Southwark Council (202334637)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat above a commercial unit. She complained about the landlord’s failure to deal with a leak through the ceiling in the communal stairwell, first reported in August 2023. The resident escalated her complaint because the landlord had not fixed the leak by 20 November 2023, and she was worried about the condition of the ceiling. On 17 December 2023, the ceiling collapsed, and the fire brigade attended to stop the leak. The resident moved out of the property in February 2024. She was unhappy with the amount of compensation that the landlord offered in its final complaint response, and that it had not completed replastering works.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak in the communal area of the property.
   2. the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the communal area of the property.
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to reports of a leak

5. The landlord did not identify or treat the resident’s concerns about the leak as an emergency, and it failed to follow its policies and procedures for responding to emergency repairs. Internal communication with its contractors was poorly co-ordinated and repetitive, leading to further, avoidable delay. Its communication with the resident was also poor, resulting in failed appointments, and it ignored warnings that the ceiling was at risk of collapse. It did not take into account residents’ vulnerabilities. The landlord’s response after the ceiling collapse was inadequate and the resident had to rely on the emergency services to stop the leak. The landlord unreasonably delayed in completing follow-on works for several months, and the resident says they remain incomplete. The landlord admitted its failings and apologised, but its compensation offer was inadequate.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord met its timescales at stage 1 of its complaints process, but its investigation failed to identify the urgency of the situation, and it missed an opportunity to reclassify the repair as an emergency.  At stage 2 the landlord acknowledged the escalation promptly, but it then took 161 working days to provide a response, exceeding the timescales in its own policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The excessive delay significantly increased the resident’s frustration and distress. The landlord accepted responsibility and apologised, but it did not offer any financial compensation, which would have been appropriate.

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.

7. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours to “make safe”. The landlord may need to return to complete a permanent repair. Emergency repairs include issues where there is a serious risk to health and safety, or a serious risk to the structure of the property. The landlord will complete non-urgent repairs, including minor leaks not causing serious damage or a safety risk, within 20 working days.
8. The first record of the leak on the landlord’s systems is dated 9 August 2023. The notes say that the leak was near the lights in the communal area. The resident’s neighbour chased the repair on 15 August 2023, and the resident contacted the landlord on 4 September because she was worried about the ceiling collapsing as cracks had appeared.
9. The landlord did not raise a works order to make safe the electrics in the communal area until 17 September 2023, which was 39 calendar days after it logged the repair. Given the risk posed by water near an electrical circuit, the landlord should have treated this as an emergency repair and attended within 24 hours. The delay of 38 calendar days was unacceptable.
10. On 19 September 2023, the landlord asked its contractor to check any communal tanks on site for leaks. The contractor responded that they did not have any communal tanks at that site. It repeated this information to the landlord on 17 October 2023 and 3 November 2023. The landlord’s internal communication about the repair broke down, causing further, unreasonable delay. It did not have robust processes in place for determining responsibility for the leaking tank, or for arranging the inspection and repair.
11. The landlord arranged to visit the property on 21 September 2023 with the resident’s neighbour. This was 44 calendar days after it logged the repair, and 18 calendar days after the resident raised concerns about the structural integrity of the ceiling. The resident was inconvenienced by having to chase the landlord when the matter had already been reported on 9 August 2023 and the landlord’s failure to attend promptly increased her distress.
12. The landlord tried to visit the property on 21 September 2023, but it could not gain access as the resident was not home, and it had not told her about the appointment in advance. It failed to contact the resident’s neighbour, who it had arranged the appointment with. The landlord accepted responsibility for the missed appointment, and a further failed appointment on 10 October 2023 where it attended without the key needed to access the leaking tank. In its final complaint response of 8 August 2024, it offered £100 compensation for the 2 failed appointments, which was reasonable and in line with its repairs policy.
13. The resident repeated to the landlord that the ceiling looked “on the verge of collapse”, on 21 September 2023 and chased the repair on 16 October 2023. The landlord’s system notes from 12 October 2023 said, “ceiling perished and looks like it may fall down”. The landlord visited on 2 November 2023 but again could not investigate the leak as the loft hatch was broken. On 20 November 2023, the resident escalated her complaint. She repeated her concerns about the ceiling. She highlighted that young children and vulnerable adults lived in the building. The landlord had been informed about, observed, and recorded the deterioration of the ceiling. It still failed to act despite the obvious risks to health and safety and to the structure of the property. There is no evidence that it considered the household vulnerabilities or took this into account when deciding how to respond.
14. When the ceiling collapsed on 15 December 2023 it left debris in the stairwell, which was the only exit route from the property. There are no records of attendance by the landlord on that date. The resident said an operative from the landlord arrived, but he was unable to do anything, and no one returned as promised. The residents were left without support, with an ongoing leak. They had to resort to calling the emergency services for assistance. The landlord’s lack of effective response was unacceptable.
15. After the fire brigade stopped the leak, the landlord should have attended to complete remedial works within the non-routine repair timescale of 20 working days. The landlord did not raise a job for the follow-on works until 21 March 2024, which was 66 working days after the ceiling collapsed. This was an unreasonable delay.
16. In its final complaint response, the landlord said it had completed all repairs and replastering works. The evidence shows that it booked appointments to complete the works in June and July 2024 but could not gain access. The resident said that the landlord had not completed the works by that date, and her neighbour reports that works are still outstanding. We have recommended that the landlord contact the resident’s neighbour to discuss the remedial works, and that it attends to finish any remaining works as soon as possible.
17. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak in the communal stairwell. It failed to identify the repair as an emergency repair, and to respond within the timescales set out in its repairs policy. There was poor co-ordination of the repair internally and with contractors. The landlord did not make adequate efforts to gain access to stop the leak. Over 4 months after it was first reported, the ceiling fell down, risking injury to residents and damage to the property. The landlord did not respond adequately on the day of the collapse, or follow-up in line with its repairs timescales to complete remedial works.
18. In the landlord’s final complaint response of 8 August 2024, it accepted that it should have acted more quickly and apologised for its “negligence”. The landlord said it had applied lessons from the complaint, by providing staff training and improving its communication with contractors but it did not provide details of how this was achieved.
19. We welcome that the landlord has taken responsibility for its failings and that it says it has learnt from the complaint. This is in line with our dispute resolution principles. However, in light of the serious potential consequences of the landlord’s inaction, we have ordered it to carry out a senior management review of the failings identified in this case, and to produce a report detailing its learning.
20. The landlord could have done more to put things right for the resident. Its offer of £150 compensation does not reflect the distress and inconvenience she experienced, or the time and trouble she took to pursue the repair. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident, and to pay her £700 compensation. This is made up of £100 for the 2 missed appointments, and £600 to recognise the considerable distress and inconvenience the resident experienced because it failed to respond to her concerns about the leak. This is in line with the recommended compensation range in our remedies guidance, where the landlord’s failings have had a significant adverse effect on a resident.
21. This order replaces the offer of compensation made in the landlord’s final complaint response. Any compensation already paid to the resident may be deducted from the amount ordered.

22. The landlord has provided a copy of its complaints policy from 2021. The policy says it will acknowledge complaints and escalation requests within 3 working days. It will provide a response a first stage complaint response within 15 working days, and a review response within 25 working days. The landlord has since updated its complaints policy to comply the Code. The Code says landlords should respond within 10 working days at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2.
23. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the stage 1 complaint within its published timescales. Its stage 1 response should have apologised for the unreasonable delay in responding to the report of a leak. Its investigation also failed to identify the urgency of the situation, and to reprioritise the repair as an emergency. The landlord missed an opportunity to use the complaints process to put things right for the resident, and to take effective action to resolve their concerns.
24. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation the following day and said it would provide a response by 19 December 2023. It did not provide a response until 8 August 2024, which was 161 working days later. The landlord’s failure to respond within a reasonable time increased the resident’s frustration and the distress she experienced.
25. The landlord has acknowledged and apologised for the excessive delay in providing its stage 2 response. It said it now has more internal resource to deal with complaints. This shows the landlord was willing to take responsibility and to learn from its poor complaints handling. The landlord said there were further delays because it was awaiting information and for works to be arranged. The Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code says that landlords should not wait for repairs to be arranged or completed before providing a response. This is not a valid reason for failing to provide a response within the required timescales.
26. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling, due to the excessive delays and the inadequate response at stage 1. The landlord did not offer compensation for its complaint handling failings in its final complaint response. We order the landlord to pay the resident £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience she experienced, and the time and trouble she took to pursue her complaint. This amount is in line with the range set out in our remedies guidance where the landlord’s failings had adversely affected a resident.

Learning

27. In this case, the landlord’s internal processes broke down to the extent that an emergency repair was not addressed, and the communal ceiling collapsed. The potential consequences of the landlord’s failings were very serious. The landlord has accepted responsibility, and taken some action to put things right, but its complaint responses did not adequately consider appropriate redress. The landlord has assured us that it has improved its communication with contractors and provided staff training so similar events will not occur in the future.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The quality of the landlord’s record keeping was generally thorough, but we noted some missing records, for example there is no record of the visit on 15 December 2023 when the ceiling collapsed. The landlord is reminded of the need to keep detailed, accurate and accessible records of all repairs and any contact with the customer and its contractors.

Communication

29. Poor communication was at the heart of the landlord’s failings in this complaint. The landlord did not communicate effectively with its contractors or the resident. The landlord must make sure that it proactively co-ordinates repairs with its contractors. It must communicate clearly with its customers, to understand the nature of reported issues and discuss access requirements and provide regular updates about the status of repairs.