Southwark Council (202008046)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008046

Southwark Council

29 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 of:
    1. The temperature at the property and the need for replacement heaters.
    2. Its complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background and policies.

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord at the property, a two-bedroom terrace. The resident is subject to the terms and conditions contained in the tenancy agreement. The landlord is a local authority.
  2. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. The policy requires that complainants are kept updated throughout the complaints process. If the resident makes a complaint at the first stage, the landlord should formally respond within 15 working days. If the resident is dissatisfied with the response, the resident can request a formal review of the decision and a response should be provided within 25 working days.
  3. The landlord’s tenants’ handbook outlines that it is the landlord responsibility to repair and maintain the heating at the property. The policy highlights that it is the resident’s responsibility to prevent condensation by adequately heating and allowing for proper ventilation.
  4. The handbook also outlines the response times for different types of repairs; it aims to attend to routine repairs within 20 working days of the issue being reported.
  5. Under the landlord’s compensation policy a payment of up to £250 can be made  for the time and trouble and inconvenience in resolving a complaint, this could include a payment for the landlord failing to respond to contact from a resident.

Summary of Events

  1. On 13 September 2019, the resident made a stage one complaint to the landlord in relation to the heating at the property. She advised that the radiators were too small and that the radiator in the living room had a small leak and the valve was broken so it could not be turned off.
  2. On 19 September 2019, the landlord arranged for a heat survey and inspection to be performed at the property. The Heating Inspector advised that based on its heating calculations the radiators position and size were correct and adequate to heat the property. A work order was raised for the living room radiator to be replaced. The landlord advised that it would monitor the situation throughout the winter months and that the resident should contact it when the outside temperatures were below 11 degrees for further checks.
  3. On 30 September 2019, the landlord issued the resident with its stage one response and advised that its Heating Inspector determined that the radiators were adequate; however it advised that it would monitor the situation throughout the winter months. It advised that it had arranged for the living room radiator to be replaced by 7 October 2019 and apologised for any inconvenience.
  4. On 8 October 2019, contractors attended the resident’s property and replaced the radiator in the living room and performed checks on the radiators size and function in the rest of the property and determined that they were adequate.
  5. On 17 October 2019, the resident contacted the landlord and asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage two of its complaints process. She advised that the landlord had failed to respond to her complaint that the radiator in the box room was too small and the radiator in the kitchen was too close to the cupboard. She also asked for a complaint to be raised in regard to the lack of contact from the landlord in relation to her complaint.
  6. On 18 October 2019, the landlord confirmed with its contractors that the radiators position and size were correct and adequate to heat the property.
  7. On 13 November 2019, the resident contacted the landlord and advised that she had not received any information regarding her complaint escalation.
  8. On 10 December 2019, the landlord contacted the resident and advised that it would provide its stage two response by 17 January 2020.
  9. On 11 December 2019, the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property and performed a heat survey. It advised that it was satisfied that all radiators worked properly and sufficiently heated the property. It advised that there was no evidence of damp and noted that the resident had all windows and trickle vents closed. It advised the resident that she would need to heat the house morning, afternoon and evening for a couple of hours to maintain a constant heat.
  10. On 13 December 2019, the landlord issued the resident with its stage two final response and addressed the following:
    1. The heating specialist that attended on 11 December 2019 determined that all the radiators were adequate and heated the property sufficiently. It stated that the Heating Team had offered to send a different inspector to gain a second opinion but the resident refused this offer.
    2. It advised that it would not be able to swap the kitchen radiator with the one in the box room as the radiators concerned would not be the correct size. It also conveyed that it would not be necessary as the box room radiator worked sufficiently.
    3. It acknowledged that there was some delay in its operatives responding to the resident’s calls due to them being on annual leave and it apologised for the resident’s inconvenience, however it determined that all other communication had been in a timely manner.

Assessment and findings

The temperature at the property and the need for replacement heaters.

  1. The role of the Ombudsman in this situation is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns, in line with relevant policies, procedures and good practice. It is accepted by all parties that it was the landlord’s responsibility to repair and maintain the heating at the property and that it was therefore necessary for the landlord to investigate the resident’s reports.
  1. The resident first raised the heating issue to the landlord on 13 September 2019, the landlord took a resolution focused and a heating survey and inspection was performed at the property on 19 September 2019. It was established that there was an issue with the radiator in the living room and the landlord appropriately replaced this on 8 October 2019. The actions taken by the landlord were appropriate to address the heating issue at the property and in line with its repair’s obligations.
  2. The resident raised further concerns to the landlord in October 2019 about the size and placement of radiators and the lack of response by the landlord. The landlord appropriately had contractors assess the size and efficiency on two separate occasions and it was determined on each occasion the heating system was sufficiently operational and there were no indications that it was not performing as required. The landlord fittingly offered to get a second opinion however this was refused by the resident. The landlord advised the resident that it would not swap her kitchen and box room radiators due to the size difference which was reasonable because it had not identified any issues with these radiators or the heating in these rooms. The landlord appropriately apologised for the delay in its operative responding to the resident’s calls due to being on annual leave, as the delay was small and there was no significant detriment to the resident an apology was appropriate to remedy the failure.
  3. It is appreciated that the resident believes that the heating system was not working properly and is frustrated by the landlord’s position. However, the landlord is entitled to rely on the professional opinion of its suitably qualified staff in confirming its position on any investigation into the functioning of the system. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to follow its contractor’s reports that on each occasion it visited, the heating system was working as it should be. In doing so, the landlord remained compliant with its repairing obligations. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary (beyond the resident’s own opinion) the landlord’s final position was satisfactory.
  4. Overall, the landlord appropriately investigated the resident’s complaints in relation to the heating at the property and performed a number of heating inspections and surveys to identify any issues at the property. When a defect was identified the landlord acted promptly and completed repairs in a reasonable timeframe. 

Its complaints handling.

  1. The documentation provided shows the initial complaint by the resident was made on 13 September 2019 and the landlord provided a response on 30 September 2019 which was appropriate and inline with its complaints process.
  2. The resident asked for a review of the decision on 17 October 2019 and the landlord progressed the complaint and provided its stage two final response on 13 December 2020. This represents a 3-week delay in the landlord providing the resident with its stage two response. The landlord should have communicated any delay with the resident as the length of time that passed was not appropriate or in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. The delay caused the resident noted distress as she had to chase the response and only then did she receive a confirmation from the landlord. The landlord failed to offer an apology or explanation for the delay and also failed to offer any financial compensation which would be expected for such a failure.
  3. Overall, the landlord failed to provide a stage two response inline with its complaints policy and failed to communicate with the resident about the delay. It did not offer the resident any compensation for its acknowledged failure.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the complaint about the landlord’s response to the landlord’s complaint handling.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the temperature at the property and the need for replacement heaters.

Reasons

  1. The complaint handling by the landlord was not in line with its internal policies at stage two of the complaints procedure. There was a three-week delay in providing the resident with the stage two response and the landlord failed to offer any compensation or explanation for the delay. There were no issues with the complaints handling at stage one of the complaints process.
  2. The landlord actively responded to the resident’s reports about issues with the heating at the property in line with its policies and procedures. The landlord contracted experts to assess the different issues and then made informed decisions on their recommendations.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £50 in respect of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of the highlighted complaint handling failure.
  2. The landlord is asked to make this payment to the resident within 4 weeks and to update this service when payment has been made.