Southwark Council (202200714)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200714

Southwark Council

27 February 2023


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 response to reports of leaks into the property.
  2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident, who is a leaseholder, advised that she first reported damp in the property on 28 June 2021. The property was inspected on 12 July and 23 July 2021; however, no follow-up appointments or repairs were made. On 16 August 2021, the resident employed a private leak detection engineer at her own cost in order to find the source of the leak. It was determined that the leak originated from a property upstairs as the result of a burst pipe. However, on 31 August 2021, a contractor attended on behalf of the landlord and advised that the leak came from faulty tiling from the flat above, rather than a burst pipe as the private engineer had determined. The contractor also advised that the upstairs property also had leaks from the roof each time it rained, which may have contributed to the leak in the resident’s property.
  2. The resident submitted a formal complaint on 6 September 2021, in which she outlined the events above, and advised the landlord that she was seeking compensation for the damage caused by the leak, and the delay in investigating the cause. Additionally, she explained that she wanted the underlying cause of the leak to be resolved, along with written confirmation.
  3. Work was carried out to the roof, and although no specific date has been given, the correspondence provided would suggest that the work was completed at the beginning of November 2021. However, it was eventually identified that the main source of the leak was due to a faulty valve in the loft area. This was fixed on 11 November 2021. The landlord acknowledged in its stage one response, of 13 May 2022, that there had been a 15-week delay between the leak being reported and resolved. It offered £175 compensation in recognition of this, made up of £75 for the impact of the delay and £100 for the time and trouble in pursuing the complaint and dealing with the leak.
  4. The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 28 May 2022, in which she expressed that the compensation offered was not sufficient. She advised that she had suffered considerably due to the landlord’s negligence, delayed response, and lack of communication. She also advised that from 31 August 2022, she had stopped using the property as her primary living space due to the mould and damage to the bathroom as a result of the leak. In its final response of 25 August 2022, the landlord increased the compensation offer by £125, which brought the total offered to £300.
  5. The resident advised this Service that the cost of the private contractor that she had hired, and the cost of petrol whilst travelling between the property and her temporary accommodation was £643.76. She felt that the landlord should reimburse this, as well as offer £1,000 compensation for distress and inconvenience. She also advised this Service that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint handling, and the amount of time it had taken to reach this stage.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

  1. Clause 3 (1) of the lease obliges the resident, as the leaseholder, to keep the flat and every part thereof (except any part which (the landlord) is obliged to repair under Clause 4, and all walls, sewers, drains, pipes, cables, wires and appurtenances therefore in good and tenantable repair and condition (including decorative repair).
  2. Clause 4 (2) of the lease obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the flat and the building (including drains, gutters and external pipes) and to make good any defect affecting that structure.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy states that a complaint will be acknowledged “by phone or in writing within three working days”. The landlord’s complaints policy also states that “the time limit for a full response is 15 working days for the [stage one] phase and 25 working days for the [stage two] phase.

The landlord’s response to reports of leaks into the property

  1. As the resident is a leaseholder, upon her report of a leak, the landlord would be expected to establish whether the leak was something that it was responsible for under the lease. Having determined the cause of the leak, if the leak was caused by something that the landlord was responsible for, it would be expected to rectify the leak and make good, within a reasonable period of time.
  2. There was a 15-week gap between the leak being identified and resolved. The landlord has acknowledged this, and that there was service failure in its handling of the leak, for which it offered £300 compensation.
  3. As there was no dispute that there was service failure by the landlord, the purpose of this investigation is to determine whether the compensation offered by the landlord was reasonable and appropriate when considering the detriment caused to the resident.
  4. Following the initial report of the leak, the property was inspected several times by the landlord’s contractors, but the source of the leak was not identified. Whilst it is understandable that the resident was frustrated with the time being taken to identify the leak, there is no evidence to suggest that the resident was either advised to seek a private contractor, or that she informed the landlord that she would be doing so. The resident did this of her own accord. It would have been appropriate for the resident to inform the landlord of this decision.
  5. However, it is also clear that this could have been avoided had the landlord maintained regular communication with the resident. The resident advised in her stage one complaint that following the landlord’s visit on 23 July 2021, she had attempted to make contact on multiple occasions in order to notify of an increase to the damage from the leak, and to ask for updates from the landlord. It was not disputed by the landlord that it failed to keep the resident appropriately updated regarding the progress of the works.
  6. Communication is an important part of the landlord’s service delivery, and it is important to ensure that communication is maintained between itself and the resident. Failure to communicate with the resident can have a detrimental impact on the landlord/tenant relationship. It can also make the resident feel as though her complaint was not being taken seriously. This notion was reinforced by the resident’s decision to take matters into her own hands by hiring her own contractor.
  7. Given that the resident chased the landlord on multiple occasions, and also notified the landlord that the damage within the property was getting worse, it was understandable that the resident sought the services of her own private contractor in order to identify the cause of the leak, as the landlord was not responding or providing updates regarding the work. Additionally, once informed that she had done this, the landlord offered no objection. As such, if the resident is able to provide invoices/receipts, it would be appropriate for the landlord to reimburse the costs incurred in securing her own private contractor.
  8. As well as having to pay for her own private contractor, the resident felt that she had suffered significantly due to the landlord’s delayed response and lack of communication. In her stage two escalation request, she explained that she had stopped using the property as her primary living space due to mould and damage to the bathroom.
  9. Mould is a potentially a serious health hazard to the occupants and therefore should be responded to urgently. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the resident informed the landlord that she was not staying in the property, nor is there evidence to suggest that she had informed the landlord of the presence of mould. However, the landlord had been made aware of the damage within the property, such as a bad smell and pooling in the bathroom.
  10. The landlord offered a total of £300 to the resident. £75 of this offer was for the delay in administering the repair, which it advised was in line with its compensation policy. This could be broken down to £5 for each week of delay, but also discounting the 20 working days allowed for solving the issue. However, the damaged caused by the leak was not repaired until February 2022. This meant that £225 was offered in recognition of the time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.
  11. Whilst the total offer was in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, which suggests that a payment of £100 to £600 would be reasonable for instances in which there was a significant impact on the resident, it is the opinion of this Service that further compensation should be awarded for the repeated communication failures. The resident was left on multiple occasions without responses, and having to chase information.
  12. Additionally, whilst the resident has been compensated up until the date of repair, there were still several months until the damage caused was rectified in February 2022. The resident advised that the landlord offered to have the work completed in January 2022, but the resident chose February as it better suited her work commitments. Even so, the landlord has offered no explanation as to why it would take a minimum of two months to rectify the damage. Therefore, the compensation should be increased by an additional £200. This can be broken down to £100 for the communication failures, and £100 for the delay in repairing the damages to the property.
  13. Even though the landlord acknowledged that there was service failure in how it had handled the leak in the property, it did not acknowledge the communication issues that had increased the detriment to the resident, and that had caused her to seek her own private contractor. It also did not acknowledge the delay in providing remedial works to the damage within the property. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of leaks into the property.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. As noted in the landlord’s complaints procedure, the time limit for a full response to a complaint is 15 working days for the [stage one] phase and 25 working days for the [stage two] phase. The landlord is obliged to work within these timeframes, or if unable to, advise the resident of how long should be expected to wait for a response.
  2. Upon making a formal complaint on 6 September 2021, the resident was left waiting for a response from the landlord for over eight months. The landlord provided its stage one complaint on 13 May 2022. This was only following communication from this Service asking for the landlord to do so.
  3. Whilst there are valid reasons for delays in responses, processes should be in place to prevent such large delays. In its stage one response, the landlord advised that the case officer overseeing the resident’s complaint had to take unplanned leave, so the resident’s emails were not responded to from 1 October 2021. The landlord should have ensured that the resident’s complaint was passed on to a different member of staff in order to complete the investigation and repair within an appropriate timeframe. The landlord did acknowledge this and advised that it had referred the complaint information to a team manager in order to look into what action was needed in order to cover staff members who were not available.
  4. However, following this, there was further delay in providing a final response to the resident. Her escalation request was made on 28 May 2022, but the final response was given on 25 August 2022. This was almost two months after the maximum amount of time allowed in order to provide a response. Additionally, the landlord did not acknowledge the delay, nor did it inform the resident that the complaint response would be late.
  5. Keeping a resident informed is imperative as it shows that the complaint and subsequent investigation was being taken seriously. Additionally, it is appropriate to give the resident progress updates. These matters mean a lot to the resident and it is important for the landlord to show its awareness of this by demonstrating it through completing its investigations within reasonable timeframes. Its failure to do so on both occasions, and failure to apologise or acknowledge the delay to the final response shows that there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident an additional £150 in recognition of the unnecessary involvement caused to the resident due to its complaint handling failures.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s response to reports of leaks into the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. That within 28 calendar days of this determination, the landlord is to:
    1. Pay the resident £650 compensation made up as follows:
      1. The £300 offered by the landlord during the complaints process, if it has not done so already.
      2. An additional £100 for its communication failures.
      3. A further £100 for delays in repairing the damage to the property.
      4. £150 for the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
    2. On production of invoices/receipts for the private contractor that the resident hired, to reimburse her for any relevant costs she incurred that were included in the £643.76 referred to by the resident.
    3. Confirm that it has complied with the above orders.