Southwark Council (202516235)

Decision
Case ID	202516235
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Southwark Council
Landlord type	Local authority
Occupancy	Secure tenancy
Date	14 April 2026

Background

A solicitor acting on the resident’s behalf began the pre-action protocol on a housing conditions claim against the landlord. After the landlord settled her claim without the matter going to court, she complained about how it dealt with outstanding repairs and its communication.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about how the landlord dealt with the resident’s:
1. Reports of outstanding repairs following the pre-action protocol process.
2. Concerns about its communication.
3. Concerns about legal action it took against her.
4. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. Service failure by the landlord in how it dealt with the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs following the pre-action protocol process.
2. Reasonable redress by the landlord in how it dealt with the resident’s concerns about its communication.
3. How the landlord dealt with the resident’s concerns about legal action it took against her is outside our jurisdiction.
4. Maladministration by the landlord in how it dealt with the resident’s complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord should have had a record of what repairs it had done. Because it did not have a record, it had to revisit the resident’s home. It did this without an appointment, and the method caused alarm for the resident.
The landlord accepted it had not responded to all the resident’s emails and acknowledged the frustration this caused. However, evidence shows it tried to progress the repairs and because of this, the apology and compensation offered were reasonable.
We cannot investigate issues which were also subject to legal proceedings or where matters at court are so closely connected to the complaint that they cannot be separated. In this case, we can see legal proceedings were issued in October 2024. The matters at court related to access to the resident’s property and are linked to the resident’s concerns about legal action it took against her. This means we have no power to investigate this part of the complaint.
The landlord did not meet the timescales in its complaints policy. It also inaccurately referred to its complaints policy as a reason for not responding to parts 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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £200 compensation. This is made up of: £100 for distress and inconvenience caused by the way it dealt with the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs following the pre-action protocol £100 for the failures in how it dealt with her complaint, inclusive of £50 already offered. It must pay this directly to the resident by the due date. It must provide documentary evidence of the payment by the due date. It may deduct any compensation already paid relating to this order.	No later than 12 May 2026
2	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the property to confirm whether all outstanding repairs from the claim have been completed. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure it completes the inspection by the due date. A suitably qualified person must complete the inspection. Following this, it must give the resident and us a clear update in writing on what repairs it will do, if they are needed. This must include clear timeframes on when it will complete any work. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.	No later than 12 May 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £200 compensation. This is made up of:

£100 for distress and inconvenience caused by the way it dealt with the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs following the pre-action protocol
£100 for the failures in how it dealt with her complaint, inclusive of £50 already offered.

It must pay this directly to the resident by the due date. It must provide documentary evidence of the payment by the due date. It may deduct any compensation already paid relating to this order.

No later than 12 May 2026

Inspection order

The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the property to confirm whether all outstanding repairs from the claim have been completed. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure it completes the inspection by the due date. A suitably qualified person must complete the inspection. Following this, it must give the resident and us a clear update in writing on what repairs it will do, if they are needed. This must include clear timeframes on when it will complete any work. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.

No later than 12 May 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord reoffers the £75 compensation for communication failures it offered if it has not already paid it to the resident. We have made our finding of reasonable redress on the basis that the landlord makes this payment.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
8 April 2022	The resident’s solicitor began a housing pre-action protocol claim on her behalf. After both parties settled without it going to court, the landlord arranged to do the agreed repairs in November 2024.
11 February 2025	The resident complained about outstanding repairs from her claim, a lack of communication from the landlord, and legal action it took against her. She said she had heard nothing from the landlord since it inspected the repairs in November 2024.
11 April 2025	In its complaint response, the landlord said it completed the agreed repairs on 4 November 2024. However, it said its inspection on 11 November 2024 found a problem with the quality of some work. It said it could not investigate matters that were subject to legal processes. It offered £50 compensation for the delay in replying to her complaint.
27 May 2025.	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said it was not responding to her about the outstanding repairs, and she had sent over 700 emails “begging” for it to contact her.
24 June 2025	In its final complaint response, the landlord said its inspection found the windowsills needed repainting, but as it could not confirm if it had already done this, it would visit. It accepted she had asked for updates and that some contacts had gone unanswered. It apologised for this and offered £75 compensation for poor communication and time and trouble.
Referral to the Ombudsman	In her escalation to us, the resident said the landlord had not done the repairs and damp and mould had returned. She said the situation had affected her and her daughter’s health. She wanted it to complete the repairs and compensate her for the days she lost at work because of appointments. In March 2026, she told us her daughter and granddaughter no longer lived at the property.

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.

Complaint	How the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs following a housing conditions claim
Finding	Service failure

What we have not investigated

This investigation does not look at events before the resident made her housing pre-action claim or up to the time the landlord arranged to do the agreed works. This is because the resident’s complaint was about how it dealt with outstanding repairs following agreed work it did in November 2024.
The resident told us in June 2025 that damp had come back in her home. We will not investigate this. This is because we will not ordinarily investigate matters that have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. The resident may wish to raise a new complaint with the landlord about events since it issued its final response.
The resident told us the situation affected her and her daughter’s health, and she lost income because of appointments. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury, financial loss, and illness. This is largely because independent experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to give unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness, injury, or loss. When disputes arise over the cause, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this element to the resident’s complaint is better dealt with via the court. However, we can consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns.

What we have investigated

On 4 November 2024 the landlord’s contractor did repairs that were part of the settlement of the housing pre-action claim. We have seen a copy of the post work completion sheet, which the resident signed. In this she wrote, “all good, no issues”. The landlord did a post work inspection of the repairs on 11 November 2024.
The resident contacted the landlord on 2 December 2024 and 12 January 2025 about the inspection. On 20 January 2025, it told her it had asked its contractor to return to her home as it was not satisfied with the quality of some repairs. It said when it inspected, the paint on new windowsills was peeling and the window in the bedroom was defective. It said its contractors could attend on 23 January 2025 and asked her to confirm her availability. We have not seen evidence of whether the resident responded.
Although there was an unreasonable delay of over 2 months between the landlord’s inspection and its communication on 20 January 2025, its proposal to fix the defects was reasonable. This is because following major repairs, it is reasonable for a landlord to inspect the works and set out what it will do to resolve any faults it finds. It also offered the resident a date and asked her to confirm if this was convenient.
The landlord’s solicitor, who was dealing with the housing pre-action claim, contacted the resident on 23 January 2025. It asked her to sign a form as it said the landlord had completed the repairs. It said it needed her to sign this to avoid a court hearing scheduled for 29 January 2025 relating to the landlord seeking access to her home. The resident replied and said the landlord had not completed the repairs.
On 27 January 2025 the landlord wrote to the resident and said it was necessary for its contractors to visit to do outstanding repairs. It asked her to confirm her availability on 6 or 7 February 2025. She replied the same day and said she had allowed entry, but it had “done nothing” and now it needed its contractors to do work it should have done 3 years ago. She said it could take her to court. In response the landlord said it needed to do the work to meet the agreed housing pre-action agreement. It asked her to let it know when she was available if 6 and 7 February 2025 were not convenient.
The landlord was, at this stage, taking reasonable steps to complete the work it had agreed to do. It had offered the resident dates for appointments and asked her to give it other dates if these were not convenient.
On 29 January 2025 the landlord took the resident to court, where an injunction was granted so it could gain access and complete the repairs.
The resident complained on 11 February 2025 that the landlord had not completed the repairs, blamed her for not allowing access, and she lost income because of appointments. She said she allowed access after a court hearing in October 2024, but when it inspected in November 2024, it told her 2 weeks ago that it needed to come back and “fix the mess”. She said it gave her less than a week to arrange access.
In its complaint response on 11 April 2025, the landlord accepted the situation had caused the resident frustration and inconvenience. It said it could not comment on the complaint about access because a court had dealt with this. It set out the works it had done as agreed in the housing pre-action claim and said she had signed a completion sheet on 4 November 2024. However, its inspection on 11 November 2024 found problems with the quality of some repairs. It encouraged her to engage and provide access for it to finish the outstanding repairs.
The evidence shows this was a reasonable response at this time. This is because it explained what it had done to meet the requirements of the outstanding repairs. It also said it needed to complete the work where there was a problem with the quality of the repairs and encouraged the resident to engage with it to finish the work.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 27 May 2025. She said it was not responding to her about the outstanding repairs. In its final complaint response on 24 June 2025, it said that following the inspection in November 2024, she asked it to do repairs that were not part of her housing pre-action claim. It said it rejected these and she then did not give it access to do outstanding repairs to the windowsills. It said its records did not show whether it had done this work and so it would visit to look from the outside. It encouraged her to use its repairs team to report new repairs not covered by the claim. It said it was unable to assess the housing pre-action claim compensation through the complaints process and said she should contact its legal representatives about this.
It was reasonable for the landlord to tell the resident that she should raise any repairs that were not part of the pre-protocol claim through its repairs service. It was also reasonable to say it would visit to check the repairs to the windowsill. We acknowledge that there were some problems with gaining access. However, the landlord should have had a record of what works it had done and the lack of a record was a failure.
Because the landlord did not have a record, it had to revisit, which caused the resident distress and inconvenience. She told us in March 2026 that it visited, but without an appointment. She said an operative was up a ladder outside her bedroom window when she was in bed, which caused her alarm. Although it did not need to access the resident’s home, it should still have told her about the appointment. Our order that it pays £100 is in line with our compensation guidance, which says a payment up to £100 is appropriate to put right a service failure that caused distress and inconvenience.

Complaint	How the landlord dealt with the resident’s concerns about its communication
Finding	Reasonable redress

On 2 December 2024 the resident told the landlord that it was “unprofessional” not to respond to her emails. On 12 January 2025 she said she had still not had an update. She said she had sent over 20 emails to it and its solicitor. She wanted to know why it had not replied. We accept the resident sent emails to the landlord and its solicitor during this period but have not seen them. The landlord replied to the resident on 20 January 2025 about its inspection in November 2024.
We have seen there was communication from the resident to the landlord and its solicitor between 23 and 27 January 2025. These were about the need to complete the repairs and an upcoming court hearing relating to access.
In her complaint on 11 February 2025, the resident said the landlord and its solicitor had not communicated with her. She said after the inspection in November 2024 she heard nothing until 2 weeks prior and was given short notice to attend court.
In its complaint response on 11 April 2025, the landlord said because the resident had not given “consistent access”, a court hearing took place that she attended on 16 October 2024. It said the court sent her a notification of a second hearing on 7 November 2024, which gave her 11 weeks’ notice of the second hearing on 29 January 2025. We have seen the landlord did not refer to its own communications in its response.
The resident escalated her complaint on 27 May 2025. She said the landlord was not responding to her and she had sent over 700 emails. We accept the resident sent a significant number of emails to the landlord and its solicitor but have not seen all of them.
In its final response on 24 June 2025, it said it was sorry she had found it difficult to communicate with its disrepair team. It said after she raised a separate complaint about an officer in the disrepair team, the manager asked the officer to stop communicating with the resident and took over the case. It said the manager then left the landlord, and a service manager then dealt with her case.
The landlord also referred to emails from the resident in April and May 2025, in which she said she had sent 100s of emails about the outstanding repairs. We have not seen these emails. However, in its final response, it said its records showed she had contacted it several times for an update, but it had not answered all of them. It accepted this could have made her feel “forgotten or ignored”. It apologised for the frustration and inconvenience this caused and offered £75 compensation for poor communication.
We have found that it was reasonable for the landlord to accept that it had not responded to all emails and acknowledge the frustration this caused. We accept there was a need for the landlord to change its communication with the resident after it received a complaint about an officer. It would be reasonable for the landlord to let the resident know about the change. We have seen no evidence it did this. However, it would not be reasonable for it to respond individually to hundreds of emails on the same matters. In mitigation, the landlord accepted its failings and apologised for these. We have seen that the landlord and its solicitor sent updates and it tried to progress the repairs following the inspection in November 2024. It is our view that the apology and offer of £75 compensation reasonably redressed the failings.

Complaint	How the landlord dealt with the resident’s concerns about legal action it took against her
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

The resident complained about how the landlord dealt with her concerns about legal action it took against her. She said it had acted unreasonably when it took her to court in January 2025 to seek an injunction to gain access to do repairs. We have not investigated this part of the complaint, as we cannot consider the same matter the court looked at. For this reason, this part of the complaint is outside our jurisdiction.

Complaint	How the landlord dealt with the resident’s complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will then respond at stage 1 within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord’s complaints policy makes it clear that it will not investigate complaints through its complaints procedurewhere there are court proceedings. However, it says it may consider related issues that are not subject to legal proceedings.
The resident complained on 11 February 2025, and the landlord acknowledged it the next day. It sent its complaint response on 11 April 2025, which was 2 months later and outside its timescales. It apologised for the delay and offered £50 compensation for not following its policy. It said as matters raised in the complaint were the subject of an ongoing legal matter, it could not investigate further.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 27 April 2025. It acknowledged the complaint the next day and sent its final response on 24 June 2025. This was 40 working days later and outside its timescales. It did not apologise or offer compensation for the delay. In its final response it said that as the issues raised were related to an ongoing legal matter, it could not investigate her complaint further.
The landlord’s reason for not responding to parts of the complaint were that these had been through a court process. However, as well as complaining about it taking her to court to gain access, she also complained about the landlord not doing outstanding repairs and its communications. Both parties had agreed a schedule of repairs before the matter went to court. Because of this, the landlord could have considered other parts of the resident’s complaint, but not its decision to take her to court. The position it took meant it did not follow its complaints policy and deal with her complaint effectively.
Overall, we have found the landlord did not meet the timescales in its complaints policy at stage 1 and 2. It also inaccurately referred to its complaints policy position on legal proceedings as a reason for not responding to other parts of the complaint.

Learning

The landlord should ensure it responds to all complaints in line with its policy and our Complaint Handling Code. It should also ensure it responds to all complaint points raised.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

There are some gaps in the landlord’s records of communications with the resident and the repairs done. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management provides guidance that can help it with this.

Communication

The landlord accepted it did not respond to all the resident’s communications. We have not seen evidence that it told her about changes it made to who was managing her case, which could have helped with communications.