Southwark Council (202450625)

Background

1. In January 2025, the resident informed the landlord that a leak was coming through his bathroom ceiling. Although there was a flat located directly above, he believed the source of the leak was originating from the roof of the building.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and associated repairs.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and associated repairs.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

5. We have found that:
   1. The landlord took approximately 7 months to rectify the leak and associated repairs and therefore excessively exceeded its target timescales. However, it offered the resident compensation that was sufficient to put things right.
   2. Despite meeting response timescales, the landlord handled the complaint in a disorganised way and not in line with the Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’).

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.

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.

6. The landlord’s repairs guide states that it must repair and maintain the outside, structure and communal parts of the property. It is also responsible for repairing defective roof tiles, leaks, ceilings and lights in bathrooms. The resident is responsible for decoration unless damaged was caused by the landlord during a repair.
7. The guide further states that the landlord will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours, 3 working days for urgent repairs and 20 working days for all other repairs.
8. On 5 January 2025, the resident informed the landlord of the leak. The landlord attended the same day to make safe the electrics and disconnect the light, in line with its target timescales. The following day, it also appropriately raised a follow-on repair to reinstate the light, once the area had dried.
9. While it is acknowledged that the landlord experienced access issues when installing scaffolding, it still handled the roof leak poorly between 6 January and 26 May 2025. It failed to coordinate repairs, misunderstood which areas required work, and did not communicate effectively, leaving the resident without clear timescales and repeatedly chasing updates.
10. The landlord did not provide documentary evidence to confirm when it completed the roof repair, which indicates poor record keeping. However, the available evidence suggests that it was completed on or before 27 May 2025. Even allowing for mitigating factors, such as the access issues, a repair period of 98 working days was unreasonable and at odds with the landlord’s repair timescales.
11. The landlord reinstated the resident’s bathroom light on 27 May 2025. It was reasonable for the landlord to complete this work once the leak was resolved and safe for it do so.
12. On 6 June 2025, the landlord asked the resident to confirm if the works had been completed. He said the bathroom and kitchen still required redecoration and mould treatment. The landlord should already have been aware of this, as it had inspected the property several times between February and April 2025.
13. The landlord acted in line with its repairs guide when it stated that the resident was responsible for redecorating the affected areas. It therefore acted fairly when it offered him a “paint pack” to support him with redecoration.
14. On 11 June 2025, the landlord appropriately raised a repair to remove damaged ceiling and wall areas in the bathroom and kitchen and apply a skim coat. Its records from 1 July 2025 state that the contractor had attempted to contact the resident to arrange an appointment, without success. However, we have seen no documentary evidence to support this, indicating poor record keeping.
15. On 1 July 2025, the landlord contacted the resident to arrange the repairs. He requested an appointment for week commencing 29 July 2025 and later confirmed that the works were completed at this time.
16. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will pay a complainant:
    1. £500 per annum or £10 per week for distress with a “medium impact” or £1,000 per annum or £20 per week for “major impact” with injury to health.
    2. £500 per annum or £10 per week for delays causing a “medium impact” or £1,000 per annum or £20 per week for “major impact” with injury to health.
    3. Between £50 and £250 for time and trouble.
17. Across the landlord’s 3 complaint responses, it offered the resident £1,190 compensation, calculated as follows:
    1. £900 at stage 1 consisting of £400 for delays and £500 for distress.
    2. £60 at second stage 1 consisting of £20 for a 2‑week delay in resolving the repair and £40 for the additional 4-weeks anticipated to complete the repairs.
    3. £230 at stage 2 consisting of £40 for a 4‑week delay between 14 March and 7 April 2025, £90 for distress caused between 2 February and 7 April 2025, and £100 for time and trouble.
18. While the evidence suggests that the roof leak had been ongoing for some time before it began to affect the resident’s property, the resident only reported the issue to the landlord on 5 January 2025. As this was just 10 working days before the stage 1 response was issued on 20 January 2025, we consider the landlord’s offer of £900 compensation at that stage to be excessive and not in line with its compensation policy.
19. However, when taking into account the later failings and delays identified between January and July 2025, we consider the landlords total offer of £1,190 compensation substantial, falling at the top end of the compensation levels we recommend for cases of severe maladministration under our compensation policy. We are therefore satisfied that the compensation offered appropriately remedied the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of the matter.
20. For the reasons outlined above, we have made a finding of reasonable redress.

21. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. At stage 1 it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It aims to respond within 10 working days from the acknowledgement. At stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days and aims to provide its final response within 20 working days. Where these timescales are not possible, the landlord’s complaints policy states it will not exceed an additional 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2 and will inform the resident of the expected timescales for response. This is in line with the requirements of the Code, which became statutory in April 2024.
22. The resident raised his complaint on 6 January 2025 and followed up on 7 and 9 January 2025. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 13 January 2025 and issued its stage 1 response on 20 January 2025, within its complaint handling timescales.
23. On 3 February 2025, the resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2. At this time, the landlord’s internal communications were confusing, as it said the resident could not escalate until it had issued a stage 1 response, despite having already done so.
24. The landlord issued a second stage 1 response on 13 February 2025, which demonstrated a protracted and disorganised complaint handling process. Within this response, it made no reference to its previous stage 1 response or the compensation it had offered. This undermined clarity and did not align with effective complaint handling standards or the Code.
25. The resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 13 February 2025. The landlord appropriately acknowledged his request on 14 February 2025.
26. On 12 March 2025, the landlord told the resident it required more time to investigate the complaint and extended the response deadline. It then issued its stage 2 response 23 working days after acknowledging the complaint. This fell within the extended timescales permitted by the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code.
27. Within both stage 1 responses, the landlord said it received the resident’s complaint on 13 January 2025. The resident disagreed with this and cited it as a reason to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 13 February 2025. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response it said he raised the complaint on 9 January 2025. However, this was inaccurate, as he first made the complaint on 6 January 2025. Although this error is likely to have had minimal impact on the resident, landlords should ensure accurate records of complaints are made to evidence compliance with the timescales outlined in the Code.
28. A stage 2 complaint is the final opportunity for the landlord to also review its handling of the complaint handling process, and to put things right for the resident. However, the landlord did not assess its complaint handling, which meant it missed an opportunity that may have led it to identify some of the failures highlighted by this investigation.
29. For the reasons outlined above, we have made a finding of service failure. To put things right for the resident, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident compensation. This has been calculated in accordance with our compensation policy.

Learning

30. The landlord should ensure it follows the 2-stage complaint handling process outlined in its policy and the Code.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

31. The landlord’s repair record keeping was poor, which meant it could not evidence key actions. It should ensure it maintains accurate and timely records of all correspondence and repairs.

Communication

32. The landlords communication with the resident throughout its handling of this case was poor. Good communication plays a key role in an effective repairs and complaints system, and the landlord should consider how it can improve its communication with residents.