Southwark Council (202503448)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3-storey new build house. In 2023, the resident claimed for damage to her staircase under her manufacturer’s warranty. At the time of this complaint, the warranty had expired and responsibility for the repairsat with the landlord. The resident reported that some of the steps were moving when she stood on them. The landlord carried out a repair, however the resident is dissatisfied with its response.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s concerns about repairs to the staircase.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about repairs to the staircase.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Concerns about the repairs to the staircase

4. The landlord did not complete the staircase repair in line with its policy timeframes. While it acknowledged this failure, it did not offer an appropriate remedy to reflect the length of time the resident was affected.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord issued its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses outside of the timescales set out in its complaint policy and did not address all the points raised by the resident. While it apologised and offered compensation for the stage 2 delay, it did not recognise the delay at stage 1 or its failure to respond to all aspects of the complaint.

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.

What we have not investigated

6. In addition to concerns about the middle staircase, the resident also reported that the upper staircases were damaged. The landlord acknowledged these reports. However, they did not form part of the landlord’s investigation at stage 2 of the complaints process. Rather, it appropriately treated the reports as service requests. As the resident’s concerns about the upper staircase have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure, they have not formed part of our investigation. If the resident remains unhappy about the way these repairs were handled, she may wish to contact the landlord accordingly.

What we have investigated

7. The landlord’s repair policy states that it aims to complete non urgent repairs within 20 working days.
8. On 5 September 2024, the resident reported that steps on the middle staircase moved when stepped on. The landlord raised a repair for 9 September 2024.However,no action was taken to progress the repair as the resident had not removed the carpet. The landlord had been notified that a repair was required. While it could not progress the repair on this occasion, it should have ensured that if the job could not remain open, that a second job be raised instead. This would have helped to ensure that steps were taken to complete the repair in line with its obligations.
9. The landlord attended again on 19 September 2024 but could not proceed as the resident still had not removed the carpet. While the landlord’s policy allows it to request that carpets be removed, there is no evidence that it informed the resident of this requirement prior to the first appointment. Or that it reminded the resident of this prior to the second attendance. This demonstrates a failure in communication and record keeping, which contributed to avoidable delays.
10. The landlord carried out repairs on 1 October 2024, with a further visit scheduled for 8 October 2024 to secure additional steps. However, records demonstrate that these follow-on repairs did not take place until 18 November 2024, with decoration completed on 28 November 2024. This significantly exceeded the landlord’s 20 working day target for non-urgent repairs. We have seen nothing to suggest that the delay was unavoidable, we are therefore not satisfied that the time taken to complete the repair was proportionate. The landlord appropriately apologised for the delay in the repairs from the period of 4 October to 28 November 2024 and awarded £160. This was to cover the delay and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. As noted, the resident accepted this, but wishes to be compensated further, namely for time away from work.
11. We will not generally order a landlord to reimburse a resident for time off work, loss of wages, or loss of employment while repairs are carried out. Works will often cause some inconvenience to residents, but their tenancy agreement will require them to give access for repairs to be carried out as needed. It would not be fair or reasonable for us to order a landlord to reimburse a resident for routine appointments.
12. However, we have considered the landlord’s own policy on compensation and have found that the award does not go far enough, to adequately recognise the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident. It does not account for the earlier delay between 9 September and 4 October 2024 during which, the landlord failed to notify the resident the carpet needed removing and the repair was incorrectly closed.
13. To put things right, we have applied the same approach used by the landlord. We have calculated further compensation at a rate of £10 per week for delay and £10 a week for distress and inconvenience. This properly reflects the total length of delay as well as the inconvenience caused.

14. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out our expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code requires landlords to have a 2 stage complaints process. It should acknowledge a complaint or escalation request within 5 working days. Landlords should issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint. It must issue a stage 2 final response within 20 working days of an escalation
15. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and it issued its stage 1 complaint response 3 working days outside the timeframe. The stage 1 complaint was incomplete, as it did not address the delay in responding to the complaint or provide an explanation on why it closed the initial repair job. As a result, it was necessary for the resident to highlight these matters within her complaint escalation. This was the cause of avoidable distress and inconvenience.
16. The resident escalated the complaint on 6 December 2024. The landlord did not provide its stage 2 response until 53 working days later. This was a significant delay and led to the resident chasing, causing avoidable distress and inconvenience.  The landlord appropriately apologised for the delay and awarded compensation of £50.
17. However, given that the landlord failed to appropriately acknowledge and put right the failings identified at stage 1 of the complaints process, we have made an adverse finding and ordered compensation aimed at putting things right.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. We have identified that there was a lack of appropriate record keeping around the removal carpets and repair works. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management highlights the importance of maintaining accurate, accessible records that provide a clear audit trail and support oversight of committed actions. The landlord may wish to review its record keeping practices based on the recommendations made in our spotlight report.

Communication

19. In this case, the records do not show the landlord regularly updated the resident on the status of repairs. Frustration and dissatisfaction may have been avoided if the landlord followed our spotlight report recommendations.