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

Southwark Council (202008263)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008263

Southwark Council

12 October 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 is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports concerning:

a)     Water ingress from the roof area.

b)     Works that the resident was charged for as part of a major works programme.

c)     Communication relating to the service charge.

  1. The landlord’s complaints handling has also been investigated.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord at the property (‘the property’), a three-bedroom first floor flat contained within a building (‘the building’) of which the landlord owns the freehold. The property is situated on both the first and second floor of the building, with the roof of the building directly above.
  2. Under the terms of the lease the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the structure and exterior of the property and the communal parts of the building, including the roof. The resident is required to reimburse the landlord for costs reasonably incurred in carrying out these responsibilities.
  3. The landlord has provided its Repairs Guide document, this clarifies its responsibilities and service standards for its tenants, though it is not clear if it also applies to resident leaseholders. The guide confirms a 20 working day timescale for non–urgent repair issues, including repairing ‘cracked or broken flashings’ or carrying out patchwork repairs where water has penetrated
  4. The landlord’s complaints procedure, in place at the time of the complaint, provided for a two stage complaints process, with a 15 working day timescale for stage one responses and 25 working days for stage two responses.

Summary of events

  1. Major works were carried out to the building between 2014 and 2016, during which it was identified that the roof required ‘complete renewal’ as it was ‘leaking in various locations and no longer serviceable’. The landlord confirmed, in March 2016, that it had added the roof renewal works to the ongoing major works programme and these then took place in the early part of 2016. The resident was liable for a significant service charge on account of these works and a substantive element of her complaint related to the fact that leaks from the roof reoccurred within a relatively short timeframe from the roof renewal works.
  2. The resident was also dissatisfied with the landlord’s communication about service charges relating to these major works. The landlord has provided notices and invoices dating back to November 2014 in relation to these works, this includes confirmation, in September 2016 and July 2017, that final costs had yet to be agreed. In June 2018, the landlord sent the resident a Draft Final Account Notice in relation to the major works, this said that it had originally estimated her contribution to be £8,012.63, but that an additional £7,453.25 had been added due to the increase in costs relating to the roof renewal. It provided a breakdown of the overall rechargeable costs, including structural works (£2,640.52), roof works (£11,677.20) and scaffolding costs (£3,250.00).
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 27 September 2018. She said that she had yet to receive a final invoice for the new roof works that took place two years previously and that it was already leaking during rainfall. She said that she understood that the roof remained under guarantee and that she did not expect to pay for repairs.
  4. The landlord’s roofing contractors inspected the roof on both 7 November 2018 and 21 January 2019. These inspections identified the approximate age of the roof (between 2 and 3 years according to the January 2019 report), and also identified issues with the dormer window and roof door, recommending that the original contractors be recalled to put these issues right. It is reasonable to conclude from this that the roofing contractors were not the same contractors that completed the roof renewal works back in 2016.
  5. The landlord sent the resident its finalised invoice for the major works on 8 February 2019, at a cost to her of £7,453.26. This reflected the additional cost as detailed in its June 2018 notice above – the original amount of £8,012.63 detailed above had previously been invoiced. The invoice confirmed that payment was required within one month and included payment options on the reverse, including details about service charge loans.
  6. The resident complained to the landlord on 14 February 2019. She said that she had reported a leak from the roof in October 2018 and, despite two contractor visits, she still did not know when a repair would take place. She said that she was unwilling to pay for any costs in relation to repairs as the roof was new and should be under guarantee.
  7. An internal landlord email dated 14 March 2019 identified that the roof door and dormer window had not been included in the earlier major works, so were not covered by any guarantee and would be classified as normal repair issues. The landlord’s timeline of the complaint confirms that its complaints team referred these issues to its repairs team on this same date, and then chased for progress on three occasions, with the repairs team confirming on 14 May 2019 that its contractor had emailed the resident to arrange an appointment.
  8. The landlord sent the resident a letter on 12 April 2019, requesting payment of the outstanding service charge sum of £7.453.26. On 15 May 2019, it sent pre-claim action notices to both her and her mortgage provider regarding this sum, stating that legal action would be taken if she did not make contact. On 22 May, the resident confirmed in an email that she had spoken to it the day before regarding repayment terms. She enquired about interest free options but was informed that a discretionary loan was the only option. The resident requested that the relevant paperwork for this option be sent to her (the landlord did so on 24 May); she also confirmed that she would pay a fee of £345 for progressing with this option.
  9. The landlord’s complaints timeline confirms that it sent the resident details about the major works that it had completed to the roof and that, upon receipt, she questioned whether works had actually taken place (7 May 2019), including insulation works to the roof area. It is clear from the multiple emails made available to this investigation that the landlord had difficulty identifying who might be responsible for responding to the issues raised, in part due to warranties on the roof.

16. On 22 June 2019, the resident requested an update on the loan paperwork as she had not heard from the landlord in three weeks. The landlord responded on 24 June to say that it had no record of her having returned the loan documents. It is not known what, if any further correspondence was sent in this respect before 5 July 2019, when the landlord sent the resident a Letter of Claim, which said that it would progress to legal action in the event that she did not make contact about the outstanding service charge within 30 days. The landlord also wrote to the resident’s mortgage provider on the same date, stating that it would commence legal proceedings against the resident if it failed to hear from her within 10 days. The resident responded to the landlord on 7 July 2019, asking what was going on given that she had already sent the required paperwork. The landlord responded on 8 July which said ‘after receiving a response from your mortgage lender you will be sent all the relevant documents within this week via email’. This email was ambiguous and it is not possible to conclude from it whether the resident had in fact, already provided the loan paperwork to the landlord in advance of the notice she received on 5 July.

17. The landlord identified, at the end of June 2019, that its contractor would need to attend to inspect and assess whether works had previously been carried out and whether any outstanding repairs were required to the roof area. To this end, it emailed the resident on both 1 and 6 August 2019, saying that it would need to access the property to inspect the roof. In the second email, the landlord said that it would close the case down if it did not hear from the resident within 7 working days. The resident confirmed that she was not available to provide access at this time as she was away from the property; she also said that she was seeking legal advice as she was dissatisfied with the delay in resolving the water ingress and its communication regarding service charges. The landlord’s notes state that the resident was satisfied for the complaint to be closed at this time.

18.The landlord sent its stage one complaint response on 16 August 2019, summarising the complaint as relating to the leak from the roof, a dispute over works that were completed by its major works team and service charge bill/payment. The landlord confirmed that its contractor had attended to the roof on three occasions during January 2019, it had sent her an itemised breakdown of completed roof works and that it had agreed to send its contractor back to the property to look into her concerns that some of these works had not taken place. The landlord also said that it had attempted to arrange access so that this inspection could take place, but that the resident had said she could not grant access until October and had then agreed for the case to be closed as she wished to seek legal advice.

19. The landlord’s roofing contractor, who had completed the inspections listed above (November 2018 and January 2019) emailed the landlord on 15 November 2019, stating that it had recommended works but that these had not been raised as a works order by the landlord. It also said that it had been due to meet a surveyor at the property but had not heard back from the landlord.

20. The landlord’s complaints team continued to ask questions internally, during November and December 2019, about who would be responsible for the outstanding works to the roof. It was unclear whether the landlord’s major works team would need to carry out these works, or whether its roofing contractor could do so. The issues were confirmed as a repairs (as opposed to major works) issue on 6 December, at the same time, the landlord’s Contracts Manager stated that the resident would not have been charged for works highlighted in the roofing contractor reports if they had not taken place. Email correspondence from this time also confirms that costs for the outstanding works should not be recharged to the resident, though it is not clear if this was a recommendation, or its confirmed position.

21. The resident confirmed, on 28 November 2019, that she had been informed that a new dormer would be installed the following week. She also questioned specific works that had been marked as complete by the roofing contractor on her webpage account. The landlord explained that this was a ‘flaw’ in its system and that works reference numbers would be marked as complete or closed after a period of inactivity. It also confirmed that the resident would not be charged anything additional in relation to these works.

22. An internal landlord email dated 18 December 2019 confirms that the access hatch water proofing to the roof was not renewed at the time of the major works and that this ‘could be the cause of the roof leak’. It also confirmed that the main contractor (as opposed to the roofing contractor that had completed more recent inspections) would need to complete such works as otherwise the warranty would become invalidated, under the terms of its maintenance contract.

23. A second internal landlord email, also dated 18 December 2019 said that the February 2019 invoice that had been sent had included the standard repayment timescale of 30 days. It also said that a loan had been offered for this sum, but that no documents had been returned.

24. The landlord sent its stage two (final) response on 18 December 2019, summarising the complaint as relating to the roof leaks occurring so soon after major works, insulation works having been charged for but not completed and for the delay and ‘threatening’ nature of service charge invoices it had sent. The landlord upheld the complaint on the basis that it had ‘not provided all relevant information’ at stage one of its complaints process. It agreed to monitor and oversee outstanding works to ensure they were completed.

25. The landlord provided the breakdown of the major works that were completed, confirming that some works highlighted by the resident (roof door and dormer windows) had not been included in the major works. The landlord also provided contractor reports showing those works that it did not carry out during the major works (including roof hatch, roof door and dormer) and confirmed that the access hatch water proofing had not been renewed. The landlord said that these works would now take place but said that the major works had not included all of these works and that it was standard practice for parts that were in working order to be left when completing major work programmes. The landlord also acknowledged that insulation works had been charged for but not completed as part of the major works programme. It apologised for the delay in investigating this issue and accepted that there had been a ‘lack of ownership’ for mistakes that had been made.

26. The landlord also said that it had, in May and June 2019, provided the resident with the necessary documentation for arranging a loan for the service charge repayment. It identified that it had previously offered her a loan option for the actual cost invoice, though it did not receive a response, and that she had responded to its contact of May 2019 to agree to an additional fee. It apologised for any miscommunication but said that further options were provided once the actual invoice had been produced.

27. The resident emailed the landlord on 18 December 2019. She provided her email correspondence in relation to the service charge loan (summarised above). She also asked whether the landlord’s decision to uphold her complaint would result in any compensation. The landlord responded on 27 January 2020, offering £250 for her time and trouble, but that it was unable to recommend any further amounts as the works affected more than one property. This reflected an earlier internal landlord email that confirmed that no further compensation should be considered as the issue was a ‘communal’ one.

28. An internal landlord email of 10 January 2020 confirmed that works to prevent water ingress from ‘the dormer roof space door’ had been completed, with no reports of leaks since. It was not clear which date these works took place however, with the landlord’s repairs logs listing such works as completing on both 3 December 2019 and 9 January 2020.

29. The resident responded (29 January 2020) to say that she believed the landlord’s offer to be very low considering the extent of the failures she had experienced. She said that she had decorated her ceiling twice, with a third time required, that her hallway was still affected by water ingress and that she had yet to hear about works that she had paid for but not received, including pointing work and loft insulation.

30. Over 10-12 February 2020, the landlord and resident corresponded about outstanding works, including the insulation works that the landlord’s final response had acknowledged were yet to complete. The landlord said that the insulation works at the time of the major works related to the flat roof area and that this would have been done at the time as the works could not have been signed off without it. As such, it confirmed that no outstanding works remained. The resident disagreed with this, stating that she did not have a flat roof and there were definitely insulation issues outstanding. The landlord acknowledged its error and provided details about the type of insulation required to the roof in question and confirmed that its contractor had now completed all the outstanding works from the major works. The resident questioned this position as she had inspected the roof herself and identified no insulation boards as described by the landlord; she also said that guttering remained outstanding and that water ingress still occurred within her hallway and that the landlord had only carried out the roof door repairs, leaving the valley dormer and roof hatch as still requiring works. The landlord responded to say that it had been unable to complete the roof hatch works as this would have invalidated the warranty; it also said that it had requested documents from the major works team and would arrange a further inspection if it was unable to provide this.

31. The landlord’s complaints team continued to pursue sign off documentation regarding the original major works during March and April 2020; it also sought a cost code for the compensation payment it had agreed. It is evident that the complaints team had difficulty in identifying responsibility in these areas. On 22 April, it confirmed internally that these issues had ‘been sorted now’ and on 23 April it confirmed to the resident that it was now in receipt of the documents from sign off and handover of the major works. It is not known if it sent the resident these documents and, if so, whether this impacted her perception that works remained outstanding to the roof (specifically the roof hatch and valley) or whether this clarified whether or not she had been charged for works that did not take place.

32. The resident has provided evidence of her further reports to the landlord about new water ingress issues from the roof area, dated October/November 2020. She said that she had been required to re-decorate four times now due to these issues and that the water ingress was likely to have come from the roof itself, rather than the door which it had previously replaced.

33. The resident brought her case to the Ombudsman. On 11 November 2020, the landlord confirmed to this Service that the £250 compensation had been paid to the resident, that works were completed following her complaint but that the reoccurrence of the water ingress issues had led the resident to doubt whether works had ever been completed. The landlord confirmed further works taking place that day (adjusting dormer door and fixing seals). On 20 November 2020, the resident requested that the Ombudsman progress the case to a formal investigation. She said that the compensation she had received was not sufficient given the extent of the ‘stress and disruption’ she had been through.

34. In addition to the evidence summarised above, the landlord has provided its repairs log for the case, which includes:

a)     22 May 2019 – Roofing contractor attend and provide a report regarding the leaking dormer.

b)     24 July 2019 – Job raised for roofing contractor to report on leaking dormer (job cancelled 14 August 2019).

c)     7 October 2019 – Job raised for contractor to attend to inspect possible water ingress from roof space door – marked as complete 3 December 2019. (the same job raised on 18 December 2019 and marked as complete 9 January 2020).

d)     5 October 2020 – job raised to remedy roof leak – marked as complete 15 October 2020.

e)     27 October 2020 – roof door marked as damaged – marked as complete 11 November 2020.

Assessment and findings

Water ingress from the roof area

35. This investigation has not considered the landlord’s decision to renew the roof that took place at the end of the 2014/15 works. This event took place some time before the complaints process under investigation and, in any case, the resident has not questioned this decision. Her dissatisfaction stemmed from the fact that she experienced water ingress issues to her property a relatively short period after the completion of these works. Her concerns were understandable, she had been asked to pay a significant sum (in total more than £15,000) for the major works and would expect to see this result in a significant improvement in the roof area as a result.

36. The resident reported a leak to the roof area on 27 September 2018. It is not known what immediate response there was to this report, other than the two roofing contractor reports dated 7 November 2018 and 21 January 2019, which identified issues requiring attention. When the resident complained, in February 2019, she referred to these two contractor visits, but said she awaited confirmation as to what repairs would take place. Her concerns were understandable, by this stage more than four months had elapsed, repair issues had been identified, yet there was no evidence of any progress.

37. It is clear that the landlord’s complaints team acted reasonably in its chasing up of these outstanding works but experienced a lack of engagement from other departments. There appeared to be a lack of willing to take responsibility, or a lack of understanding about how to progress the works given the existence of the warranty following the major works. In such circumstances, there is a reasonable expectation that sufficiently robust communication and procedures are in place to ensure that residents receive a timely and efficient repairs service. In this case, it is clear that this was not the case.

38. By the time of the final response, it is clear that works to resolve the roof door had completed, or at least were near completion. The landlord acknowledged however, that there remained other works, including to the roof hatch, that remained outstanding. Correspondence following the completion of the complaints process did not clarify whether further works were needed and the repairs log information provided also did not provide this clarity. It is not clear whether any works remained outstanding at the end of the complaints process and if so, whether this resulted in the further reports of water ingress in October/November 2020.

39. Whilst the landlord offered compensation for the time and trouble experienced by the resident in the pursuit of her complaint and agreed to fund the costs of repairs itself, it did not consider compensation for the repair issues as it considered these ‘communal’. In the circumstances, this does not present as reasonable or satisfactory. The resident had explicitly stated that the water ingress had caused issues to both her hallway and her bedroom, including a need to re-decorate on multiple occasions. Whilst the roof area itself is a communal part of the building, it is clear that the resident’s property, situated beneath this roof, experienced a significant detriment.

40. The landlord’s repairs guide for tenants lists a 20 working day timescale for non–urgent repairs. Though it is not clear whether this guide applies to leaseholders, this presents as a reasonable timescale for resolving the water ingress issues reported by the resident in September 2018. The roof door issue was resolved in December 2019/January 2020 and it is reasonable to conclude from the lack of evidence demonstrating otherwise that other works identified by the landlord’s roofing contractor, had not completed by the time of the final response.

41. The landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman, on 11 November 2020, that it had completed works that day. In the circumstances, given the lack of clarity and poor communication on this issue, this is the date considered by the Ombudsman by which the landlord fully resolved the issues to the roof. This represents an excessive delay of more than two years against the landlord’s timescales, a period during which the resident reported significant disruption and inconvenience. As such, a compensation order in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance for cases involving significant maladministration has been detailed below. The compensation detailed has also included an additional amount in recompense for re-decoration costs the resident has incurred due to the water ingress issues.

42. In addition, the landlord is ordered to provide a written report, to both the resident and this Service, clarifying all the repairs completed to the roof area since the commencement of the complaints process. In addition, this report will clarify any outstanding works, with confirmation as to how these works will be funded.

Chargeable works.

43. The Ombudsman’s role does not extend to investigation of the level of a service charge as this is an issue more appropriately considered by the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The tribunal has the authority to determine whether a leaseholder has received value for money for service charges, including whether they should be required to pay such charges. The Ombudsman is, however, able to consider whether a landlord has responded to concerns about services they have charged for, but not provided. In investigating such cases, the Ombudsman will consider whether the landlord, in all the circumstances of the case, has provided a reasonable response.

45. In this case, the landlord’s final response identified, following the resident’s reports and following its scrutiny of the original major works programme, that it had in fact charged the resident for insulation works that had not been carried out. It apologised for its lack of ownership on the issue and agreed to ensure that the works were completed.

46. However, following the completion of the complaints process, the landlord informed the resident that the insulation works had actually already been completed as the major works could not have progressed without them having taken place. The resident was left to question the landlord’s position, which she did successfully, with a conclusion that the landlord would chase up the sign off documents for the major works before responding, though it was not clear how these documents were going to assist the landlord in providing the clarity that had eluded it thus far.

47. There is evidence that the landlord obtained these sign-off documents, though no evidence of any further progression on the insulation works. As such, a finding of service failure has been identified here in respect of the landlord’s response. It did not respond appropriately as its overall message was both confusing and contradictory and it is not clear if the insulation works remain outstanding. In the Ombudsman’s view, providing this clarity in its written report will offer the resident transparency whilst a further compensation payment will reflect the additional distress/inconvenience experienced.

Service charge communication

48. The costs of major works are an understandable concern for any leaseholder. In this case, the resident’s concerns were heightened by the fact that the ongoing programme of works nearly doubled the overall costs when the roof renewal works were identified. It is essential that a landlord handle these issues directly and formally, progressing through an appropriate process that clarifies resident responsibility, outlines options and progresses in a timely manner. It is also essential that it supports this process with accurate and timely communication and that it acts in an empathetic and responsive manner, taking into account the difficult situation that the resident finds themselves in.

49. In this case, it is not clear that the landlord’s service standards reached a satisfactory level. The available email correspondence includes several instances of the resident responding to the landlord’s bills in a timely manner, at least from 15 May when the landlord issued notices about possible legal action. She requested details about her payment options, confirmed that she would accept the option of a discretionary loan and acknowledged the additional fee that this would incur. She also chased up progress, suggesting that, as far as she was aware, she had provided all relevant documentation.

50. However, within two weeks, the landlord sent further notices (to both the resident and her mortgage provider) stating that legal action would proceed if it did not hear from her promptly. The resident immediately raised concerns about these notices as she understood herself as having taken the necessary steps and when the landlord responded, it was not clear whether it was acknowledging that she had in fact already provided this information, or whether she still had more to provide. In the circumstances, the resident had a reasonable expectation that the landlord would provide the clarity she sought, it is clear that she was aware of the debt and the need to make payment and her contact with the landlord presented as someone looking to achieve a resolution.

51. The landlord’s final response did not identify any service failure, stating that the resident had not provided documentation as required and that she had been provided with the relevant options at the time she was invoiced. The Ombudsman is not able to conclude whether the resident had in fact provided the relevant information by the time that the landlord sent its July notices, however, the lack of clarity in the landlord’s response to the resident on this issue leads to a conclusion that it did not fully respond to her and nor did its complaint investigation thoroughly investigate this issue. As such, a finding of service failure, together with a small amount of compensation has been ordered.

Complaints handling

52. The landlord’s two stage complaints process took more than ten months to complete. This presents as an excessive delay against its published timescales of 15/25 working days at stages one and two of the complaints process. Whilst there is evidence that at least part of this delay was agreed with the resident whilst she was away from her home, it remains that it took too long for the case to progress to a conclusion.

53. The Ombudsman has identified that the landlord’s complaints team, on the whole, acted responsively to the resident throughout the process. However, the complaints team was let down by a lack of accountability elsewhere and a failure to respond promptly to direct questions. It is also of concern that, despite the length of time taken to compete the complaints process, issues remained outstanding at its completion.

54. Whilst the overall response from a complaints handling perspective did not reach a satisfactory standard, the compensation paid by the landlord following the completion of the complaints process (£250) for the resident’s time and trouble in the pursuit of the complaint, presents as a reasonable remedy for the additional distress and inconvenience she experienced.

Determination (decision)

55. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), there was maladministration with respect to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about water ingress.

56. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure with respect to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about works charged for, but not completed as part of the major works programme.

57. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure with respect to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about service charge payments.

58. In accordance with paragraph 55 b of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress for the service failures identified with its complaints handling.

Reasons

59. The landlord delayed excessively in resolving the repair issues from the roof area at the building. It demonstrated a lack of accountability, a lack of customer focus, poor communication throughout and its decision to not consider compensation was inappropriate given the extent of the distress and inconvenience the resident had reported.

60. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about works she had been charged for were not clear. It acknowledged at the completion of the complaints process that it had charged for works which it had not completed, but then contradicted itself in its subsequent correspondence with the resident. It remains unclear whether the insulation works it identified as outstanding have ever been completed.

61. The landlord’s responses to the issue of service charge payment lacked clarity and did not present as a full and through investigation of the issue.

62. The landlord’s offer of compensation for time and trouble reflected the significant service failures identified with its handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

63. The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £1,650, broken down as follows:

a)     £1,400 for the excessive delay in resolving the water ingress issues at the property (calculated at £50 per month of this delay, plus an additional amount to reflect decoration costs incurred by the resident).

b)     £150 for the service failures relating to its response to the resident’s reports about chargeable works.

c)     £100 for the service failures identified with the landlord’s response to the service charge payment issue.

64. The landlord to provide a written report to both the resident and this Service, outlining all of the repairs that have been completed to the roof area since the resident’s initial report of September 2018. This report to confirm any outstanding works, including timescales for resolution and how they will be funded. The report will also cover the insulation works it highlighted as outstanding in its final complaint response. The landlord to share the findings of this report with its repairs/major works/service charge teams.

65. The landlord to comply with the above orders by 12 November 2021.

Recommendation

66. The landlord to review how it will manage repair issues when they occur within a warranty period following major works. This review to place particular emphasis on water ingress issues and internal communication.