided by a court, who can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. Where there has been a failing by the landlord, this Service may consider any general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s handling of a persistent leak into the resident’s property

  1. It should be noted that diagnosing the source of a leak can be challenging, particularly when the leak is coming from an unknown external source. In this case, the complex layout of the adjoining properties also contributed to the difficulties in identifying the source of the leak. However, it is not disputed that there were delays by the landlord in completing the required repairs to the resident’s property. This resulted in damage to the resident’s decorations, carpets and flooring. The landlord has sought to comply with its repairing obligations by investigating the cause of the problem. It has taken a number of remedial actions, including repairs to the roof and repairs to other resident’s properties. However, these actions failed to remedy the problem and, as a result, the resident had to live with a persistent leak, damp, and mould for approximately 30 weeks.
  2. The resident has told this Service that she first reported a small water stain on her ceiling to the landlord on 6 March 2023. The landlord has not provided evidence of this report.
  3. The resident reported the leak to the landlord again on 29 March 2023, as the size of the affected area had significantly increased. The landlord attended the resident’s property and identified a particular flat (“flat A”) above the resident’s property as the source and raised relevant repairs. It also confirmed that once the issue was resolved, it would stain block and paint the resident’s ceiling.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord again on 13 April 2023, as the leak from above had not been resolved. The landlord attended the resident’s property and identified a different upstairs flat (“flat B”) as the source of the leak. However, when it accessed flat B on 26 April 2023, it realised that it was the wrong flat. It then attempted to contact the occupants of the flat believed to be the source of the leak (“flat C”) but could not gain access. Flat C is a leasehold property. This meant the landlord was not responsible for completing any of the required repairs within the property itself. However, it was responsible for rectifying the subsequent damage caused to the resident’s flat.
  5. The landlord carried out works to flat B. It renewed the bath waste and overflow and made a further appointment to renew the tiles at the end of the bath and renew the leaking toilet cistern. The work to flat B was completed on 3 May 2023.
  6. The resident reported an uncontainable leak from above on 18 June 2023. The landlord contacted the occupants of flat B but could not identify a leak. So, it raised a job for a roofer to check flat B’s guttering as it had been raining at the time of the leak. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord considered trying to access flat C again to see if this was the source of the leak. This was unreasonable considering it had identified the property as the likely source of the leak on 26 April 2023 but could not gain access at the time.
  7. The landlord’s records show that it was aware that the resident was recovering from a serious operation when she reported a further leak from above on 28 June 2023. The landlord made appointments with both the resident and the occupants of flat B for its roofers to attend on 5 July 2023. The roofers found that the gutters were blocked. They were cleared during the appointment. The roofers also found that the roof was not adequately sealed as there were 2 pockets of water under the asphalt. The roofers informed the landlord that the property above the resident’s property was in fact flat A, not flat B.
  8. The resident contacted the landlord again on 11 July 2023. She informed it that the leaks were causing damp and mould issues throughout her property. She said she had tried to contact the contractor by email, but she had not received a response. The landlord noted that the resident was vulnerable. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns of damp and mould. This was unreasonable, particularly as it was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities. It would have been reasonable of the landlord to at least treat the symptoms of the leak through measures such as a mould wash to remove the mould and provide the resident with a dehumidifier whilst it was completing the required repairs.
  9. The resident contacted the landlord again on 14 July, 15 July, and 17 July 2023 following further leaks from above. She told the landlord that water was running down her back whilst she was using the toilet. This was after having major spinal surgery. The landlord noted that it was waiting for the repairs to the roof.
  10. Under the Equality Act 2010 (the Act), the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled. As the resident is disabled due to her spinal condition, the landlord should have recognised the need to make reasonable adjustments to its usual processes. It did not demonstrate that it considered the additional detrimental effect of the persistent leaks/damage on the resident due to her condition and recent surgery. There is no evidence that, with knowledge of the resident’s protected characteristics, it considered whether a decant was required until the outstanding repairs were completed. Therefore, the landlord has not demonstrated that it had due regard to its duties under the Act, and its actions were inappropriate in the circumstances.
  11. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 14 August 2023. She said she wanted to complaint about the damage caused to her home following leaks from above. She said 5 rooms in her property were damaged, this included damage to the carpets and flooring. She told the landlord that she was disabled and the situation was causing her unnecessary stress. She told the landlord that she was unable to use the toilet at the time of the leaks as the water fell from above on top of her. She also said she had had no lights in the bathroom and toilet since June 2023.
  12. The landlord’s roofing contractors completed the works to the roof on 22 August 2023. The resident reported a further flood to the landlord on 26 August 2023. She said water had been pouring through her living room, bedroom, hallway, toilet and bathroom from 9pm on 25 August 2023 until 12pm that day. The resident was on holiday at the time the leak started, however, she had a family member staying at her property. The family member attended flat C above and found that the toilet overflow was leaking. They turned off the water supply to the toilet, which eventually stopped the leak.
  13. The landlord attended and isolated the resident’s upstairs and downstairs lighting circuits on 26 August 2023. It noted that there were no signs of the leak easing and there was no evidence of rain. It requested an emergency housing officer (EHO) attend as the leak ”could get worse and the living room ceiling could collapse if not resolved”.
  14. The EHO attended the resident’s property on 27 August 2023. The EHO found that the leak had affected the upstairs bathroom, toilet, hallway and rear bedroom. The water had also migrated downstairs to the ground floor of the property affecting the hallway, kitchen and living room. The property smelt heavily of damp. The carpet within the hallway was saturated and so the EHO advised the resident that it would most likely need to be removed due to the smell and lack of ventilation in the area. The living room ceiling was found to be heavily stained with residual water still coming through from the floor above.
  15. The EHO told the resident that, due to the amount of damage to the walls and ceilings, a technical officer would need to attend to undertake a full inspection. The resident told the EHO that she was disabled and unable to live in a damp property. The landlord offered temporary accommodation to the resident due to smell within the property. However, the offer was retracted as the provider’s available were unable to take pets. The landlord said it would make sure it contacted the occupants of flat C to check the problem had been fixed. It also said a surveyor would attend to look at the damage.
  16. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord considered any alternative options so that the resident could be decanted into temporary accommodation. For example, the availability of a void property, or a hotel or furnished property outside of its usual suppliers. It is also unclear as to whether the landlord tried again in the following days to find suitable pet friendly decant options. This was unreasonable and demonstrates an unempathetic approach to the resident’s situation.
  17. The landlord provided the resident with a dehumidifier on 28 August 2023 to assist with drying out the property. It inspected the resident’s property on 31 August 2023 and agreed to “make good” the ceilings in the living room, bedroom, bathroom and hallway. It agreed to provide the resident with a decoration package so that she could decorate the living room, bathroom, hallway, toilet and bedroom ceilings damaged by the leak. The landlord also attended flat C and found that a plumber was in attendance. The plumber confirmed that the source of the leak had been identified in flat C. The necessary works were completed on 22 September 2023.
  18. The landlord contacted the resident on 28 September 2023 to ask her to confirm whether the leak had stopped and whether any repairs had been carried out. The resident told the landlord that the leak had been fixed, however, the repairs to her property were still outstanding and her property still smelt of damp. She said she was waiting to pull all the flooring up, but she could not do this until the decorating was complete. She said the LL had only agreed to do the ceilings, not the walls. The resident asked the landlord how she was expected to paint the ceilings and walls when she was disabled. However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns. This was unreasonable and unfair and further demonstrates a lack of empathy towards the resident.
  19. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 16 October 2023. It said it had completed the plastering repairs and ordered a paint pack for the resident to paint the ceilings. However, it had since raised a job to complete the painting on 22 and 23 November 2023. It said it had ordered the extractor and once received, its contractors would make an appointment to complete the work. It said the lighting had also been fully restored and a liability claim had been made. Its insurers had been asked to contact the resident directly. It acknowledged that there had been a delay in resolving the issues and it offered the resident £260 compensation. It said the leaks had been ongoing for 30 weeks. It had allowed 4 weeks for the resolution of the issues and so based the compensation on £10 per week for 26 weeks.
  20. The resident informed the landlord on the same day that she was unhappy with the level of compensation awarded. She contacted the landlord again on 6 November 2023 as she had not had a response. She said her home was a mess and she had only been offered £260 for “30 weeks of hell”.
  21. The works to rectify the damage were completed on 21 November 2023. This was almost 8 months after the resident first reported the leak. The landlord’s service standards for repairs say that the landlord will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 3 days, and non-urgent repairs within 20 working days. This Service has recognised that the leak itself was coming from a leasehold property, which the landlord was not responsible for repairing. However, it had identified flat C as a possible source of the leak in April 2023 but did not follow up with the occupants when it could not gain access initially. It was the resident’s family member that attended flat C and isolated the water supply following the severe leak in August 2023.
  22. Therefore, due to the delays in identifying and carrying out the repairs, the landlord did not act in accordance with the time frames set within its service standards for repairs. This was inappropriate and unreasonable in the circumstances as it left the resident living in poor conditions for a prolonged period of time.
  23. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 12 December 2023. It said the works to rectify the damage were complete and it apologised for the delays. It said it had checked its compensation policy and she had been awarded £5 per week for the delays to the repairs and £5 per week for distress for a period of 26 weeks. As this was in line with its compensation policy, it could not award any further compensation.
  24. Although the landlord acknowledged in both the stage 1 and stage 2 responses that there were delays in carrying out repairs to the resident’s property it did not offer sufficient redress. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for 3 different levels of impact. These are low, medium, and major impact for both delays in delivering a service and for distress. The landlord offered compensation to the resident based on a “low impact” at £5 per week. This was on the basis that the resident had just cause but had not suffered significant inconvenience or distress as a result of the events. It accepted the service had not achieved the expected standards. However, it formed the view that the impact on the resident was not greater than a reasonably tolerant person could be expected to accept. Therefore, the compensation was a token in acknowledgement of the failure to perform.
  25. The evidence shows that the impact on the resident was severe and persistent in line with the landlord’s compensation based on “major impact”. Factors that support this finding are that the resident is disabled and had undergone major spinal surgery around the time of the leaks. Compensation based on major impact is applicable under the landlord’s policy for serious failures in service standards. This can be either the severity of the event, or a persistent failure over a protracted time, or an unacceptable number of attempts to resolve and address the complaint. All of which are applicable in this case. Therefore, the landlord’s categorisation of the circumstances as low impact was unfair and inappropriate. This Service will order compensation based on major impact for both the delays to repairs and distress based on 26 weeks at £20 per week each. This equates to £40 x 26 = £1,040.
  26. In summary, the landlord delayed unreasonably in locating the source of the leak and then finding a solution to effect the required repairs. It treated the resident in an unempathetic manner at times. It failed to have due regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2020 and failed to adequately assess the level of compensation due to the resident based on its compensation policy. As a result of these failings, the level of detriment caused to the resident, and the landlord’s failure to provide reasonable redress, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in this case.

Complaint handling

  1. At the time of this complaint the landlord operated a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 15 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 25 working days. This has since changed and its policy is now in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 14 August 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day and told the resident that it aimed to respond within 10 working days for housing related complaints. The landlord contacted the resident on 30 August 2023. It said it was unable to meet the previously agreed timescale due to a further flood at the resident’s property. It said it aimed to provide a response on 26 September 2023.
  3. The landlord contacted the resident again on 6 October 2023. It said it had been unable to meet the previously agreed timescale for a response. It said it aimed to send a response by 16 October 2023. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) (April 2022) says that landlords must respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being escalated. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the reason for the extension was exceptional. The Code also 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.
  4. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 16 October 2023. This was 2 months from the date the resident first raised the complaint and significantly outside of the timeframe set within the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay in its response.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on the same day. She told the landlord that she was unhappy with its response. This should have prompted the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2. However, the landlord did not escalate the complaint to stage 2 until 6 November 2023, when the resident contacted the landlord again.
  6. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 12 December 2023. This was 41 working days from the original date of escalation and outside of the timeframe set within the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord failed to recognise its complaint handling failures within its response.
  7. Given the delays at both stage 1 and stage 2 of the complaints process, the landlord did not act in accordance with its complaints policy, or the Code, when responding to the resident’s complaint. This was inappropriate in the circumstances.
  8. In summary, the landlord failed to comply with the timeframes set within its complaints policy, it failed to act in accordance with the Code, and it did not recognise its complaint handling failures within it stage 1 and stage 2 responses. As a result of these failings and the level of detriment caused to the resident, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in this case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of a persistent leak into the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of the report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident total compensation of £1,215 (the landlord can deduct from the total any amount it has already paid). This is made up of:
      1. £1,040 in recognition of the delays and distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, based on the landlord’s compensation policy for major impact.
      2. £175 in recognition of the complaint handling failures and the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused to the resident, based on the landlord’s compensation policy.
    3. The landlord must pay the compensation directly to the resident.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.