Southwark Council (202331912)

Background

1. The resident raised concerns about the remedial works following a leak into his property. He remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and requested for the outstanding works to be resolved.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the remedial works following a leak into the property.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the remedial works.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about the remedial works in a timely manner. It also did not go far enough to put matters right where it identified failings.
7. The landlord failed to fully engage with the resident’s complaint and did not offer reasonable redress for its delayed stage 2 response.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

8. The resident raised additional issues to the landlord which included concerns about fire alarms, workmanship relating to the windows and joist repairs and a boiler leak. The evidence shows that these issues were raised after the landlord had issued it stage 2 response. In the interest of fairness, we are unable to investigate these concerns as the landlord has not yet had the opportunity to consider them through its formal complaints process. Our investigation has instead focussed on matters that were raised in 2023, and that the landlord responded to within its stage 2 response.

The dry rot works

9. In response to the resident’s concerns about the joists, the landlord explained that Party B was satisfied that it would repair them. Therefore it would not replace the joists as recommended by Party A.
10. We acknowledge that receiving different recommendations for the joist works from the two loss adjustors would have caused the resident confusion. It is also noted that the landlord’s decision not to replace the joists would have been disappointing for the resident.
11. However, the landlord was entitled to rely on the recommendation that had been provided in the circumstances. Given that it was responsible for the repair, the landlord had the discretion to decide how to proceed. We are satisfied that it exercised its discretion fairly.  The landlord also appropriately informed the resident that he could seek legal advice about the matter if he was still concerned about its decision.
12. On 11 October 2023 the landlord told the resident via his MP that it had challenged Party B’s recommendation to carry out external pointing work and that it had agreed with the landlord that it was not needed. It is within the landlord’s remit to discuss and challenge recommended works with agencies such as Party B. It said that the resident could raise his concerns directly with Party B. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
13. The landlord updated the resident on 7 December 2023. It stated that as the 2022 leak did not penetrate the external wall, there was no need to carry out any works. It reasonably explained that if works were needed in the future it would carry them out as part of its major works programme.
14. In response to the resident’s concerns about the windows, the landlord said it would respond to his enquiry once it had spoken to its contractor. While unclear the evidence suggests that the resident was enquiring about whether the windows would be replaced or renewed as he was concerned about the dry rot affecting them. In December 2023 the landlord told the resident that it would repair and replace them where required. The landlord confirmed that it would respond to any issues affecting the windows in line with its obligations, and this was reasonable in the circumstances.
15. It is noted that over the months that followed, the resident raised concerns that the contractor said that it would replace the windows where dry rot was within 1 meter of a window. He said that this was the case with some of the windows that had not been marked for replacement. It is noted that in July 2024, the landlord reiterated its stance and said that it had followed the industry guidelines and that it would repair the windows, not replace them.
16. It is acknowledged that the resident would like the joists and windows replaced. However, we are satisfied that at the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord had responded appropriately to his concerns. The landlord has stated that the dry rot works were completed in early 2024. However, the resident has told us that the dry rot may have spread and he would like the landlord to carry out an inspection and complete any further works. He also stated that he has not received the dry rot guarantee. Therefore a recommendation has been made for the landlord to look into this matter and respond to the resident’s concerns.  The resident may also wish to seek legal advice on the matter.

Washing machine leak

17. In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated that dehumidifiers were not necessary given the volume of water that had escaped. However, on 27 November 2023 the resident told the landlord that the contractor did install the dehumidifiers. It has not been possible for us to establish why the contractor had provided the resident and landlord with differing messages around this. It is acknowledged that the landlord was acting on the advice it had been given. However, the conflicting information and responses was understandably the cause of concern for the resident.
18. The resident expressed concern about the leak and the impact of a further escape of water. In December 2023 the landlord explained that the washing machine leak did not mean that dry rot would occur. However, it would speak to the contractors in relation to the works it said it would carry out to resolve the issue. It is noted that the landlord provided further clarification on what action it would take to ensure any potential damage from the washing machine leak would be repaired. This was reasonable.

The resident’s belongings

19. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that it was unable to comment on the resident’s concerns that its contractors had caused damage to his personal belongings because the matter was with the insurers. This was reasonable in the circumstances given that a claim was underway, that the matter concerned the contractor (as opposed to landlord staff) and the issue of liability was not for the landlord to decide.

The door locks

20. The evidence suggests that the resident was concerned that the contractor had not placed the locks on some of his doors. He was concerned that dust would settle on his belongings and contaminate them. He was also concerned that they may also be stolen when the contractor left the doors open.
21. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that it would speak to the contractor and provide an update. This was reasonable. On 7 December 2023 it said that it was still awaiting an update from the contractor. It is unclear whether the landlord provided an update on the matter after this and provided a response to whether the locks would be installed or not.
22. It is noted that locks were not subsequently installed. We cannot comment on this, but the resident may wish to raise a complaint specifically about the decision not to install locks now. If he remains unhappy with the response he receives, he may refer the matter back to us as a new complaint.

The party wall agreement

23. In September 2023, the landlord’s legal department advised that as the works had already started a party wall agreement could not be issued retrospectively. It explained instead the landlord should create a written agreement for the leaseholders to sign for its records.
24. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised that it did not issue the written agreement as advised. While the apology is acknowledged, the landlord did not go far enough to put matters right. It failed to follow through with issuing its written agreement which meant that it missed an opportunity to resolve the resident’s concern that he had not consented to the works. That caused him distress and inconvenience.
25. It is noted that the landlord explained that the resident could seek legal advice on the matter. This was reasonable. However, the additional time and trouble that the resident would incur by seeking legal advice on the matter may have been avoided, if the landlord had either issued a party wall agreement or issued the written agreement. Therefore given the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have offered the resident compensation for this failing. That it did not was a missed opportunity to put matters right.
26. If the resident is concerned about any detriment caused as a result of not having a party wall agreement, he may wish to seek independent legal advice.

The landlord’s communication

27. The landlord acknowledged and upheld the resident’s complaint about its lack of communication. While it is noted that it apologised for the failing, this did not go far enough to put matters right. The evidence shows that the resident had to wait for approximately 2 months for responses to some of his queries, including his concerns about the locks. This was outside of the landlord’s expected timescales of 10 working days. It is noted that some of the matters were complex and that third parties were involved; however, we have not seen evidence that the landlord was proactive in keeping the resident updated.
28. The manner in which the landlord handled and responded to the resident’s communication was the cause of further distress and inconvenience. While this was acknowledged by the landlord during the complaints process, it failed to take steps to try to put things.
29. In its stage 2 response, the landlord provided an assurance that it would respond to the resident’s enquiries within 10 working days. This demonstrates that it had learnt from the complaint in relation to communication. It is also noted that it asked the resident to avoid following up on his enquiries during that 10-working day period. This was a reasonable request and would help to ensure that a timely response could be provided. However, given the evidence we have seen, it is unclear why the landlord did not take the opportunity to try to manage the resident’s communication sooner. This was not a failing, but rather a shortcoming in the circumstances.

30. On 2 November 2023 the landlord informed the resident that due to its complaint caseload it had to extend its response deadline to 17 November 2023. The landlord’s explanation and its 10-working day extension was compliant with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Therefore its actions at this time were reasonable.
31. However, it did not issue its stage 2 response until 22 November 2023. It is noted that it updated the resident that there would be further delays on or around 13 November 2023. Nonetheless, the 13-working day delayed response would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience. Given the length of delay, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have offered the resident compensation for its failing to meet its timescales. That it did not was a missed opportunity to put matters right.
32. When the resident escalated his complaint, he told the landlord he had copies of correspondence which had been left unanswered that he could provide. However the landlord did not follow up on the resident’s comment. Given that Officer A had left the organisation and the landlord expressed that it was unable to access his emails, that it did not contact the resident to appropriately ascertain what queries were left unanswered was unreasonable.
33. In particular as the evidence shows that the resident raised further questions after the landlord had issued its stage 2 response. In that correspondence he also explained that he had not received a response from Officer A about his concerns that the gas pipe was sagging. This further time and trouble incurred may have been avoided if the landlord reasonably ensured that it had understood what queries were left unanswered. That it did not was a missed opportunity to ensure it had fully and meaningfully addressed the resident’s complaint within its complaint responses. That was unreasonable.
34. It is unclear whether the landlord reasonably addressed his concerns at a later date as the resident raised concerns about the gas pipe in 2024. Taking this into consideration and the landlord’s complaint handling failing, an order has been made for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss any outstanding concerns that it did not address in its complaint response. These should be in relation to his 2023 concerns and the landlord should provide a written response. If it is unable to address any of the queries, it should provide a reason as to why.
35. It is noted that the resident had raised concerns throughout this situation that the landlord had taken 3 months to fix the initial leak, including through his MP. While the landlord responded to some of the resident’s questions at the time, there is no evidence that it addressed his specific concerns about the length of time it took to resolve leak. It is acknowledged that the landlord may not have considered that the resident’s comments were a complaint. However, given that he repeatedly raised the concern, it would have been reasonable for it to have addressed it. That it did not was a missed opportunity to ensure that the resident’s concerns were fully answered. Given the above failings, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

36. We did not receive a copy of the resident’s 25 September 2023 email. It is noted that there was a high volume of information in relation to this case. Therefore it is unclear whether the landlord had the email on file and failed to provide a copy of it to us. Or that it did have a copy of it on its record. In addition, the landlord explained in its stage 2 response that it would not have access to emails in relation to the resident’s correspondence between him and Officer A. These issues may be indicative of recording keeping issues which the landlord may wish to review.