Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Southwark Council (202109108)

Back to Top

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109108

Southwark Council

4 December 2021


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint concerns the level of compensation offered by the landlord following a water leak into the resident’s property.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a flat in a communal building.
  2. The landlord prioritises its repairs as; emergency (attend within 24 hours), urgent (attend within three working days) and non-urgent (attend within 20 working days). The landlord describes an emergency repair as a repair that “poses a serious risk to health and safety”. The landlord also states that it will usually aim to attend an emergency repair within two to four hours to make the property safe, then return to complete repairs at a later date.
  3. During the period of this complaint, the landlord’s services were affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. From March 2020 to June 2020, the landlord only attended emergency repairs and in the following weeks it warned residents to expect delays in attending non-urgent repairs.
  4. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. On receipt of a complaint, the landlord will provide a complaint response at stage one within 15 working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to stage two and a review of the complaint will be undertaken. A stage two complaint response will then be sent to the complainant within 25 working days of making the escalation request.
  5. The landlord’s compensation policy explains the different tariffs it uses to compensate for delay and distress as follows:
    1. Low impact (£5 per week). The landlord has not met its service standards, but “the impact is not greater than a reasonably tolerant person could be expected to accept”.
    2. Medium impact (£10 per week). There had been repeated failures by the landlord to meet the required standards.
    3. High impact (£20 per week). A serious failure in service standards by the landlord over a protected time or in the number of attempts to resolve the matter.

Summary of events

  1. The landlord’s repair logs state that:
    1. It was informed on 26 October 2019 that water was leaking into the resident’s property from the property above. A work order was raised on 26 October 2019 and marked as completed on 27 October 2021.
    2. A work order was raised on 27 November 2019 to investigate the source of a leak from another property in the building. This was marked as completed on 27 November 2019.
    3. A work order was raised on 10 December 2019 to trace the source of the leak as no source was found in the property above the resident. This was marked as completed on 14 December 2019.
    4. A work order was raised on 30 June 2019 to trace and remedy a leak affecting the resident’s kitchen. This was marked as complete on 1 July 2020.
  2. On 1 July 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord and requested to raise a complaint. He described the elements of his complaint as:
    1. He had experienced an ongoing leak through the kitchen ceiling since 17 October 2019 which the landlord had yet to resolve.
    2. He had experienced poor service from the landlord when calling it to report the issue and from its operatives who had visited the property.
    3. Due to the leak into the kitchen, he was unable to prepare food and had to buy takeaway meals.
    4. The ongoing issue has had an adverse effect on his health and that of his family.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 1 July 2020 and on 9 July 2020 it wrote to the resident to confirm that a formal complaint had been opened that that it aimed to provide a response by 22 July 2020.
  4. On 22 July 2020 the landlord called the resident to confirm an appointment had been made for 23 July 2020 and that it had extended its time to respond to the complaint by a further 20 working days.
  5. On 29 July 2020 the landlord informed him that an appointment had been booked to attend the property above his on 4 August 2020.
  6. Following the 4 August 2020 visit, a note was added to the landlord’s repair logs stating that follow-on work was required at the neighbour’s property, and it was suspected that the source of the leak was from a corroded pipe underneath the bath.
  7. The landlord called the resident on 26 August 2020. The landlord’s notes of the call stated that it informed the resident that it had booked an appointment at his neighbour’s property for 28 August 2020 and had extended the timeframe for its complaint response to 24 September 2020.
  8. An internal landlord email sent on 4 September 2020 stated that the neighbour was unable to grant access to their property on 28 August 2020 and the appointment was rescheduled for 8 September 2020.
  9. The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 September 2020 to inform him it had extended its response time to 22 October 2020.
  10. An internal landlord email chain between 24 September 2020 and 2 October 2020 described the issues it had experienced in contacting the neighbour to complete the follow-on work and that an appointment had been made for 8 October 2020 to carry out repairs to their property.
  11. The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 October 2020 to extend its complaint response time to 19 November 2020.
  12. The landlord called the resident on 29 October 2020 to inform him that an appointment had been made with his neighbour for 4 November 2020.
  13. On 6 November 2020 the landlord left a voicemail message enquiring if the leak had been resolved. The resident wrote back to the landlord on 9 November 2020 and informed it that the neighbour had told him that the leak had not been repaired on 4 November 2020 as the operative who attended was only there to replace tiles. The resident also expressed his dissatisfaction with how long the matter was taking to resolve.
  14. A work order was raised for the contractor to visit the neighbour’s property on 9 November 2020. The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 November 2020 to extend the complaint response time to 17 December 2020.
  15. On 24 November 2020 the landlord called the resident and confirmed that it would raise work to reinstate power to the light in his kitchen once the kitchen had dried out.
  16. Follow-on work at the neighbour’s property was arranged for 4 December 2020 and then rescheduled for 16 December 2020. A note added to the landlord’s repairs log on 16 December 2020 stated that the leak had been repaired.
  17. The resident called the landlord on 17 December 2020 and confirmed that the leak had stopped. The landlord informed the resident that it would now provide a complaint response.
  18. The stage one complaint response was sent to the resident on 27 January 2021. The landlord gave a timeline of events as described above and noted that it had experienced delays in completing the work due to issues contacting the neighbour in the property above to arrange appointments and also due to one appointment not going ahead as a carpenter attended the property instead of a plumber.
  19. The landlord confirmed that it had called the resident to discuss a resolution to the complaint and that that the resident had requested to receive appropriate compensation that recognised the issues he and his family had faced while waiting for the leak to be repaired. It explained that it had raised the resident’s request internally and that it would write to him when it had agreed a figure for the compensation.
  20. The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 April 2021 and offered £475 compensation. The resident declined the offer and requested an escalation of the complaint.
  21. The landlord wrote 29 April 2021 to confirm that it had escalated the complaint and it sent the stage two complaint response to the resident on 7 May 2021.
  22. The landlord noted that from when the leak was first reported to when it was resolved took 54 weeks and four days, which it had rounded up to 55 weeks when considering compensation. It then informed the resident that, as per its repairs policy, a containable leak that did not pose a safety risk should be resolved within 20 working days. It had therefore awarded compensation at its low impact tariff of £5 per week for 55 weeks for a total of £275.
  23. The landlord explained that it had awarded a further £150 compensation for the time and trouble caused to the resident, and £50 for the delays in providing a response at stage one.
  24. The landlord concluded the response by upholding its compensation award and stated that it was satisfied that the award had taken into account the inconvenience caused to the resident and was made in line with its complaints and compensation policies.
  25. On 18 July 2021 the resident informed this Service that his outstanding issue with the complaint was that the landlord had not offered compensation proportionate to the issues that he and his family faced while the leak was ongoing. He noted that his family’s health had suffered, and they were unable to properly use the kitchen or prepare meals until the leak was repaired.

Assessment and findings

  1. In line with the tenancy agreement and repairs policy, as set out above, the landlord was responsible for repairing the leak into the resident’s property. The landlord acted in line with its published timescales for emergency repairs by carrying out an initial appointment the day after the leak was reported. After the initial appointment, any follow up work would be regarded as non-urgent, in line with the landlord’s repairs policy and it should therefore have been completed within 20 working days.
  2. In some cases, it can be difficult to locate the course of a leak, particularly where there are multiple properties involved. In view of this, it appears that part of the delay in fixing the leak was unavoidable. There were further delays due to a backlog of non-emergency repairs due to the Covid-10 pandemic and difficulties in gaining access to the neighbour’s property. However, these difficulties do not fully account for the significant delay in fixing the leak and the landlord has accepted that it should have been repaired sooner.
  3.  In its complaint response, the landlord recognised that it had not met its repair timescales, apologised to the resident for the delays in completing the work and offered £475 compensation.
  4. The landlord did not respond to the complaint in line with the timescales set out in its complaints policy and there were significant delays in its responses at both stages of its internal process. The landlord kept the resident updated concerning the delay and explained that this was because it was waiting for the repairs to be completed before issuing a complaint response and considering the resident’s request for compensation.
  5. It is the established view of this service that landlords should respond to complaints in a timely manner and it is not necessary to wait for repairs to be completed before responding to a complaint. A complaint response can be issued whilst repairs are outstanding and compensation can be awarded for any delays which have taken place and which are expected, based on the proposed completion date for any outstanding repairs. If there are further delays after the landlord has issued its final complaint response, the landlord can issue a further response and consider whether to offer additional compensation for the further delays. The significant delays in responding to the complaint would have been inconvenient for the resident as this prevented him from being able to refer his complaint to the Ombudsman sooner for independent review. This has been considered when assessing the landlord’s overall offer of compensation.
  6. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  7. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging the delays. It looked to put things right by aplogising to the resident and his family and awarding appropriate compensation. It looked to learn from its mistakes by raising the matters highlighted during the complaint internally. The internal correspondence provided by the landlord showed that the resident’s point-of-contact for the complaint raised the issues the resident had highlighted about the poor service he had experienced with the appropriate departments within the landlord’s organisation.
  8. In its stage two complaint response, the landlord explained how it calculated its compensation offer and the guidance it took from its compensation policy in deciding what tariff to use in making the calculation. The overall compensation payment was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website). This suggests a payment of £250 to £700 in cases of considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. As examples for when this level of payment should be considered, the guidance suggests:
    1. A complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant
    2. Failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs; to respond to antisocial behaviour; to make adequate adjustments
  9. The resident has stated that the landlord should have increased its compensation offer in recognition that he was unable to use the kitchen while the leak was unresolved. However, there is no evidence that any of the operatives who visited the property had informed the landlord of any issues relating to the usability of the kitchen. No notes were left on the repair logs and no follow-on work to make safe the kitchen, other than isolating the electrics to the light fitting on the ceiling which was where the leak was located, were recommended.
  10. The resident also highlighted his dissatisfaction that his and his family’s medical issues caused and/or exacerbated due to the leak were not considered by the landlord when calculating its compensation offer.
  11. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding his health or that of his family, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation may be more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or through the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one) as a personal injury claim.
  12. This is in line with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and how the landlord responded to his reports concerning his family’s wellbeing.
  13. Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of errors in its handling of repairs following the leak which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord recognised the inconvenience caused to the resident by in the significant length of time it took to locate and repair the source of the leak from the kitchen ceiling. The landlord apologised and awarded compensation which was proportionate to the effect of these failures on the resident.