Southwark Council (202504594)

Background

1. During October 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to report that his front door handle was loose. He subsequently expressed his dissatisfaction with the standard of the repair.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the residents request for a repair to the door handle.
   2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the residents request for a repair to the door handle.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Reasons

Repair to door handle

4. The landlord’s guide for leaseholders says it’s responsible for front entrance doors. Its repairs policy says it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours. This includes defective door locks where the security of the home is at risk. It aims to respond to non-urgent repairs within 20 working days.
5. On 21 October 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to report that the door handle was loose. The log on the repair report is silent on whether the security was compromised at this point. When the resident chased on 29 October 2024 he was told the repair had not been actioned. On 30 December 2024 he complained to the landlord that it had still not contacted him about the repair. It failed to adhere to the 20 working day timescale set out in its repairs policy. On receiving the resident’s complaint it raised the repair. While this was positive, he should not have had to chase for it to act.
6. An entry on the repairs log dated 8 January 2025 says the landlord tried to phone the resident. On 15 January 2025 it attended the property but could not gain access. However, there’s no evidence that the landlord notified him of the appointment which was a communication failure. A further entry dated 4 February 2025 requested that another call was made to the resident to arrange an appointment. It’s unclear if this was actioned.
7. On 9 April 2025 the landlord attended to complete the repair. It replaced the upper lock barrel which shortened the length of the lock meaning the door would not close fully. The operative said further works would be carried out the following day, but it failed to attend. A further appointment was made for 11 April 2025 but it called the resident to cancel the appointment. The failed appointments caused inconvenience to the resident.
8. In the resident’s email to the landlord of 11 April 2025 he said that the new barrel did not have the same kitemark, which voided his insurance, and that the door could easily be opened with a screwdriver. He asserted there was no need for the barrel to be changed and set out his dissatisfaction with the delay in completing the repair. He also raised concerns that the phone number the landlord used to try to call him did not belong to him.
9. By 14 April 2025 the landlord had resolved the issue with the barrel and secured the door. It took the landlord 121 working days to complete the repair to the door handle which was 101 days over its target response time. During this period it took 3 working days to secure the door following its attendance on 9 April 2025. It did not adhere to its timescales for emergency repairs. Its stage 2 complaint response dated 6 May 2025 acknowledged its failures regarding poor communication and management of repair appointments. It offered £150 for the delays and time and trouble caused.
10. The resident’s email to us dated 6 May 2025 said he was seeking £50 for each of the missed appointments on 10 and 11 April 2025. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will pay £50 for missed appointments where residents have not been given prior notice. Because it called him to say it could not attend on 11 April 2025 the set amount of £50 would only be applicable to the first appointment. However, we acknowledge that the late cancellation caused inconvenience and frustration.
11. Considering the missed appointment, length of the delays and distress and inconvenience caused we do not consider that the landlord’s offer of compensation was proportionate. Our compensation guidance sets out that payments of £100 and above are appropriate to put right failings which adversely affected the resident. In ordering £250 compensation, we have considered the missed appointment and distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failures. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for failures of service where there was a relatively low impact. The landlord may deduct the £150 it offered if this has already been paid.

Complaint handling

12. Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord’s published complaints policy complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales. It says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will then respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
13. The resident made his stage 1 complaint on 30 December 2023 which was acknowledged by the landlord the same day. It then provided its response on 24 February 2025 which was 28 working days out of time. Its response appropriately acknowledged its failure and offered £50 compensation. However, its response was inaccurate. For example, it incorrectly identified the date the repair was first reported.
14. This was put right to some extent by the landlord’s stage 2 response of 1 May 2025. It acknowledged its failure to carry out a thorough investigation meant it did not reach the correct decision regarding the complaint. It said it would provide feedback to the appropriate manager to ensure there were no reoccurrences. The Code says landlord’s must address all points in the complaint. Its stage 2 response failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about it using a wrong number to contact him. It said its offer of £150 compensation also included complaint handling. However, it did not say how much it apportioned to which failure. Therefore, for the purposes of this investigation it was considered in respect of the repair only.
15. Our compensation guidance says that payments of up to £100 are appropriate where the complaint handling failure adversely affected the resident. Therefore, we consider it proportionate for the landlord to pay £100. It may deduct the £50 it has offered if it’s already been paid.

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.