Southwark Council (202406630)

Background

1. The resident asked her husband to be her representative for this complaint. For simplicity we have just referred to them both as ‘the resident.’ In their complaint they asked the landlord why it had not replaced their draughty front door or renewed their old bathroom and kitchen. The landlord replaced the door in September 2023. It explained to the resident it would not renew the bathroom and kitchen as they did not meet its age criteria.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a draughty front door.
   2. Bathroom and kitchen renewal request.
   3. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a draughty front door.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s bathroom and kitchen renewal request.
   3. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Front door repair

4. When the resident complained about the landlord not replacing his front door, the landlord showed a resolution focused approach to resolving this issue. It proposed to fit draught excluding seals to resolve the draught within its repairs timeframe. However, it did not respond to all the resident’s concerns about the existing front door or provide records of its inspection. When the resident refused the planned work, it decided to renew the front door as the resident wanted. This was enough to put things right.

Renewal request

5. The landlord’s position on the criteria it would use to decide whether to renew the resident’s kitchen and bathroom was reasonable. However, it failed to explain this clearly to the resident, which led to a misunderstanding and caused frustration. It also failed to provide the evidence it relied upon in its decision making showing when it last renewed the kitchen and bathroom. It did not take adequate steps to put this right.

Complaint Handling

6. While the landlord’s complaints policy timeframes were not in line with our Complaint Handling Code (our Code), it has since updated this to align with our Code. It delayed 7 days responding to the resident at stage 2 and gave an informal response instead of immediately escalating their complaint. While this was not in line with its policy, we did not see this caused the resident any detriment or affected the landlord’s handling of the substantive issue or the complaint.

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.

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 resident told us they reported the draughty front door to the landlord several times over several years, but they were not sure when these were. The landlord’s records do not show any repair reports within the 12 months leading to the resident’s complaint and the resident confirmed this is likely accurate. In the interests of proportionality, the first report we will consider is the resident’s complaint itself. While this could be considered a service request, as the landlord treated it as a complaint we will consider it as such.
8. The landlord’s position to not include the front door repairs in its cyclical works programme was reasonable as these works were pre-agreed from 2019 before being delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic. There is no evidence the landlord was required to expand the programme beyond pre-approved works.
9. The landlord took steps to determine if there was a repair need. It inspected the front door on 16 August 2023. However, it could not provide a record of this inspection which is a record keeping failure. On 23 August 2023 the landlord told the resident it considered the door to be repairable. It arranged to fit draught excluding seals to try and resolve the draught and inspect the lock.
10. The landlord planned to inspect the lock as the resident had raised fire safety and security concerns. Given the nature of the concerns, the landlord should have showed it considered whether the door met safety standards. It did not do this. Its failure to respond to the resident’s concerns was a service failure and the resident said this frustrated them.
11. The landlord appropriately attended on 4 September 2023 within its 20-working day routine repair timescale. However, the resident declined the works and said they wanted to wait for the outcome of their complaint. Therefore, the landlord was not responsible for this delay. During its ongoing cyclical works, a spare door became available. Its post inspection report shows it installed this by 15 September 2023. The landlord made a customer focused decision to fit a new front door for the resident as they had requested.
12. While the landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s concerns fully caused some frustration, it did not prevent the landlord from taking a resolution focused approach to resolving this complaint. Its decision to provide the resolution the resident was seeking and renew the door was sufficient to put things right.

13. During its stage 1 investigation the resident asked when the landlord last renewed his kitchen and bathroom. During our investigation the resident confirmed they had not reported a repair need. They said they thought the landlord should renew the kitchen and bathroom as they were old.
14. It was reasonable for the landlord not to reinspect the rooms as the resident’s query related to their age rather than condition. In its complaint response it explained the age criteria for renewal under its Quality Homes Improvement Programme (QHIP). It said this was when the kitchen was over 20 years old and when the bathroom was over 30 years old. It said as the resident’s kitchen and bathroom were 17 years old, they did not meet these criteria. The landlord could not provide us with evidence of the kitchen and bathroom’s age. This is a record keeping failure. The landlord should be able to provide evidence to support information it gives to residents, particularly where this informs its decision making.
15. The landlord said the rooms would ‘be picked up under a future programme of work.’ In its response to the resident’s escalation request, it said ‘the works are not due to be carried out until 2026’. During our investigation the landlord told us it will survey the resident’s home before September 2026 as part of its stock survey. It has said it is unlikely to replace kitchens or bathrooms based solely on age. Instead, it will primarily focus on the condition of the rooms in line with the Decent Homes Standard.
16. This position is reasonable as the landlord’s policy only says it ‘may’ renew kitchen and bathrooms after these age criteria. Focusing primarily on the condition of the rooms is also in line with what it should consider under the Decent Homes Standard. While the landlord’s position was reasonable, its communication with the resident did not clearly reflect its approach.
17. This means the landlord gave an unclear response to the resident’s query. It was reasonable the resident understood the landlord’s response to mean that once the kitchen and bathroom reached the age criteria, the landlord would renew them in its next major works programme. This is particularly because the landlord said works would be due to be carried out in 2026. However, this is not the approach the landlord plans to take. It should be mindful of how it words and explains its decision-making approach. Therefore, the landlord’s unclear response caused the resident frustration.
18. To remedy the frustration caused by its unclear explanation, we ordered the landlord to pay £50 compensation. This is in line with the range for service failure in our compensation guidance. We have also ordered it to write to the resident and clearly explain its criteria and decision-making process regarding the renewal of their kitchen and bathroom.

19. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge the resident’s complaint in 3 working days and respond at stage 1 in 15 working days. It says it will respond at stage 2 in 25 working days. At the time, its complaints policy timeframes were not in line with our Code. It has since updated its policy to align with our Code.
20. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint the same day and responded at stage 1 in 5 working days. This was within its complaint policy timeframes. However, it then delayed responding to the resident at stage 2, as it responded 32 working days after the resident’s escalation request. We did not see evidence this 7 working day delay caused any detriment to the resident. It did not affect the landlord’s handling of the substantive issue.
21. The landlord gave the resident an informal reply to their escalation request rather than escalating the complaint to stage 2 straight away. While this response was not in line with the landlords 2-stage complaint process, it did not adversely affect its handling of the complaint. This is because it still escalated the resident’s complaint the same day.
22. The landlord included some unclear explanations of its major works process in its complaint response. We assessed this under the substantive issue and have not made a separate finding under complaint handling.

Learning

23. The landlord showed a positive, customer-focused approach to its handling of front door repairs by working in line with its policies and ultimately replacing the door.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord could not produce records relating to an inspection in 2023 or produce the information it relied on to determine when it last renewed the kitchen and bathroom. Keeping accurate repair records helps landlord to evidence that they took appropriate action and gave correct information.

Communication

25. As discussed, the landlord explained its processes to the resident poorly, causing confusion.