Southwark Council (202429299)

Background

1. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord and the property is a 1-bed maisonette. She raised issues with the water pressure in her shower and said the landlord had previously told her to buy her own pump. She advised that other tenants have had pumps installed and believes she was being treated differently. The resident asked us to investigate her complaint because the current water system was not fit for purpose.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of issues with water pressure and bathing facilities.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of issues with water pressure and bathing facilities.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. We found that:
   1. The landlord was reasonable in its response to the reports of issues with the water pressure. It attended repairs within the correct timescales and inspected the issue raised in the complaint.
   2. Its decision not to complete repairs were in line with its repair policy.
   3. There was a lack of clear communication with the resident in response to her requests, and there was a lack of notes or follow-up to repairs that were raised by the resident.
   4. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 within the timescales in its complaint policy. It did not acknowledge this in its stage 2 response.

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 has told this service that she felt discriminated against by the landlord, however, this did not form part of her complaint at stage 1. We cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as this is a legal matter which is better suited to the courts to decide. Nonetheless, we can consider whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the concerns raised by the resident in relation to its complaints handling.
8. Prior to submitting a complaint, the resident reported a leak on the hot water cylinder in her property to the landlord on 8 May 2024. It attended on 9 May 2024 where it identified the leak was coming from the elbow going into the return on the cylinder. The operative made this safe and returned on 10 May 2024 to complete works. They tested the system and found it was working correctly. This was appropriate action and in line with the landlord’s repair policy to attend emergency repairs within 24 hours.
9. Following a visit to the property, the landlord told the resident it had referred her concerns to the repairs team who would contact her. There are no notes provided by the landlord of visits to the property or confirming if these concerns were raised to its repairs team. This was not appropriate because we expect landlords to maintain a detailed record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate and easily accessible records provide an audit trail. They also improve the landlord’s ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
10. The resident subsequently told the landlord that an operative had attended on 12 August 2024 and told her “he was happy to put in an order for a new tank”. In response, the landlord assured the resident that it would send a request to the contractor and keep her informed. There is no evidence that it did so. That was a failing. Where a landlord makes such a commitment, it should do ensure it follows up on that.
11. On 4 September 2024 the landlord removed the water cylinder to replace damaged floorboards. It reinstated the same cylinder. The resident emailed the landlord after this appointment, explaining her disappointment that the contractors did not install a new one. She asked the landlord to reach out to the contractor and have it approved to be replaced. There is no evidence that this was responded to which was not reasonable. This was an opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations at an earlier stage.
12. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord visited the property on 24 September 2024 and the notes of that visit state that the system installed across the estate was not set up for the use of showers. The cold-water storage tank was satisfactory for the hot and cold taps to the basin and bath, but were unable to provide pressure out of a shower head as it sits above the tank. It noted that the resident had their own booster pump fitted which was working correctly on the visit.
13. A further inspection was raised following the resident’s request for a stage 2 review. The inspection was to check the water pressure in the flat. The landlord attended on 8 October 2024 where it confirmed there were no faults found on the system and it was working as it should. It was reasonable of the landlord to check this following the further complaint by the resident, and it attended within its timescales which was appropriate.
14. The landlord’s stage 2 response on 30 October 2024 confirmed that it would not be replacing the water cylinder as requested because this was found to be in working order. This was an appropriate response in line with their repairs policy where it only replaced equipment if equipment was beyond economical repair.
15. The resident told us that she installed the shower as well as the water pump to improve the water pressure for the shower. The landlord acted appropriately in investigating the water pressure. The landlord’s repair policy says it is not responsible for any alterations that have been made by the resident. Therefore, we are satisfied that it was reasonable in its response that it was not responsible for repairs relating to the shower.
16. The landlord did not communicate clearly with the resident. There were also instances where repairs were not updated or followed-up. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have managed the resident’s expectations with regards to the replacement of the water cylinder, and it did not acknowledge this in its stage 1 response. Therefore, we have made a finding of service failure and ordered the landlord to award the resident £100 compensation for the inconvenience and frustration this caused. This sum is in line with our remedies guidance where there the impact was of a short duration and where the failings might not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.

17. The landlord took 14 working days to issue a stage 1 complaint response after acknowledgement. These timescale exceeded our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This says that landlords must responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 within 10 working days after acknowledgement. This was a minor failing. We note the landlord’s stage 2 response was issued in line with the Code (that is within 20 working days of acknowledgement).
18. On 8 October 2024, following the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage 2, the resident emailed the landlord to add information to her complaint. She believed that the landlord was discriminating against her based on her race and possibly her inability to buy her flat. This was based on her understanding that her neighbour had been provided a thermal store cylinder as a leaseholder. She also advised she was hesitant to provide information about her health because she did not want to give further opportunities to the landlord to discriminate against her.
19. The landlord did not investigate her accusations of discrimination, however it did assure her that it was a champion of equal opportunities for its residents and had a zero tolerance of any form of discrimination. Whilst it was good customer service for the landlord to have acknowledged this accusation, it would have been appropriate for it to have raised this matter as a new complaint in line with the Code.
20. In its stage 2 response, the landlord requested medical evidence of any additional needs to support the resident’s requests. It did not have any documented evidence of any vulnerabilities until this was brought to the landlord during the complaints process by the resident. It was reasonable for the landlord to ask for this information to allow it to review its decision.
21. The failings outlined above amount to a finding of service failure. In line with our remedies guidance, we have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £50 for the inconvenience and frustration caused to her.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord should ensure it maintains a detailed record of contacts and repairs. It did not provide any notes about calls made to the resident. Furthermore, there were instances where repair notes were not updated, and it was not clear by the evidence provided when repairs were attended.