Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Southwark Council (202409950)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202409950

Southwark Council

29 January 2025

 

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 the resident’s:
    1. Reports of a leak and subsequent repairs.
    2. Request for alternative accommodation.
    3. Associated Complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a 2-bedroom ground floor flat, owned by the landlord, where she resides with her 2 sons.
  2. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 25 September 2023, saying that she had been experiencing a roof leak for the past 2 weeks. This was the same problem she had 3 years ago. It visited 3 times over the past week and said it was a big job that would take time to resolve. She wanted it to fix the leak and compensate her for the damage and inconvenience.
  3. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 9 October 2023. It said it visited in September 2023 and found a flood in the basement. This had caused the outlets to “back up”. The outlet was on the roof and the pipe ran internally through the flats into the basement. It was arranging a CCTV survey and would monitor the repairs. It said she should claim for any damages on her contents insurance or via its own insurance. It partially upheld her complaint and said it would award compensation once the repairs were complete.
  4. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 1 November 2023. We have not seen the content of her escalation request, however, the landlord acknowledged it the same day and said it would respond by 29 November 2023.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 24 May 2024. It explained each repair in detail, the actions it had taken, and the timescale for each. It apologised for the delay in responding, the delays with repairs, communication lapses, and the distress and inconvenience. It considered the resident’s request for alternative accommodation but found this was not necessary at the time. It confirmed that all repairs were complete, and it was dealing with her insurance claim separately. It offered compensation of £600 which comprised:
    1. £175 for distress
    2. £250 for time and trouble pursuing a resolution to her complaint
    3. £175 for delays in resolving the various leaks
  6. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to us. She did not feel it had offered adequate compensation for the time the leaks had been ongoing. She believed it should have offered her alternative accommodation. She also said that her home is still damp following the leaks and that there is still damage to her floor. She was concerned that it had not resolved the asbestos in her home and the health effects this may have.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident told the landlord that the ongoing leak was affecting her health. This included asthma, depression and anxiety, and she was also undergoing cancer treatment. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, the resident’s complaint about the effect on her health is better dealt with via the court. We can, however, consider any distress and inconvenience caused as a result of any failings by the landlord.
  2. In the resident’s complaint she said she had the same issue with leaks 3 years ago. The landlord’s records show that it dealt with the matter at the time via solicitors in 2020 and 2021. We appreciate that further leaks would have been distressing for her and her family. However, there has been a significant period of time between the leaks in 2020/2021 and the reported leak in September 2023. This investigation has, therefore, focussed on the events from when she reported the leak in September 2023, up to its final response on 24 May 2024.

Reports of a leak and subsequent repairs

  1. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is responsible to keep the structure and exterior of the property in good order.
  2. The landlord’s repairs guide says it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 3 working days, and non-urgent repairs within 20 working days.
  3. In the resident’s complaint she said she had been experiencing a leak for 2 weeks. Water was coming from the toilet into the hallway, and she was having to use towels and sheets to soak it up. The landlord had told her that it was a big job and would take time to resolve. She said it was affecting the flat above her, but the water was coming from the roof. She asked it to compensate her for the damage to her belongings and the inconvenience.
  4. The resident wrote again on 27 September 2023, stating that her living conditions were “unbearable”. The leak was from the toilet, entering the hallway, and now her bedroom. She had used all of her towels and blankets to soak it up, but this was not enough due to the constant leaks.
  5. The landlord’s records of 3 and 6 October 2023 show that it inspected the roof and found no issues in the area of the outlets. It inspected the inside of the tank room which was dry and recommended a CCTV survey of the rainwater/waste pipe. It also said there was pipework running from the sixth floor roof space down through the flats into the basement which was reported to be flooding.
  6. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it said that it raised a works order on 22 September 2023 for a roof leak. Its roofing contractor attended on 28 September 2023 and found a flood in the basement. This was causing the outlets to “back up”. Its contractor reported back, and it raised a new works order to carry out a CCTV survey on 23 October 2023. It would monitor the progression of the repair but if she experienced any delays to let it know and it would assist her.
  7. The landlord’s response was reasonable in explaining the actions it had taken. However, it failed to consider the ongoing effects of the leak while it waited for the CCTV survey, a month after the reported repair. It did not demonstrate that it gave any consideration as to how it could support the resident in containing the leak in the meantime or cleaning up the water in her toilet and hallway.
  8. The landlord’s response about the resident’s damaged items and how to claim via her insurance or its own was appropriate. It was also reasonable to delay making a compensation award until all the repairs were complete, enabling it to fully assess any detriment.
  9. The resident informed the landlord, on 13 October 2023, that she was disappointed with its response and the way it had dealt with her repairs. She had woken up to “loads of water” coming from the leak to her toilet. She had no more towels and sheets to contain the water. The situation was causing stress and affecting her depression. It responded the same day stating that it had referred her email to its communal repairs manager to see if there was anything it could do or if the contractor could visit sooner than 23 October 2023.
  10. The resident wrote again on 18 October 2023. She said she was tired of the conditions she was living in. She had returned home to find the flat under water. She did not feel she was getting any help, and she could not contain the water.
  11. The landlord’s records show that its contractor completed the CCTV survey on 19 October 2023. It said the rainwater pipe section was badly rusted and may be cracked on the junction and bends. It needed access to one of the flats to expose the pipe and locate the leak. It questioned whether the flat was rented or leasehold. Its records of 23 October 2023 confirmed that the flat was leasehold, and it would arrange an appointment.
  12. The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on 6 November 2023 stating that she was often walking through water, and her home was damp and mouldy. They also expressed concerns about her living conditions and said that this was affecting her asthma and that she was undergoing cancer treatment. She had also said there was a problem accessing the flat above hers to resolve the leak.
  13. The landlord’s records of 22 November 2023 said it had managed to complete the works in the relevant flat on 3 November 2023. It replaced the damaged parts from the stack pipe. Further records of 27 November 2023 refer to speaking with the resident and needing to assess and rectify the damp, mould, and damage caused to her home.
  14. The landlord’s records between 19 December 2023 and 12 April 2024 referred to needing to decorate the toilet and repair damaged plaster. It referred to making an appointment for 5 February 2024. In April 2024 it said there were no outstanding repairs. Further records referred to arranging an asbestos survey. This took place in May 2024 and identified no suspect materials.
  15. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged that there had been delays in organising essential appointments for asbestos refurbishment and surveys. It also said there were some instances of incomplete repairs and communication lapses. It apologised for the inconvenience, frustration and distress this caused the resident.
  16. The landlord provided a detailed list of events for various leaks and repairs. It mainly indicated that it attended a leak on 13 August 2023 from the toilet. Water was seeping up through the floor, but it was unable to remove a panel as it may have contained asbestos. Multiple visits had occurred between that date and 5 February 2024 as it had not always been successful in ascertaining and dealing with the issue and various repairs. It completed the replastering and painting of the hall, living room, bathroom, and toilet by 12 April 2024.On 25 April 2024 it raised an order for an asbestos survey. There was a delay with the appointment which was completed on 9 May 2024.
  17. The landlord’s timeline shows that there were multiple leaks affecting the resident’s home. It responded to the leaks and sent contractors to resolve the matters, however, there were delays in getting a CCTV survey and gaining access to a leasehold property. This left the resident having to deal with the water ingress periodically during heavy rainfall from 20 September 2023 to 3 November 2023 when the pipe was eventually repaired. It is not known why the asbestos survey was not raised when it was aware of potential asbestos in August 2023.
  18. In its response the landlord said that the insurance claim was not in scope of the complaint. The resident confirmed that she submitted a claim on 29 December 2023. It sent this to its insurers and their investigation was in progress. It apologised for the ongoing issues and the impact this had on her and her family’s daily life. It understood the significant inconvenience and distress the issues may have caused her.
  19. The landlord apologised for the delays and miscommunication during the repairs process. Its officer confirmed that there were no outstanding repairs. It offered compensation of £175 for the delays in resolving the various leaks (calculated at £5 per week for low impact, from 13 August 2023 to 12 April 2023). It also offered £175 for distress (again calculated at £5 per week for the same dates). Its total compensation offer was £350.
  20. It is not disputed that there were delays in completing the repairs. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and offer to complete repairs) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  21. The landlord appropriately apologised for the delays, its communication and the inconvenience this caused. We appreciate that it had to take a diagnostic approach to locating the source of the leaks and could not always immediately resolve them. However, it failed to demonstrate how it supported the resident in containing the leaks and cleaning up the water, particularly given she had explained she was struggling to do this. The main leak was ongoing from 20 September 2023 to 3 November 2023.
  22. The landlord also failed to show how it considered the resident’s health concerns. She had advised it that she was undergoing cancer treatment, it was affecting her asthma and depression. It did not demonstrate that it offered any support, referrals to external agencies, or how it could alleviate her situation.
  23. The landlord’s compensation offer does not reflect the period of time the resident continued to experience leaks to her home and the disruption until repairs were completed in April 2024. Its compensation policy says that it will award compensation under 3 categories of low, medium, and major impact. The landlord calculated its compensation award at low impact of £5 per week. Given that it said it understood the significant inconvenience and distress the issues may have caused her, it should have considered a medium or high impact in assessing its compensation award.
  24. For the above reasons we find that the landlord has not appropriately made a reasonable offer of redress in this matter and have, therefore ordered additional compensation for the identified failings.

Request for alternative accommodation

  1. The landlord’s emergency temporary accommodation procedure says that temporary accommodation placements are short term solutions to serious extreme cases where the safety of the tenant is a risk. Emergency accommodation is most likely offered in cases of domestic violence or disrepair. It will regularly update risk assessments to identify any change in circumstances. It will convey its decision explaining other options and level of support they will receive.
  2. On 23 October 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord and sent photographs of what she had experienced over the weekend. She said the situation was affecting her and her children’s health. It had a duty of care to her, and it was failing to provide her “basic safe living”. If she or her children should slip or fall, it would be due to its negligence.
  3. The landlord’s records dated 24 October 2023 said that the resident was vulnerable and the situation was getting worse. It asked its officer to visit urgently to assess the leak and whether she needed alternative accommodation. Further records of 30 October 2023 said, “I don’t think the resident needs decanting at this time”.
  4. The resident contacted her MP who in turn contacted the landlord on 6 November 2023, mentioning her health issues. They did not believe it was acceptable to leave her in the conditions which were not habitable if it was not possible to stop the leak. They asked the landlord to move her to another suitable property as a matter of urgency.
  5. In its stage 2 response the landlord said that its technical quality officer visited to assess the leak and possible alternative accommodation on 25 October 2023. It concluded that no move was required as the leak was contained to the toilet.
  6. In the landlord’s explanation it said that the resident believed the situation was bad enough to require a move. She suggested that the flood had affected the entire flat, but it did not find this to be the case. There was staining and dampness of the walls, but its technical officer did not feel that it required a “decant”. It could complete the work while she was in situ, without major disruption.
  7. Our assessment of the leak and subsequent repairs indicates that the various leaks did impact many of the rooms in the resident’s home and not just the toilet. This was shown in the landlord’s timeline where it had to dry out many of the rooms, replaster and redecorate. This was ongoing for a period of 8 months from the time the resident first reported the leak to completion of her repairs in April 2024.
  8. We appreciate that the landlord relied on its technical officer’s expertise and opinion, that the resident did not require alternative accommodation. However, it did not evidence that it had undertaken a risk assessment in line with its temporary accommodation policy or consider this throughout the time of the repairs. It has therefore not demonstrated sufficient consideration of the resident’s health concerns during the 8-month period or any detriment that damp, mould or water ingress may have had on her health conditions. We therefore find failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for alternative accommodation.

Associated Complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 3 working days. It will respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code.
  2. The resident made her complaint on 25 September 2023 which the landlord acknowledged the same day. It sent its stage 1 response on 9 October 2023. Both its acknowledgement and response were within its complaint policy timescales of 3 and 10 working days respectively.
  3. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 1 November 2023. It acknowledged her request the same day and said it would send its stage 2 response by 29 November 2023. It wrote to her on 30 November 2023 and said due to workload, it would respond by 15 December 2023. There was no evidence to suggest that it communicated between December 2023 and March 2024. It wrote on 19 April 2024 stating it would respond by 24 April 2024. It sent its stage 2 response on 24 May 2024, 142 working days from when the resident asked to escalate her complaint, and 122 working days outside its complaint policy timescale.
  4. The landlord does not dispute that it failed to respond at stage 2 within its complaint policy timescale. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  5. The landlord’s response appropriately apologised for its delay and explained why it happened. While it did not specify any learning from the complaint, its compensation offer was in line with its compensation policy, a maximum of £250 for time and trouble. It was also in line with our remedies guidance of between £100 and £600. We find that the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress for the delays in its complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and subsequent repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for alternative accommodation.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in our opinion, satisfactorily resolves its delays in responding to the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £950 broken down as follows:
    1. £350 offered in its stage 2 response for distress and the delays in completing repairs. (This can be deducted if already paid).
    2. An additional £350 for distress and inconvenience for the delays in completing repairs and failing to assist the resident to contain the water.
    3. £250 for distress and inconvenience for its failure to appropriately risk assess the resident’s situation and consider temporary alternative accommodation.
  2. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Send a written apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Complete an inspection of the resident’s home to assess any damp and outstanding repairs to the floor.
    3. Confirm whether there is any remaining asbestos in the resident’s home and whether any actions are required.
  3. Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should:
    1. Pay £250 to the resident, offered in its stage 2 response for its complaint handling failures if not already paid. A finding of reasonable redress was made on this basis.
    2. Contact the resident and provide advice on her housing options as she no longer wishes to remain in the flat.