Southwark Council (202103844)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103844

Southwark Council

11 March 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 report of a leak.
    2. The subsequent complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord in a fourth floor flat.
  2. According to later correspondence between the landlord and the resident, a leak began in her bathroom on 3 October 2020. We have not been provided with evidence of when the leak was reported. 
  3. On 8 October 2020, the landlord raised a work order to “trace and remedy leak”, which, according to its later stage two complaint response, had a completion target date of 19 October 2020.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord on 10 November 2020 to raise a complaint regarding its handling of the leak in her bathroom, as she had not been kept updated on the repairs.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 11 November 2020. In its undated response, following a conversation with the resident, the landlord said a roofing contractor had undertaken a minor repair and further repairs had been identified. It said it would also undertake “a CCTV drain survey to check both the down-pipes and drainage stack”. An appointment had been scheduled for 7 December 2020 to inspect the plumbing pipework in the properties above the resident. It said it would continue to monitor the repair and provided a direct contact number for if she encountered any further problems.
  6. The landlord raised a further work order on 12 November 2020 to inspect a possible leak from the roof/ guttering, as the leak only occurred when it rained.
  7. The resident emailed the landlord on 16 November 2020. The email demonstrated that the resident had been informed by the landlord it could not access the flat above as the leaseholder was not in the country.
  8. The resident emailed the landlord on 23 December 2020 asking it to escalate her complaint, she did not provide any information regarding why she was dissatisfied. In a further email on 29 December 2020, she said she “reported a leak at the beginning of October and have been given various excuses why they cannot repair it, even though they know where it is coming from”. She said the landlord said it could not gain access to the property above, but she disputed this and said she had informed it “there is someone there all day” and provided the contact details for the leaseholder. She stated the outstanding repairs were impacting her health. The landlord internally acknowledged this as an escalation request on 29 December 2020 but did not send an acknowledgment to the resident.
  9. On 24 January 2021, the resident’s doctor sent a letter to the landlord outlining her health conditions and how the property conditions, due to the leak, were impacting her health.
  10. The landlord’s internal emails between 1 February and 9 February 2021 discussed an access issue with the property above the resident’s and how best to proceed with assessing the source of the leak, and the repairs.
  11. An internal email on 9 February 2021 states “the roof, rain water pipes and gutters have all been extensively checked” so it recommended inspection of the property above.
  12. The resident emailed the landlord on 17 February 2021 and stated the landlord had informed her that delays had been caused as it could not gain access to the property above hers. It is unclear when she was informed of this.
  13. An internal email on 23 February 2021 stated that the source of the leak was the rainwater pipe. A work order was subsequently raised to “renew rain water down pipe” as it had a large crack, and it leaks when It rains. It required access to two other flats to complete the work.
  14. According to the landlord’s later stage two complaint response, the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 25 February 2021. It summarised the complaint as her dissatisfaction with the failure to resolve the water penetration from the flat above in a reasonable timeframe, and the subsequent damage to her bathroom wall decorations. We have not been provided with evidence of the resident escalating her complaint on this date.
  15. A work order was raised on 24 March 2021 for follow-on works to remove more of the wall to access the pipework in the neighbour’s property. The landlord’s stage two response stated this was raised after a contractor had attended and “was unable to complete the repair due to the large scope of works”.
  16. The landlord sent its stage two response on 1 April 2021. It reiterated the actions it had already taken and said it had scheduled an appointment for 8 April 2021 to temporarily remove the toilet and part of the wall so the rainwater down pipe could be renewed. It said it exceeded its target completion date to identify the source of the leak by 17 weeks and as a result it offered £85 compensation. It also offered her £65 for time and trouble. It signposted her to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
  17. Following correspondence with the resident, her MP emailed the landlord on 18 May 2021 and asked when the repairs would be completed. In its undated response the landlord stated it had determined the leak to be “caused by an internal rainwater pipe” from the flat above. An appointment had been scheduled on 4 June 2021 to “ensure that the pipework can be accessed from both properties through a wall which must be broken out and by removal of the toilet pans in both properties above”. Follow on works were scheduled for 10 June 2021 and 11 June 2021 to complete the repairs. It said remedial works would be completed after the leak was resolved.
  18. The work order to “renew rainwater down pipe” was marked as completed on 15 June 2021. 

Assessment and findings 

  1. The lease agreement states the landlord is responsible “to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the flat and of the building (including drains, gutters, and external pipes) and to make good any defects affecting that structure”.
  2. The landlord’s tenancy handbook states non- emergency repairs will be completed within 20 working days.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy states:
    1. It will acknowledge complaints in three working days.
    2. It will respond to stage one complaints in 15 working days and stage two complaints in 25 working days.

Repairs

  1. The resident has referenced how the leak impacted her health, and her doctor provided a letter to the landlord to discuss the health implications it had on her. Unfortunately, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts as the courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. It therefore will not be assessed within this report. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
  2. In accordance with the lease agreement, the landlord is responsible for maintaining external pipes in the building, including rainwater pipes. The landlord would therefore be expected to inspect the leak within a reasonable period and identify what was needed to resolve it. The landlord’s tenancy handbook states that non-emergency repairs should be complete within 20 working days. While all best efforts should be made by the landlord to adhere to the timeframe, in some cases delays may be avoidable. In this case, due to the nature of a rainwater pipe leak being intermittent, and as the landlord explained to the resident it had issues accessing the flat above, the landlord incurred delays in identifying the source of the leak. The landlord made several attempts to identify the source of the leak as it completed a CCTV drain survey and inspected a possible leak from the roof/ guttering. It completed initial tests promptly, but the resident was advised in November 2020 that further delays would be experienced as it was unable to access the flat above. The landlord took reasonable action, and internally discussed how best to handle the issue, but ultimately the delays appear to have been unavoidable, as it was unable to access the above flat until February 2021. As a result, it took over four months to identify the source of the leak, which exceeded the landlord’s repairs timeframe. In view of the delay, the landlord acted appropriately and used its discretion to offer £85 as a goodwill gesture as it recognised the general distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  3. Once the leak was identified, the landlord raised the relevant follow-on works in a reasonable timeframe. The source of the leak was identified on 23 February 2021 and a work order was raised the same day to remedy it. A contractor attended and due to the large scope of the works a further work order was raised on 24 March 2021, and an appointment was scheduled for 8 April 2021. In the landlord’s email to the resident’s MP, it said further works were scheduled for 4 June 2021, 10 June 2021, and 11 June 2021, as it required access to three properties. While the landlord should aim to adhere to typical repair timeframes, there are often times when there are relevant reasons exceeding them. In this case, the scope of the repair works changed, meaning that further appointments had to be raised and major works, involving multiple properties, had to be completed. When timeframes cannot be adhered to, a landlord’s primary focus should be on taking clear and appropriate steps to resolve the issue in a reasonable timeframe, keeping the resident appropriately up to date, and managing their expectations. In this case, the landlord promptly raised work orders and arranged further appointments when it identified that follow on works were required.
  4. The landlord has not provided this Service with evidence documenting updates to the resident. However, it is apparent that she received updates about the repairs to some extent, as her emails to the landlord often comment on information she had recently received about them. Once repairs started updates were provided via correspondence with the resident’s MP, and it seems, at the appointments. Overall, the landlord’s communication does not appear to have been as consistent or clear as it should have been, and this caused the resident additional time and trouble chasing the repairs. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge this and offer compensation. Its offer of £65 compensation, along with the £85 offered for the repair delays, was not unreasonable in the circumstances. The total amount was broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant, but not of a long duration. 

Complaint Handling

  1. The landlord must ensure that it handles complaints in accordance with its complaint handling policy, which states that stage two complaints must be responded to within 25 working days. In its complaint response it stated that the resident’s complaint escalation was received on 25 February 2021, however the resident sent an email to the landlord asking it to escalate her complaint on 23 December 2020, which the landlord both responded to and internally acknowledged. It is unclear from the evidence why the landlord failed to escalate the complaint at this stage, and what prompted it to escalate it at the later date, as we have not been provided with evidence of the escalation request on 25 February 2021 and there is no evidence to suggest the resident withdrew her initial escalation. It therefore took the landlord 68 working days to respond to the stage two complaint, which clearly exceeds the landlord’s complaint timeframe and caused additional time and effort for the resident pursuing the complaint. The landlord failed to recognise or apologise for the delay in its response and as a result, this element of the complaint is unresolved.
  2. In its stage two complaint response the landlord acknowledged that damage to decorations was part of the resident’s complaint escalation. However, it failed to actually address and respond to the issue. The landlord is expected to address all aspects of a complaint, outline its responsibilities, and explain any actions it has taken and intends to take to resolve the issue, which it failed to do.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. In light of the landlord’s complaint handling failures, and the additional time and effort caused to the resident, the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £100 within four weeks of this report. Evidence of payment must be provided to this Service by the deadline.
  2. This payment is in addition to the £150 compensation already offered to the resident by the landlord, which should also be paid now if it has not already been.