Southwark Council (202442295)

Background

1. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 29 August 2024. He reported that the police damaged his front door in January 2022, and it had remained insecure for over two years. He said he repeatedly contacted the landlord for updates, but he was not given a timeframe for a replacement door. He also said he received no meaningful progress updates. He was given a temporary padlock and bolt arrangement, which he says left the door insecure and caused him significant anxiety. The resident asked for compensation because the long delay in replacing his door caused him emotional distress.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the repair to the front door.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repair to the front door.

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

Reasons

4. The resident reported a repair to his damaged front door on 27 January 2022, following a forced entry by the police. The landlord attended the property on 27 January 2022 and installed a temporary padlock and bolt system to secure the door. The landlord later measured the door in March 2022 in preparation for a full replacement. The resident contacted the landlord again in June 2022 reporting that he was unable to open his front door. Following this new report, the landlord carried out an overhaul of the main front door lock system, which was the temporary padlock and bolt system it had put in place.
5. The resident continued to raise ongoing issues with the landlord about the front entrance door. The repair logs show that eight different repair jobs were logged between August 2022 and August 2024 relating to the condition and security of the door. The descriptions recorded included: ‘door and frame need to be renewed,’ ‘door needs replacing – someone had attended in March to measure but no follow‑on appointment was made’, ‘ease and adjust front door,’ and ‘front entrance door lock faulty’. Despite these reports, and the door measurements taken in March 2022, there was no evidence of further progress being made toward arranging or completing a full door replacement.
6. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 29 August 2024. He explained that he had been living with an insecure front door for over two years. He said that this had left him feeling unsafe in his home, causing anxiety and sleepless nights. He explained that he was particularly concerned about a family member potentially gaining entry to the property. He also highlighted that anyone could padlock the door from the outside, which could trap him inside. He added that he had asked the landlord again on 29 July 2024 to make the door secure, but the issue remained unresolved.
7. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 2 September 2024. It upheld the resident’s complaint, apologised for its failure to replace the front door, and awarded a total of £1,050 in compensation. The compensation included £500 per annum for a serious failure in service standards resulting in significant long‑term impact, including physical or emotional distress. The additional £50 was a “mandatory payment” for failing to complete a qualifying repair within the required timescale. The landlord also said it would review the cause of the delays to prevent a recurrence. It confirmed that a new door had been ordered for the resident’s flat, with an installation date to be confirmed by 11 September 2024.
8. The resident escalated the complaint on 17 September 2024, after the landlord failed to confirm an installation date for a new door. It is evident from internal emails that the new door had still not been ordered, and the landlord was struggling to find a contractor which would carry out the works. This contradicted the landlord’s claim, in its stage 1 response, that it had already arranged a door. Another email states that the previous installation date given was for a temporary repair, not a replacement, as the door was included in its door replacement programme in the next financial year. However, there is no evidence the landlord had previously communicated this position to the resident. The resident chased the landlord multiple times during this period and there is no evidence that it appropriately responded to him.
9. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 21 January 2025. It did not uphold the stage 2 complaint, stating that it found no fault with the stage 1 decision. It said the compensation amount of £1,050 was appropriate and in line with its compensation policy. The landlord also confirmed that a new fire door had been ordered and would be fitted as a temporary arrangement until itswider door‑replacement programme beganthe following year. It apologised for the delay in issuing its stage 2 response and awarded an additional £50 in recognition of this delay.
10. The evidence indicates that a temporary door was fitted at some point between the landlord’s stage 2 response in January 2025 and April 2025. The landlord then returned to install a permanent door as part of its door replacement programme on 11 July 2025. The resident confirmed on 3 September 2025 that there were no outstanding issues with the door.
11. The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy sets out its expected repair timelines. It states that the standard priority time for installing a new fire‑safe front door is 12 weeks, based on current manufacturing and delivery times. The policy also confirms that, if necessary, a standard front door will be fitted temporarily until the new fire‑safe door is installed.
12. In this case, the landlord did not meet its own repairs timeline and did not order the required new front door for the resident after measuring up for it in March 2022. It also failed to appropriately fit a temporary door for approximately 3 years. This left the resident with what had only been intended as a temporary means of securing the property throughout this period, which was unreasonable.
13. The landlord relied on its compensation policy when assessing the resident’s complaint. It categorised the resident’s complaint as ‘medium impact.’ Its policy states that ‘medium impact’ are events that are clearly an injustice to the complainant and the service has failed to meet the required standards, or repeated failures to address shortcomings, even of low impact issues, may justify compensation at this level. This carries an award of £500 per year.
14. However, the policy also includes a ‘major impact’ category, which applies to serious failures in service standards, including severe events or persistent failures over a prolonged period where there have been an unacceptable number of attempts to resolve the issue. Major impact carries an award of £1,000 per year. The resident was without a safe and secure front door for over two years at the point of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, and had repeatedly expressed feeling unsafe and anxious during this period. Based upon this the ‘major impact’ category is appropriate and more aligned with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. In this context, the compensation offered by the landlord was not sufficient.
15. In summary, the landlord took approximately 3 years to provide the resident with a replacement front door. During this time, he was left with temporary measures to secure the existing damaged door which left him feeling unsafe in his home. The resident clearly explained the impact on him and even when he formally complained, the landlord did not act with any urgency. The landlord acknowledged its failings and made an offer of compensation. However, this did not appropriately reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Due to this, we make a finding of maladministration.
16. We order the landlord to pay the resident a total of £2,050 compensation. This is composed of the £1,050 offered in its complaint responses and a further £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs to the front door. This amount is in keeping with our remedies guidance for instances of maladministration which have had a significant impact upon a resident and where a landlord’s attempts to put things right have failed to appropriately address this.
17. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord told the resident that it would “be reviewing the circumstances that led to the delay in us repairing your door with a view to learning lessons so that this doesn’t happen again”. This was appropriately in keeping with our dispute resolution principle to learn from the complaint. However, we have not seen any evidence it completed such a review. Due to this, we have made an order for the landlord to carry out a case review of this complaint. If it has already done so, it may provide us with evidence of this instead.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.