Southwark Council (202338332)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202338332
Southwark Council
30 September 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
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
- Reports of leaks and the associated repairs.
- The complaint.
Background
- The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. The resident occupies a 2-bedroom flat on the 4th floor with her partner and young children.
- On 27 January 2023, the resident reported to the landlord an uncontainable leak from the property above and said that water had leaked onto electrics in the kitchen. The landlord attended the same day and did not find any active leaks but noted that the floor was visibly wet. It attempted to gain access to the property above by way of knocking on the door/ringing the bell, but was unable to as no-one answered. An electrician also attended the same day to make safe and on 14 February 2023 the lights were reinstated. The resident made further reports of leaks between April and June 2023.
- The landlord’s contractor attended on 24 June 2023 and found that an urgent repair was required to potential faulty waste pipework and that the cooker was not working and the electrics were tripping. These were made safe on 25 June 2023. On 28 June 2023 the leaks triggered multiple alarms which continued to sound, and the fire brigade attended. They advised that the source of the leak was a kitchen waste pipe and wash hand basin pipe that were connected to a pipe from the sink in the neighbour’s flat above. The landlord also attended and disconnected the living room alarm. The resident continued to make multiple reports between late June and mid-July 2023.
- The resident called the landlord on 3 July 2023 to make a formal complaint. She subsequently made a written formal complaint to the landlord on 21 July 2023. She said there had been intermittent leaks since 27 January 2023. She added that the household’s health was affected by foul water and that the leaks affected the electrics in the property. The resident explained her cooker had been out of use since 24 June 2023 and reminded the landlord that there had been a serious incident on 28 June 2023 when the fire brigade had attended. She explained the fire brigade and the landlord’s contractor had said the source of the leak was a waste pipe connected to the sink in the neighbour’s flat above. She added that contractors had attended on multiple occasions but were unable to properly deal with leaks, as each time they were unable to gain access to the property above. On 26 July 2023, the landlord gained access to the property above and repaired the leak. However, the resident reported another leak, this time from the neighbour’s washing machine, on 30 July 2023.
- The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 2 August 2023. It provided a timeline of its actions and apologised for the delay and inconvenience the leak had caused to the household. The landlord said that its contractors attended jobs within the expected timeframes and addressed issues within their scope to the best of their ability. It noted that at times there were delays that were beyond its control due to access issues to the property above. It agreed to compensate the resident for her time and trouble, delays and distress and offered £105 compensation (which was made up of £5 per week for 21 weeks). With regard to the damage to her cooker, it advised her to claim under its insurer or her own contents insurance. The landlord said it would ask the neighbour above to repair or replace their washing machine if it continued to cause damage to the resident’s flat. Finally, it arranged for an inspection to assess and rectify the damage caused by the leaks. It also said an appointment was scheduled for 4 August 2023 to renew any faulty alarms.
- The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 1 September 2023. She said the landlord did not fully take into account her experience and the distress and damage caused by its failure to deal with the leak sooner. She said she was unable to make full use of her home for 6 months, and incurred additional costs when she was unable to make use of her cooker. She added that the landlord inspected the damage 3 weeks prior but she had not heard back. She wanted the damage to be fixed and her carpets to be replaced. She was concerned about the possibility of a future leak as she felt she had not received assurances that the leak had been adequately resolved. She made further reports of leaks between 8 October and 29 October 2023.
- The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 15 November 2023. It partially upheld the complaint and apologised for the delay in issuing its response. It also apologised for the delay in repairing the leak. It advised it had continued to attempt to gain access to the property above to resolve a further leak but this had proved difficult. It increased its total offer of compensation to £410. This was made up of £210 (for 21 weeks between 27 February and 27 July 2023 at £10 per week), £100 for additional distress, £50 for time and trouble and £50 for the delay in its stage 2 response. It said it had provided a redecoration package for the kitchen, living room and hallway. It reiterated its position regarding her damaged cooker. It said it met reasonable timeframes for the leaks reported after its stage 1 response and that it would attempt to contact the neighbour and resolve the current leak as soon as possible.
- The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 29 January 2024. She said the leak had persisted after the landlord’s final response and subsequently reported that it was resolved only in February 2024. As a resolution, she wanted assurance that the leak had been fully repaired, redecoration of her property, the living room alarm to be reinstated, and further compensation.
Assessment and findings
The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation
- The resident felt that the landlord’s handling of the reports of leaks and the associated repairs affected the household’s health. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear this, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s action (or lack thereof) and the impact on the resident’s health.
- Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are able to rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so, should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should do so via this route. This investigation will therefore consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy and legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstances.
The landlord’s handling of reports of leaks and the associated repairs
- The landlord’s tenants’ handbook sets out that it will attend to emergency repairs (when there is a risk of injury to people or major damage to the property) within 24 hours. The landlord’s repairs guide sets out that minor and major leaks are its responsibility and considers non-containable and serious plumbing leaks where the building is in danger of damage to be emergencies. It will attend to urgent repairs (ones that can be a serious nuisance if not repaired) within 3 working days. Non-urgent repairs such as minor leaks where they do not cause serious damage or a safety risk will be attended to within 20 working days. The handbook also states that the landlord will only force entry into a property under special circumstances. For example, when it needs to protect the wellbeing of its residents, or when there is a serious repair problem, and it has been unable to contact the resident.
- The evidence shows that the resident reported an emergency, uncontainable leak from the property above on 27 January 2023. The neighbour that occupies the property above is a council tenant of the landlord. The landlord attended within its target emergency repair timeframe of 24 hours and did not find any active leaks and was unable to access the property above. The same day the resident reported water had leaked onto electrics. The landlord acted fairly by attending and isolating the kitchen lights the same day and the lights were subsequently reinstated on 14 February 2023. This was a fair initial approach. However, it should have attempted to resolve the leak within 20 working days since it considered the resident was able to contain the leak and hence viewed the leak as a non-urgent repair. Yet, it failed to do so.
- The resident made a further report on 20 April 2023 that water had leaked onto electrics in her kitchen. While the landlord’s notes indicate this was passed onto a contractor the same day, it is unclear what action, if any, was taken in April 2023. On 22 June 2023, the resident reported a containable leak which within two days became uncontainable. The landlord’s contractor attended on 24 June 2023 and considered there was possible faulty waste pipework behind wall panels in the bathroom which were in need of urgent repair. They added that the cooker was not working and the electrics were tripping; these were made safe on 25 June 2023. However, at this point the leak was unresolved and the landlord was still apparently unable to gain access to the property above.
- On 28 June 2023, the resident again reported a leak which was triggering smoke and fire alarms which would not turn off. The resident advised that the landlord was unable to attend immediately so she resorted to contacting the fire brigade. Having to call the fire brigade would have been unsettling for the resident and her family. The fire brigade gained access to the property above and traced the leak to a waste pipe connected to a kitchen sink which the resident asserts was the same finding as the landlord’s contractor in January 2023; indeed, the landlord confirmed that the neighbour’s sink pipe had been leaking for six months. The landlord earlier that day advised the resident to contain the leak by way of buckets and contact it if the situation changed. This was inappropriate as the landlord knowingly left the resident with an unresolved leak after previous reports that it was uncontainable. This would have caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident who may have felt that her concerns were not being take seriously.
- The Ombudsman notes that, following the resident’s initial report, the landlord attempted to access the neighbour’s property on multiple occasions between January and July 2023 by simply ringing the bell or knocking. However, it did not appear to make any effort to contact the neighbour, who was one of its own tenants, by telephone or written correspondence. This would have been appropriate in the circumstances, particularly as it had failed to make contact on multiple occasions by merely knocking on the door. It did not successfully contact the neighbour by telephone until 16 May 2023 and it is unclear why it did not attempt this sooner given the repeated reports of leaks by the resident.
- Furthermore, there is evidence that the landlord continued to knock on the neighbour’s door at times when they were unlikely to be available. This is concerning as it was aware of the neighbour’s availability which the neighbour provided to them on 16 May 2023. The landlord’s inability to access the neighbour’s property contributed to the overall delay in resolving the leak issue. The leak persisted throughout July 2023 but the contractor was unable to gain access to the property above. Works orders were raised on 1, 3 and 10 July 2023. Further unsuccessful attempts to access were made on 10 and 13 July 2023. On 25 July 2023, the landlord managed to speak with the neighbour and an appointment was scheduled for 26 July 2023 when the initial leak was resolved. This was a considerable time after the initial report of January 2023.
- However, a new leak was reported on 30 July 2023 which affected the kitchen. The resident said she was told this was from the neighbour’s washing machine and nothing could be done if the neighbour continued to use it. While the landlord attended the same day, the issue did not appear to be resolved despite being marked as complete on the repairs log. The landlord’s stage 1 response appropriately explained it would instruct the neighbouring resident to repair or replace their washing machine since it continued to cause damage to the resident’s property, though there is no evidence to suggest that the neighbour was actually contacted by the landlord about this. This did not provide any assurance to the resident that the issue would be adequately resolved and would have caused further distress and inconvenience to her.
- On 13 September 2023, the landlord raised a work order to test the electrics which included a new smoke alarm and refitting the kitchen lights. This was carried out on 25 September 2023. On 8 October 2023, the resident reported a leak affecting the newly-installed smoke alarm. On 18 October 2023 a work order was raised to reinstate the smoke alarm once the leak was resolved. According to the repairs log, this appeared to be completed on 27 October 2023. However, the Ombudsman notes the resident’s comments that there is currently no smoke alarm following a leak in February 2024 and a recommendation has been made in this regard.
- With regards to the redecoration, the landlord initially acted appropriately by explaining in its stage 1 response that it would assess any work needed to rectify the damage. The landlord’s repairs log indicates a planned inspection was due to be carried out in August 2023 but instead took place in September 2023. It subsequently raised a ‘decoration package’ in respect of the kitchen and living room which included an electrical check, decoration work and renewal of affected kitchen units.
- On 30 October 2023, the resident advised the landlord that the redecoration team had not contacted her. This is concerning as the landlord’s repairs log showed that the decoration work had already been completed. It is also noted that for some entries in the repairs log provided by the landlord there is no indication of a completion date for work orders and there are notes with insufficient detail such as work orders dated 20 April 2023 and 29 June 2023. In line with our Spotlight Report of May 2023 entitled “Spotlight on: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) – on the record”, the landlord should have a robust record keeping system to ensure appropriate recording of, handling of, and responses to complaints and its delivery of operational service. As this likely indicates issues with the landlord’s record keeping, a recommendation has been made.
- The Ombudsman has seen there was some confusion on the landlord’s part as to whether the living room would be included in the redecoration but it did confirm that it was on 26 October 2023. An appointment was raised for 7 November 2023. However, the landlord emailed that day stating that living room decoration may need to take place during another appointment. This would have caused further inconvenience for the resident who would have to make herself available for a future appointment.
- On 21 December 2023, a redecoration work order was raised as plaster was damaged and stains were left on walls of the hallway, kitchen and living room from a previous leak. This was carried out in January 2024, along with the repair/renewal of a kitchen wall unit. This was a considerable amount of time after the original work order was raised in September 2023, particularly as the resident was entitled to believe that redecoration would take around 4 days, as she was previously advised. The resident said that while some redecoration took place, none was carried out after the resolution of the leak in February 2024, and the kitchen and hallway still required decoration and painting again along with repairing/replacing a kitchen cupboard unit. The Ombudsman has seen a note indicating the resident suggested two half days in February 2024 for this redecoration work to be carried out. As it is unclear if any redecoration work is outstanding, an order has been made.
- In accordance with the repairs guide, the landlord is not responsible for repairing or renewing floor covering such as carpets. However, given that the resident had reported foul water leaking onto the carpet following a leak that the landlord acknowledged it had failed to resolve in a satisfactory time, although the landlord had no obligation to replace it as such, it could have considered another approach such as offering a deep clean of the carpet. A recommendation has been made.
- With regard to the damage to the resident’s cooker, the landlord acted fairly by advising the resident to claim under either her contents insurance or its liability insurer. This was a satisfactory approach and in accordance with the insurance claims information on its website. The resident recently confirmed to this Service that she pursued a liability claim and was able to replace her cooker.
- Overall, the landlord failed to resolve a leak for around 6 months after an initial report in January 2023. This was significantly outside its policy aim of 20 working days for non-urgent repairs and would have undeniably caused distress to the resident who had to live in unsatisfactory conditions for a considerable period of time, and who made concerted efforts to resolve the matter.
- The Ombudsman considers that it was not unreasonable for the landlord to compute the number of weeks for which to compensate by starting at 27 February (being the date it should have carried out the repair in accordance with its 20 working days policy, on the basis the leak was containable and therefore not an emergency). The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests that compensation between £100 – £600 should be considered where there has been a failure that adversely affected the resident. However, while the landlord acted fairly by recognising the delays in completing repairs, apologising and making an offer of compensation broadly in line with this guidance, given the length of time the matter was unresolved during which the resident made a series of reports and during which there were events including electrics tripping, numerous contractor attendances, fire brigade attendance, and damage to décor, its apology and offer of compensation were inadequate. It also did not appear to consider whether there was any structural work it could undertake to prevent future water ingress.
- Further, the landlord did not appear to take into account the distress caused to the household. It is also concerning to note the resident’s comments that the landlord had failed to refit a smoke alarm in the living room, and that the complaints process did not serve to resolve the issue in its entirety as there were continued reports of leaks after the stage 1 response. Corresponding recommendations have been made.
- Although the landlord cannot be held directly accountable for restricted access to the neighbour’s property, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have changed its approach following a number of instances of failed access, for example, by contacting the neighbour by telephone or letter especially as the neighbour was a tenant of the landlord. By not doing so earlier on, it took much longer to resolve the matter than was reasonable.
- Indeed, in the landlord’s submissions to this Service, it acknowledged further attempts should have been made with its ‘leaks from above’ team in order to support contractors with gaining access and it recognised there was insufficient co-ordination to ensure access was granted. It was a failing not to notify the neighbour of their tenancy obligations, or to provide them with additional written notices (‘necessary repairs’) that could potentially have been used in a legal process should the matter have progressed to that stage. It remains the case that the landlord did not change its approach and failed to gain access on multiple occasions between January and July 2023, which prevented it from carrying out a satisfactory and lasting repair within its policy timescales.
- It is noted that the landlord’s stage 2 response said it would not award further compensation for the leak reported after the stage 1 because its contractor attended its appointments but was unable to gain access to the neighbour’s property. However, as mentioned above, the landlord should have adopted a proactive approach and considered alternative means to contact the neighbour other than knocking on the door/ringing the bell.
- The landlord has confirmed that it paid a total of £410 across its formal responses. This was made up of £360 for the handling of the leaks and £50 for complaint handling failures. The Ombudsman notes that internal landlord emails acknowledge that it should arguably treat the resident’s case as requiring “borderline high-level compensation” such that, in line with its compensation policy, it may offer £20 per week for stress on account of its failure to resolve an issue. Given the prolonged delay in this case, this would have been reasonable. The landlord should therefore pay £20 per week for 21 weeks, in addition to £100 for additional distress and £50 for time and trouble, which amounts to £570. Since it has confirmed that it has already paid £360 for its handling of the reports of the leaks and associated repairs, it should now pay a further £210 to put this matter right.
- The Ombudsman has seen that, after the landlord’s final response of 15 November 2023, there were other leaks in November 2023, December 2023 and February 2024. The Ombudsman cannot make any meaningful assessment regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of these leaks, and does not know what has caused the issue. Nevertheless, this is of concern and may indicate that the landlord failed to carry out an effective lasting repair. The resident has confirmed to this Service that there have been no further leaks since February 2024, although it is understandable that she has been concerned about the possibility of further leaks in the absence of appropriate assurances from the landlord. In light of the service failures identified in this report, it would be prudent for the landlord to carry out a further inspection of both properties to ensure that repairs have been satisfactorily completed, and a corresponding recommendation has been made.
The landlord’s handling of the complaint
- At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a 2-stage complaints process which stated it would provide a stage 1 response within 15 working days and a response at stage 2 (the review stage) within 25 working days. Although at the time of the complaint, the timescales within the landlord’s complaints policy did not comply with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, the landlord has since changed the timescales so that they now comply with the Code.
- The landlord considered the resident’s correspondence on 21 July 2023 as a formal complaint and subsequently provided its stage 1 response on 2 August 2023. However, the Ombudsman has seen evidence in the landlord’s repairs log that the resident called on 3 July 2023 to make a formal complaint and, further, the log indicates that she was advised to raise a complaint via its website. This was inappropriate and the landlord should have treated the telephone call as a formal complaint. Not doing so delayed getting matters resolved. The advice of making a formal complaint via its website did not feature in the landlord’s complaints policy – particularly as the landlord’s policy defined a complaint as “any expression of dissatisfaction about any of our services requiring a response”. Furthermore, the landlord did not act fairly or in line with its policy as it failed to send its initial response within 15 working days of the resident’s 3 July 2023 call.
- The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 1 September 2023. She received an automated acknowledgement the same day and a formal acknowledgement on 4 September 2023 which promised a stage 2 response by 2 October 2023. However, the landlord failed to do so.
- The landlord then contacted the resident on 9 October 2023 acknowledging it had missed the deadline, and advised it would need to extend the timeframe for the stage 2 investigation. The resident and landlord exchanged a number of emails between 17 October and 7 November 2023; however, the stage 2 response was not provided until 15 November 2023 – over 50 working days after the escalation request – which was outside its policy timescale of 25 working days. There was a further failing on the part of the landlord as it did not keep the resident updated during the complaint process without being prompted. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. Indeed, she explained she was “exhausted” having been on the phone to the landlord for hours and her increasing frustration was apparent throughout the correspondence.
- While the landlord acknowledged its oversights at stage 2 and offered £50 compensation, it did not appreciate that it failed to recognise that the initial complaint was on 3 July 2023. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the remedy offered by the landlord did not fully reflect what this Service would have ordered for the service failings and the distress and inconvenience that these would have caused to the resident. As such, an order for an additional £50 to be paid has been made, along with recommendations.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of leaks and the associated repairs.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
Orders and recommendations
Orders
- Within 28 calendar days of the date of this report, the landlord must:
- Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
- Pay the resident a further £260 made up of:
- £210 for the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of reports of leaks and the associated repairs.
- £50 for the failings identified in the landlord’s complaint handling.
- Inspect the property, and property above, and satisfy itself that it has carried out sufficient repairs to remedy leaks. If works are found to be required, the landlord must carry these out in an appropriate timescale. It must also consider if further redecoration is required and, if so, to carry this out along with any repair/renewal of kitchen units, if it has not done so already.
- Consider a deep clean of the resident’s carpet and provide a decision. If the landlord chooses to decline this, it must explain why.
- Fit a fire/smoke alarm in the living room, if it has not done so already.
- The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within 28 calendar days to confirm that it has complied with these orders.
Recommendations
- The landlord should:
- Review its staff training needs regarding their application of its repairs, complaints, and compensation policies, and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, to ensure that repairs are promptly and properly carried out, and to prevent its poor complaint handling as in the resident’s case from occurring again in the future.
- Review its record keeping practices to ensure appropriate recording, handling of and responses to complaints and delivery of operational service including non-emergency repairs, and consider, if has not done so already, implementing a Knowledge and Information Management Strategy. This is discussed in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report entitled “Spotlight on: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) – on the record”.