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

Southwark Council (202111944)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111944

Southwark Council

23 November 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a theft and security issues in her building.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the provision of a concierge service.
    3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s assertion that she had not been receiving the window cleaning service.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant. She began her tenancy on 22 May 2017. 
  2. Following receipt of the landlord’s “Notice of Variation of Rent and Other Charges” letter, the resident contacted its Income Housing department on 16 March 2020 querying charges for a concierge service. She highlighted that there was no concierge in place and as such, there were issues with thefts in the block and security concerns which were compounded by the landlord’s delay in repairing the front entrance door. She subsequently requested an explanation on why there was a charge for this.
  3. On the same day, the resident raised a complaint “owing to the poor level of service provided by the Resident Services Officer” (RSO). She explained that between October 2019 and February 2020, she had been requesting assistance with a theft, the non-existent concierge service, the outstanding door repair, and the general security risk, but there had been a lack of willingness to resolve these issues. She also explained that her windows were not being cleaned under the scheduled programme. She noted that the landlord had inspected this for itself on 3 March 2020 but had yet to provide a response.
  4. In the landlord’s stage one response on 8 April 2021 (under reference 2018322), it explained to the resident that a theft from the communal area was considered to be a criminal matter and needed to be reported to the police. It advised that as the CCTV (which the landlord operated) covered the lobby area, however, the system would be interrogated to establish whether there was any evidence captured. The resident was also advised that the concierge service in place covered the external parts of the building and was managed by the managing agents for the block. It suggested that all repairs were dealt with in a timely fashion and asserted that the managing agent had confirmed completion of the window cleaning for the resident’s property as per the schedule.
  5. Dissatisfied with this, the resident escalated her complaint on 27 July 2020. She explained to the landlord that a number of issues remained unresolved, noting the way in which her request for a copy of the CCTV had been handled and the absence of a proper investigation / evidence to verify that her windows had been cleaned. Simultaneously, on the same day, the resident raised a new stage one complaint in the absence of a response from the Income Housing department. The resident advised that she wished to have the service charge for the windows removed so that she could make her own arrangements, and requested that the landlord review the concierge charge as well as offer clarification on what this charge was for.
  6. Under a separate reference (2242837), the landlord provided the resident with a stage one response on 17 August 2020. It reiterated that the concierge service covered the external parts of the building and that it had been advised that the windows had been cleaned. With regards to reference 2018322, the landlord provided a final response on 20 August 2020, in which it again reiterated the scope of the concierge service. It explained it could no longer assist with the CCTV footage requested as this was deleted every 30 days, and repeated its previous position on the resident’s windows. The landlord noted, however, that the resident had been given conflicting information in relation to the CCTV and had waited some time for this. It subsequently made an offer of £50 compensation.
  7. The resident has since advised this Service that she remains dissatisfied with this response. The Ombudsman also notes that she attempted to escalate her other complaint, under reference 2242837, but was advised that as a final response had been issued for reference 2018322 and covered the same matter, no stage two response would be offered. She maintains that it is unclear why she is being charged for a concierge service and does not accept that the window cleaning has been completed according to the schedule. 

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. The resident has raised with this Service that she also seeks clarification on the landlord’s current arrangement with the energy supplier. She has expressed dissatisfaction with an alleged agreement that has resulted in residents being tied to a 25-year arrangement.
  2. As this matter did not form part of her initial complaint, however, and as such, did not exhaust the landlord’s complaints process, this Service is unable to comment on this. The landlord will need to be given the opportunity to respond under its internal complaints procedure before this Service will seek to investigate the matter. This is in line with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme which echoes that the Ombudsman will not investigate a complaint which is made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a theft and security issues in her building.

  1. While it is unclear when the resident first advised the landlord that her parcel had been stolen, it appears that she requested assistance with this matter on 30 October 2019 via her request for CCTV footage of the lobby area. The landlord has recognised that following this, there was a failure to manage the resident’s request appropriately and that conflicting information was given during this time. This was pointed out by the resident who explained that despite being advised on 17 December 2019 that contact had been made with the company who managed the CCTV, and later on 28 February 2020 that the CCTV did not in fact cover the property, in the stage one response on 15 April 2020 it was explained that the CCTV for the lobby was managed by the landlord itself.
  2. It was appropriate that the landlord accepted that this would have been confusing for the resident and demonstrated a clear failure in communication. It was later determined that it could not assist the resident with the footage due to this being deleted every 30 days. Recognising that the resident had been waiting for clarification on this matter since October 2019, the landlord subsequently provided her with an apology and £50 compensation. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, however, the landlord’s offer of compensation was not sufficient to account for the infrequent communication which was only prompted by the resident chasing the matter, the misinformation given to the resident, the length of time she was made to wait only to be informed that she would not be provided with the requested footage, and the disappointment this would have resulted in. The compensation offer was not proportionate to the oversight.
  3. The Ombudsman has also noted the resident’s assertion that the main communal door had been in need of repair for a significant length of time. While the landlord has not provided this Service with a record of this, it was not disputed that the resident initially raised this in October 2019.
  4. On receipt of this, and given that the resident experienced concern about the security risk posed to residents, the landlord could have set out within its complaint responses how it had ensured that unauthorised individuals could not access the premises, and any works it had taken since the resident’s report. Instead, however, the landlord only highlighted that in general, all repairs were dealt with in a timely manner. This was unhelpful. The resident has advised this Service that the door was not repaired until May 2020, several months after the issue was brought to the landlord’s attention. While the Ombudsman is unable to corroborate this in the absence of evidence, it can be inferred that the matter remained outstanding at least until the time of the resident’s stage one complaint in March 2020. This was inappropriate. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was a failure to provide the resident with assurance that the right steps had been taken to secure the block at a time when she had reported the theft of a parcel. Although the landlord’s advice that thefts were a matter for the police was appropriate, its handling of this as a whole was unsatisfactory.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the provision of a concierge service.

  1. Where the amount, increase, or reasonableness of a service charge is disputed, the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) would be the most appropriate body for resolution. In this case, however, it is noted that the resident only complained about the existence of the “concierge” itself, and sought an understanding of the services she was paying for.
  2. The Ombudsman appreciates that there could be some confusion, due to the terminology used. The landlord’s concierge service is not what one might reasonably consider a ‘concierge’ by definition, in that there is no reception desk or ‘visible’ staff for the residents living at the block. It is clear that this has added to the issue of contention.
  3. The Ombudsman is aware that in 2019, the resident made a similar enquiry about the services provided as part of the concierge charge and that this became a complaint which ultimately exhausted the landlord’s process on 13 September 2019. It appears that the resident was satisfied with the landlord’s response at this time as the matter was not escalated to this Service.
  4. In both her stage one complaint and her query to the Income Housing team (in March 2020), however, the resident expressed further confusion and concern as to why she was still paying for a “non-existent” concierge. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord explained this in its stage one response, setting out that the service paid for covered the external parts of the building and was managed by a managing agent.
  5. Although the resident did not raise this issue as a matter which remained unresolved in her request for the landlord to escalate matters to stage two (on 27 July 2020), in a separate complaint on the same day, she did request that the landlord review the service charge and offer clarification on what the charges were for. It therefore would have been reasonable for the landlord to have addressed this. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord did offer a separate stage one response in which it sought to comment on this. At this time, however, it provided the resident with no further information and failed to acknowledge her request for a review of the service charges. This was inappropriate. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this would have been a good opportunity for the landlord to have also shared the concierge service agreement and details of how the managing agent operated. No further details were provided by the landlord, however. The Ombudsman is aware that the resident was advised that the service agreement would be shared in early 2021 but did not take place.
  6. Whilst the resident is obliged to pay for services that have been agreed, in accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement, there should also be clarity and transparency as to precisely what the charges are for and an identifiable difference in how they differ from other similar or identically named services. The Ombudsman is not satisfied that the landlord made this clear for the resident. In the Ombudsman’s view, as well as the information being limited, and the resident’s request for a review of the charges being ignored, there was a lack of transparency which could have been avoided through the provision of the service agreement.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s assertion that she had not been receiving the window cleaning service.

  1. Under the resident’s tenancy, window cleaning was also supposed to be a service received as part of living at the block and one which she was charged for. Historically, however, the resident reported that this was not being done, and subsequently, following a complaint in 2019, a refund was arranged.  
  2. It therefore should have been of particular concern to the landlord, where the resident again raised that she was still not receiving the window cleaning service, and provided pictures to support this. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord responded to this within its stage one response, setting out that on consulting the managing agent, it had been confirmed that the windows had been cleaned in both November 2019 and February 2020. It appears that the landlord also visited the resident’s property in March 2020 to view her windows for itself, but it is unclear what it found at this time.
  3. Given that the resident then went on to raise further concerns that despite arrangements to clean her windows in April 2021, these too failed to go ahead, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have sought to obtain evidence of the service. It was useful that the landlord explained the (abseiling) technique used by the window cleaners, to highlight how this could take place without the resident witnessing it or providing access. This, however, was not proof that the clean took place.
  4. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether or not this did or did not take place. In light of the historic issue, however, in which it was also initially claimed that cleaning had taken place before being proven wrong, the landlord should have engaged in greater investigation and/or provided the resident with some evidence to confirm its position and to verify that the service was going ahead. This Service has not been provided with the schedule for cleaning or any records indicating the completion of jobs over this period, and has also seen no internal evidence from the managing agent to verify their assertions. It seems that the landlord only relied on the managing agents insistence. The Ombudsman is subsequently not satisfied that this matter was dealt with fairly.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. The Ombudsman notes that there was a slight delay in the landlord providing its stage one response, following the resident’s complaint on 16 March 2020. Its apology was proportionate, however, in recognising that while its complaints policy explains that it will respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days, this was not provided until 8 April 2021.
  2. With this said, this Service does not believe that the appropriate approach was taken where the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, and sought to escalate the matter, while simultaneously raising a similar but separate complaint. It is unclear why the landlord took the decision to provide the resident with a further stage one response covering the same matters, rather than addressing this under the same complaint.
  3. In the Ombudsman’s view, this was contrary to good practice and would have resulted in some confusion. It is clear to this Service that the landlord recognised for itself that the content of the complaint (under reference 2242837) was the same as the complaint it was already dealing with (under reference 2018322). This is evidenced in its later correspondence in which the resident sought to escalate complaint 2242837, but was advised that this would not take place on the basis that it had already addressed this matter under reference 2018322. The Ombudsman has subsequently concluded that the landlord could have managed the resident’s complaints better.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. A service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a theft and security issues in her building.
    2. A service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the provision of a concierge service.
    3. A service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s assertion that she had not been receiving the window cleaning service.
    4. A service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to award the resident £450. This is made up of:
    1. £150 in recognition of its handling of the resident’s CCTV request and security concerns. This amount should replace the £50 already offered to the resident.
    2. £100 for the time, trouble, and absence of full information regarding the concierge service being offered.
    3. £150 to reflect the landlord’s approach to the resident’s concerns about the cleaning of her windows. While this Service is unable to determine whether the cleaning was or was not undertaken, and therefore cannot order the landlord to refund the charges, an order can be made to reflect the absence of a reasonable investigation and evidence.
    4. £50 in recognition of its handling of the resident’s complaint.
  2. If it has not already, the landlord should provide the resident with a copy of the concierge service agreement / managing agent responsibilities which her service charge pays for. This should enable her to fully understand the charge should she wish to take things further.
  3. The landlord should comply with the above orders, and provide this Service with evidence of this, within four weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should ensure that a robust record is kept of the window cleaning jobs that are completed for each property. Where disputes begin to occur, the landlord may wish to require resident sign-off to confirm that the job has taken place.
  2. As the resident has suggested that she seeks to arrange her own window cleaning, given that she no longer trusts the service being provided, the landlord should discuss this with her. The Ombudsman appreciates that removal of this service may not be possible.