Southwark Council (202413809)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202413809

Southwark Council

30 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:
    1. Requests to remove a parcel box.
    2. A leak and associated repairs.
    3. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy agreement which began on 15 January 2018. The property in question is recorded as a ground floor flat.
  2. The resident says that he previously requested the landlord remove a postal chute from the property and seal it due to a draught it caused in 2022. He made a further request on 18 January 2024.
  3. On 7 February 2024, the resident reported a leak from above his property. The landlord attended that day and made safe the lights and smoke detector at risk from the leak. It attended the source of the leak later that day and carried out a temporary repair to stop the leak.
  4. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 8 February 2024 about the lack of response to his request for the removal of the parcel box and the landlord’s handling of the leak report. He said that call handlers were not professional and did not want to help and expressed concern that there was no escalation path for the repair causing the leak.
  5. The landlord attended on 22 February 2024 and reinstated the lights and smoke detector. On the same day, it provided its stage 1 response but the complaint was not upheld. The landlord said that due to data protection, it could not advise on any actions taken regarding the call handling staff he had spoken with. It then said that it had no record of his request, prior to his complaint, for the parcel box to be removed.
  6. The resident requested that the complaint be escalated on 22 February 2024. He questioned the landlord saying that he had not previously requested the removal of the parcel box, as he had raised it in January 2024. The resident also questioned the time taken to reinstate the lights and smoke detector in his property as he had to request this on 19 February 2024 because nobody had contacted him to arrange it.
  7. The landlord said it would provide a stage 2 response by 22 March 2024. It later advised this would be delayed until 24 April 2024. The landlord provided its response on 17 July 2024 and said that the complaint was not upheld. The landlord apologised and offered a compensation payment of £100 for the delay in providing its response. It said that there was no delay in the leak repair and reinstatement of the lights. The landlord said it had completed works to remove the parcel box on 11 March 2024 and apologised that the stage 1 complaint did not acknowledge his request in January 2024. The resident was directed to claim through its insurance for the damages he had referenced in his complaint.

Assessment and findings

Requests to remove a parcel box

  1. The resident made a request to the landlord on 18 January 2024 for it to remove the parcel box and seal the gap due to a draught it was causing. Within the request, the resident advised that he had previously raised this but acknowledged that he had not followed up on it.
  2. It is evident that the resident had reported this issue with his Housing Officer prior to 18 January 2024 and he was directed to raise it as a repair request. This Service has not had sight of any contacts after this until 6 February 2024. Within this email, the landlord acknowledged receipt of photographs and said these would be forwarded to the Technical Quality Officer (TQO). Landlord records shows that a works order for the removal of the parcel box was raised on the same day by the TQO and that it removed the parcel box on 11 March 2024.
  3. The tenancy agreement says that any works that remove from, or in any way alter or change, the property are defined as an “improvement”. The tenancy says that this kind of improvement is not the responsibility of the landlord and would therefore be carried out by the resident. The tenancy agreement says that residents would need to request permission to make an improvement but it would not be unreasonably withheld. On this basis, the landlord was not obligated to carry out the removal of the parcel box.
  4. As the resident experienced a draught from the parcel box, it is understandable that he assumed these works would be the responsibility of the landlord. However, the repair policy says that draught excluders are the responsibility of the resident, rather than the landlord. In view of this, there was no requirement on the landlord to take any action around the draught from the parcel box.
  5. As the landlord was not responsible for the removal of the parcel box, this would not be considered a repair. This means that it does not fall within the guidelines and timeframes set out in the repair policy. However, as it did agree to carry out those works, it would be reasonable for the works to be completed in a similar timeframe to those set out in the repair policy.
  6. The repair policy sets a timeframe of 20 working days for non-urgent works, which these works would be considered. The landlord removed the parcel box 26 working days after the works order was raised. Given that it carried out these works in a similar timeframe to those set out in its repair policy, it is the view of the Ombudsman that this was reasonable.
  7. Although the landlord did not have a responsibility to remove the parcel box, it is evident that it failed to provide a clear explanation of its position to the resident in January 2024. The resident’s correspondence makes it clear that his experience with both the Housing Officer and the contact centre offered him no clarity about his request. This is a service failing by the landlord due to the time and trouble experienced by the resident in chasing this request.
  8. Given the lack of clarity around his request to remove the parcel box, it is understandable that the resident raised a complaint about his experience. Had his request been given adequate investigation, the landlord could have provided a clear response to his concerns. This could have saved him time, trouble and uncertainty. It is the view of the Ombudsman that there was service failure in this process. However, given that the landlord agreed to complete the removal works that it was not responsible for, this Service considers this a fair and proportionate response to the detriment caused and makes a finding of reasonable redress.

A leak and associated repairs

  1. The landlord was made aware of a leak from above the resident’s prior to 6am on 7 February 2024. The landlord attended the resident’s property and identified that the leak was coming from above and it attempted access to identify the source. As it was unable to gain access to the above properties, it left cards requesting urgent contact from both of the residents. Later in the day, the landlord attended the properties above and isolated the source of the leak. However, this was only a temporary repair. The landlord completed the repair in the other property on 26 February 2024.
  2. The landlord carried out electrical make safe works in the resident’s property on 7 February 2024 as the lights and smoke detector were considered at risk due to the leak. The landlord’s works order was updated to request that it reattend and reinstate the electrics once the leak had been resolved. These actions by the landlord were reasonable.
  3. Despite the landlord putting in place a temporary fix that stopped the leak on 7 February 2024, it failed to reinstate the electrics for the resident until 22 February 2024. This work was only completed after the resident raised it with the landlord on 19 February 2024 as he had been left without a light in the bathroom and hallway for 2 weeks.
  4. The landlord failed to acknowledge the unnecessary delay in its reinstatement of the lights within the complaint responses. Within its stage 2 response, the landlord said the reinstatement works were to be completed once the leak was “fully resolved”. It then went on to say that the reinstatement works were completed in a timely manner and there was no service failing.
  5. The reinstatement works were completed on 22 February 2024, four days prior to the full repair of the leak being completed on 26 February 2024. This calls into question the landlord’s position that the reinstatement works were pending a full repair of the leak. Given that the resident noted within his complaint escalation that he had called on 19 February 2024 to chase up the reinstatement of the lights, it is more likely that this was the reason for the reinstatement works being completed.
  6. The delay is a service failing on the part of the landlord as it should have reattended sooner after stopping the leak. Leaving the resident without use of lights in the hallway and bathroom for this period caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience during this period.
  7. Ultimately, it is evident that the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and management of the leak and the associated repairs. It is understandable given the effects of the leak that he wanted the landlord to act more quickly and efficiently in resolving the problem.
  8. When investigating the source of the leak and putting in place a temporary fix, the landlord carried out these actions in line with the timeframes set out in its repair policy. A lack of access to the other properties caused the majority of the delay on that day, rather than a lack of action by the landlord.
  9. However, the resident was left without lights due to the landlord not seeking to reattend and reinstate the lights following the leak being stopped. This failing shows that the landlord did not demonstrate adequate oversight of the full repair, causing unnecessary detriment to the resident. Having considered the failing in this process, the Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure in its handling of a leak and the associated repairs.   

The resident’s complaint

  1. Although the landlord provided a response to the stage 1 complaint in line with its complaint policy, it did not meet the required timeframes at stage 2. The complaint policy says that it should provide a response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated to stage 2. However, the stage 2 response was issued over 5 months after it was escalated, a total of 102 working days.
  2. The landlord did provide two acknowledgements of its inability to provide a response on time and proposed further dates by which it would be completed. However, after proposing a date of 24 April 2024 in its email dated 10 April 2024, there was no further update until 5 July 2024. This is a service failing by the landlord as it failed to meet its own timeframes and its obligation to keep the resident informed. It is evident from the resident’s correspondence that this caused frustration as he had to chase responses.
  3. Across both stages of the complaint, the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings. At stage 1, it incorrectly stated that the resident had not made contact about the parcel box, despite this being recorded as a repair request. It later acknowledged this error at stage 2 but this could have been avoided had it completed a thorough investigation of each element of the complaint.
  4. At stage 2 of the complaint process, the landlord did acknowledge the significant delays in it providing its response and it offered £100 as a compensation payment. It did not confirm that this payment was made to the resident. It is the view of the Ombudsman that this payment was proportionate and in keeping with the Ombudsman compensation guidelines given the service failing in its handling of the complaint.
  5. Ultimately, the landlord failed to investigate the resident’s concerns thoroughly and its findings were incorrect and inconsistent. The delay in providing the stage 2 response was unnecessary given that it was in a position to provide the same response months earlier. The landlord should have investigated the complaint more thoroughly to provide a more accurate response. The inconsistent information led to further frustration for the resident, contributing to his desire to escalate the complaint. However, it is the view of this Service that the landlord did make a proportionate compensation offer.
  6. On this basis, we make a finding of reasonable redress as the offer made in the landlord’s complaint response was reasonable in addressing the service failings identified in its complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of requests to remove a parcel box.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of a leak and associated repairs.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is required to provide a written apology to the resident for the service failings identified in this report.
  2. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is ordered to make a compensation payment of £100 to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of a leak and associated repairs.
  3. The landlord must reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the compensation amount of £100 for the complaint handling it offered through the complaints process. The Ombudsman’s reasonable redress decision is made on the basis that this amount is paid.