Southwark Council (202125127)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125127

Southwark Council

9 October 2022


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 handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of repairs to her front and back doors.
    2. The formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident initially reported a gap between the back door and the frame on 14 January 2020. She then reported on 29 June 2021, that her front door would not close properly.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 10 August 2021 as a contractor had attended on 31 January 2020 for her back door, but no further appointments had been attended due to COVID-19. She said the back door had fallen on two occasions and had almost hit her daughter. She also said the front door repair was still outstanding.
  4. In the landlord’s complaint response on 28 March 2022, it acknowledged the delays in both repairs, but said that there had been nationwide supply issues with doors, as COVID had impacted the supply chain. It said the contractor had been in regular communication with supplier but had been unable to provide an estimated time for delivery. It acknowledged the inconvenience caused by the delays, but determined they were beyond the landlord’s control. It said that the repairs would now be more effectively monitored.
  5. In the resident’s complaint to this Service she said she remained dissatisfied as the repairs to the back door were still outstanding. She also said that the landlord had advised it would only consider compensation after the work had been completed.

Assessment and findings

  1. In accordance with the landlord’s repair guide, it is responsible for repairs to the structure and outside of the property. As a result, the landlord is responsible for investigating the resident’s reports of faulty doors and completing any required repairs. Its repairs guide states that emergency repairs will be carried out within 24 hours, and non-urgent repairs will be completed within 20 working days. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident reported there was a security risk to the property as a result of the faulty doors, so the repairs would be considered non-urgent.
  2. The resident reported that there was a gap between the back door and the frame on 14 January 2020. The landlord initially responded in line with its repair timeframe as it attended on 31 January 2020. A temporary repair was completed, but the contractor determined a specialist contractor was required.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 20 June 2021 asking if the works were able to resume. This indicates that the resident was advised there would be a delay in completing the work, however, it is unclear when she was advised of this, if the landlord provided any reasons for the delay or if it managed her expectations regarding when the work would be completed.
  4. The landlord should have clear communication records, particularly if it has advised the resident of any reasons for delays in repairs. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
  5. In her complaint on 10 August 2021, the resident said that the back door had fallen twice, once almost hitting her daughter (the landlord later confirmed this was the rear door) which is a clear safety concern.
  6. The landlord advised the resident on 29 September 2021 that it was not completing door repairs during COVID-19 lockdowns. While this was a reasonable position for the landlord to take, it should have ensured that it provided clear communication once the lockdown had been lifted to advise of the estimated timeframe of works.
  7. In its stage two response, the landlord said the repair to the back door was passed onto its specialist contractor on 7 October 2021, a contractor attended on 26 November 2021 and the door was “left in best possible working order”. The landlord exceeded its 20-day response time to complete this temporary repair, despite the fact the resident reported it was a safety issue.
  8.  The landlord stated in its stage two response that a further works order had been raised on 28 March 2022 to complete repairs to the back door. On 26 July 2022, the resident advised this Service that the repair to the back door was still temporary, and she remained dissatisfied.
  9. The resident reported that the handle on her front door had broken and the door frame was damaged on 29 June 2021. The landlord responded promptly, an appointment attended on 9 July 2021. It was identified that a specialist contractor was required and a follow-on appointment was scheduled for 16 July 2021. In its stage two response, the landlord stated that there were several missed appointments on 7 October 2021, 27 October 2021 and 15 March 2022.
  10. The resident is responsible for ensuring she is at the property in order to provide access for repair work. However, with regards to the appointment on 7 October 2021, the landlord’s internal emails indicate that the resident had not been informed of the appointment beforehand, despite the landlord being aware that the resident would be at work. This was inappropriate as the landlord should ensure that it provides sufficient notice before attending appointments and that the time is suitable for the resident.
  11. The landlord’s repair records show that the repair to the resident’s front door was completed on 6 May 2022. It took over ten months to complete this repair, which significantly exceeded the landlord’s repair response timeframe.
  12. In its stage two response, the landlord acknowledged the delay in both repairs to the front and back door. It stated delays were caused by the impact of COVID-19 and a nationwide supply issue with doors. When there are appropriate reasons for why the landlord’s repair timeframe cannot be met, the landlord is expected to keep the resident reasonably updated, complete the repair as soon as possible and complete interim solutions if appropriate.
  13. In this case the reasons for some of the delays outlined by the landlord were appropriate, as the landlord would not have control over the supply chain of doors and the impact of COVID-19. However, there is no evidence that the resident was provided with this information prior to the landlord’s complaint response. The landlord is expected to reasonably manage the resident’s expectations regarding when the repairs will be completed, which it failed to so, resulting in the resident having to spend additional time and effort in chasing the completion of the work.
  14.  Whilst it was reasonable that the landlord completed temporary repairs to the back door, this should not be in place of a permanent repair. The landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations regarding what further repairs were required to the back door, or to provide a timescale for the works. The resident experienced significant delays in the completion of the works to the back door and there is no evidence that these works have been completed. The landlord said in its stage two response that it would more effectively monitor the outstanding repair; however, there is no evidence of any updates provided to the resident.
  15. The landlord advised the resident on 29 September 2021, that it would consider awarding compensation for any delays outside of lockdowns. Despite this, there is no evidence that the landlord has awarded any compensation to the resident. Given the length of the delays, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to award interim compensation for the time and effort the resident had already incurred in pursuing the repairs, and then to have reviewed the level of compensation once the repair had been completed.
  16. In accordance with this Service’s remedy guidance, awards of £250-£700 are appropriate in cases where there has been a “failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs”. In this case, the landlord exceeded its repairs timeframe to repair the front door and significantly exceeded its repair timeframe, by over two years, to complete repairs to the back door. There is also no evidence that the repair to the back door has since been completed.
  17. As a result of its failings, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident and pay £300 compensation. If the repair to the back door is still outstanding, the landlord is to provide the resident with a clear plan of how it intends to complete the works, including a timeframe, and to consider whether additional compensation might be appropriate for any further delays.

Complaint handling

  1. In accordance with the landlord’s complaint policy, it should respond to stage one complaints within 15 working days and stage two complaints within 25 working days.
  2. The resident raised a complaint on 10 August 2021. The resident chased the complaint three times during September 2021 as she had not received a response from the landlord. The landlord emailed the resident on 4 October 2021 and stated it had tried to call her regarding the complaint. However, the landlord has advised this Service that it did not issue a stage one response. Following correspondence from the resident, this Service asked the landlord to issue a response on 15 February 2022 and the landlord subsequently sent a stage two acknowledgement on 16 February 2022.
  3. The landlord emailed the resident on 24 March 2022 and apologised for the delay in its response and issued its stage two response on 28 March 2022. Overall, it took over seven months before the resident received a response, thus causing significant additional time and effort to the resident in pursuing both the complaint and the outstanding repairs.
  4. In accordance with this Service’s complaint handling code, landlords should have a two-stage complaint procedure. As the landlord failed to issue a stage one response, the resident did not have the opportunity to dispute any of the landlord’s findings, or raise any additional concerns following the landlord’s response. This would particularly be an issue if the landlord has provided additional new information, or if the resident felt an issue had been overlooked, as the resident would not have been given sufficient opportunity to respond.
  5. Having a further complaint stage also allows for a review at a more senior level, bringing a wider perspective and level of expertise to a complaint, and may ensure full consideration of both sides of a complaint. The landlord is to therefore review its staff training requirements, to ensure that complaints are properly reviewed and responded to at both stages.
  6. The landlord is also to review the timescales given in its complaint handling policy. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code states that stage one responses should be issued within ten working days and stage two responses should be issued within 20 working days.
  7. In line with this Service’s remedy guidance awards of £50-£250 are appropriate in cases where the landlord has failed to meet targets for actions and response. As a result of the outlined failings, and the impact on the resident, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250 compensation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s reports of repairs to her front door and back door.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the formal complaint.

Orders

  1. That within 28 calendar days of this report, the landlord is to:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £550 compensation, made up as follows:
      1. £300 for the failures identified in this report with regards to its handling of the repairs to the resident’s doors.
      2. £250 compensation for its complaint handling failures.
    2. To provide evidence that it has completed the repairs to the back door and if it has not to provide the resident with a clear plan of how it intends to complete the works, including a timeframe. The landlord is also to consider whether additional compensation might be appropriate in the case of any further delays.
    3. Review its staff training requirements to ensure that complaints are properly reviewed and responded to at both stages.
    4. Reviews its complaint policy response timeframes in relation to this Service’s complaint handling code.