Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Southwark Council (202425793)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202425793

Southwark Council

3 October 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 reports of the loss of heating and hot water.

Background

  1. The resident has been a leaseholder of the landlord, a council, since 2002. The property is a 3-bedroom maisonette.
  2. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 20 July 2024 and requested compensation for the loss of heating and hot water. He said he had tried to log the claim on its website, but it did not work (attaching a screenshot) and he was forced to write a complaint. He said the heating and hot water were the landlord’s responsibility under the lease and paid for via service charges and an administration fee. He was claiming for 6 days’ loss and wanted the service charge account credited with £103.73 (inclusive of £50 for time and trouble).
  3. In its stage 1 response of 6 August 2024, the landlord detailed the repairs it had carried out between 8 and 24 July 2024. It addressed a follow-up email from the resident about a ‘missed’ appointment where a different engineer than the one he was expecting attended. It said it understood his frustration, but its contractor believed keeping the appointment even with a different operative was best. It said a job to replace the cylinder was booked for 19 August 2024 and would be monitored to completion. It upheld the complaint, apologised, and offered £118 in compensation (£48 for the period between 8 and 24 July 2024 at £3 per day, £20 for the delay in the cylinder installation, and £50 for trouble and upset caused).
  4. The resident escalated his complaint on 7 August 2024, saying he had logged a separate complaint on 27 July 2024 about the ‘missed’ appointment. He said the landlord combined complaints, causing him confusion, and failed to address them fully. He said the daily charge for heating and hot water was £9 based on the 2024 service charges including the 10% administration fee. He wanted to be paid at this rate. He said it had ignored his complaint about the faulty website despite the evidence provided. He said a significant amount of time was spent on the matter and his desired outcome was £326 compensation.
  5. In its stage 2 response of 19 September 2024 the landlord reiterated its explanation of stage 1 and added:
    1. It had reported the website issue to its IT team to investigate and resolve. It apologised sincerely for not acknowledging the inconvenience caused, but its previous award addressed this.
    2. The 2 complaints were about the same issue so were combined. It apologised for any confusion.
    3. It explained the heating and hot water charges, and said the resident had to contribute to these costs under the terms of his lease even in case of a dispute. Where a dispute was upheld, the account was adjusted accordingly.
    4. Compensation for heating and hot water outages were handled separately from its normal procedures. This was to ensure a consistent and fair approach for all users of the district heating system. Communal outages lasting longer than 24 hours were paid at £3 per day. The payment was automatically applied to the service charge account once per quarter. This was an additional payment to the account and not a reduction in charges.
  6. The resident referred his complaint to us saying he was unhappy with the landlord’s response. He shared a spreadsheet of his calculations of the refund he believed he was owed. He wanted £326 compensation in line with this and an apology.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident has requested a refund of charges for services not provided. We cannot assess the level or reasonableness of a service charge (including administration fees) and/or whether a refund is due; this would be for the First Tier Tribunal to consider. Our investigation has, instead, assessed the reasonableness of the landlord’s response to the queries raised.
  2. It is also not our role to check the accuracy of the landlord’s calculations, or the refund figure the resident may be owed. Instead, we have looked at whether the landlord followed its policies and procedures.
  3. The landlord has accepted its service failures in its complaint responses, apologised, and offered compensation. There is nothing further we can usefully add to that. Therefore, the question before us is whether those failures amount to maladministration and, if so, whether proper redress was offered to put things right.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it will pay £3 for each whole day for a duration of communal heating and hot water outage. It says this is paid once per quarter to the service charge account. The landlord has, therefore, awarded compensation for the loss of heating and hot water in line with its policy. It has also provided correct explanations to the resident.
  5. The landlord acknowledged it should have advised the resident that the operative he was expecting to attend the appointment of 17 July 2024 was unable to attend. It further accepted that this caused a delay in the installation of the cylinder and awarded £20 compensation for that delay. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and awarded £50 for the overall trouble and upset.
  6. While we understand that some confusion was caused, given the matter was related to the ongoing complaint, it was reasonable for the landlord to address the follow-up email under the existing complaint. We agree that the resident should not have to log a complaint to make a claim that can ordinarily be submitted via the website. While the landlord did not at first address the resident’s comments about this, it then took appropriate action and apologised sincerely in its stage 2 response. Some inconvenience was caused, but the actions taken to remedy the failure were sufficient in this instance.
  7. The landlord’s actions demonstrate that it took the complaint seriously, openly acknowledged areas for improvement, and took action to rectify the identified failings. This is in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  8. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
  9. Considering the full circumstances of the case, including the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, and in consultation with our remedies guidance; the £118 compensation offered is considered reasonable. Therefore, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of the loss of heating and hot water.
  10. A recommendation is made for the landlord to pay the £118 offered for its failures (if it has not already done so). The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of the loss of heating and hot water.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is recommended to pay the £118 offered for its failures (if it has not already done so). The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid.