Southwark Council (202119848)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119848

Southwark Council

27 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of required repairs and remedial works at the property, following a leak from the property above.
The complaint is also about the landlord’s associated handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident has been a tenant of the landlord, at the property, from 16 June 2003. The resident is elderly and is considered vulnerable.
The resident’s daughter complained on the resident’s behalf that the landlord was not doing enough to adequately repair the property and carry out the remedial works following damage which resulted from a leak at the property above. She was dissatisfied with the length of time it was taking to complete works and the lack of support provided to her mother, given her vulnerability.
The landlord’s stage two response found that it acted appropriately in responding to the reports of repairs, differentiating a report and a complaint. It did acknowledge that there was delay between removing a light fitting and replacing it, however, for which it offered £20 compensation. It also offered £50 compensation for failing to issue a stage one response to the complaint and for the resident’s daughter’s time and trouble in pursuing it. Additionally, the landlord asked the resident’s daughter to contact it if her mother would like support and requested an updated contact number.
The resident’s daughter remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She disputes that works were completed within good time and believes the landlord has not supported her mother as it should have done. The resident’s daughter is seeking compensation for this and also for the ruined carpet at the property following the leak and for the painting work that her mother undertook herself.
The assessment below refers to ‘the resident’ making the complaint and engaging with the landlord for ease of reference, however, as stated, it was her daughter making the complaint on her mother’s behalf.

Assessment

Repairs

Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable period of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
In this case, the circumstances were that of a leak at the property above the elderly resident’s which had infiltrated into her property, causing damage. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to carry out emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 3 working days and non-urgent repairs within 20 working days. The same policy states that partial loss of electrical supply, for example, no working light in one room, constitutes an urgent repair.
The landlord’s responsibility for repair becomes active once it is ‘on notice’. Whilst the landlord is responsible for the upkeep of the structure of the building, it is not responsible for carrying out repairs until it is made aware that repairs are required.
The landlord was made aware on 2 March 2021, that there was a leak at the property above and that it had impacted the resident’s property. In response, the landlord appropriately attended quickly and made safe the electrics, with the water having poured through into the light fittings of the bathroom at the resident’s property. Although the electrics were appropriately made safe, these works left the resident without light in this room.
The damaged light fitting was not removed until four months later, in August 2021 following the resident chasing the matter, with a new light fitting provided two months after that, on 11 October 2021, following the resident’s complaint. It was a total of six months after the electrics were made safe and the light in the bathroom was switched off, to a new light fitting being provided and lighting becoming available in the bathroom again. Although the landlord acted appropriately in initially attending quickly to make safe the electrics, it was unacceptable that the resident was left without a working light in the bathroom for half a year. This is particularly concerning, given the vulnerability of the resident, of which the landlord was aware. The resident has referred to falling over in the property, although it is not clear whether this was due to the lack of light or issues with the flooring which were also reported, but irrespective, the absence of light amounted to a safety hazard, which would be the case for any individual but is aggravated in this particular case by the resident’s vulnerability. Additionally, the impact of the leak and delay to carrying out remedial works, resulted in mould forming, over time.
The landlord has stated that there was difficulty in making contact with the resident during the course of the repairs being scheduled and undertaken, with the telephone numbers provided to it not working and no access provided when it attended the property, with nobody answering the door. This is disputed by the resident, who states that there were no calls and contractors did not knock on the door, but merely posted through calling cards and additionally, that one contractor advised that as unannounced visits were not permitted, this is what they had to do.
This Service has not seen sufficient evidence to comment on the events that occurred here. What is clear, however, is that the approach to attempting to carry out the repairs was not working. Given this, and the resident’s vulnerability, the landlord did not take action, as would have been appropriate, to proactively manage the situation. Notwithstanding any policy decision that unannounced attendance for repairs may not be carried out, the landlord missed the opportunity to use its discretion, given the duration of the outstanding repairs and the resident’s vulnerability. It additionally missed the opportunity to carry out a vulnerability check, which would not necessarily have to be booked in advance and would facilitate repairs being organised to be carried out.
There was a lack of overall management of the repairs required following the leak; the light was turned off but the damaged light fitting not removed, and then not replaced for months later, following the resident’s chasing up of this. There was also no schedule of works put together, and subsequently, no attempt to manage the resident’s expectations over a lengthy period of time. There was an absence of a joined-up approach and oversight, which meant that parts of works were undertaken but then not followed through. When works were undertaken, there is no evidence of an attempt to ensure the correct telephone numbers were obtained (given the landlord has said there was a problem with these), nor was there an email sent to the resident, requesting to meet to discuss all outstanding issues and arrange a date and time to do this. Attempts to communicate with the resident via an alternative means, for example by letter, may have also been reasonable in the circumstance.
Sometimes it is not possible for repairs to be completed on a first visit, particularly where the root cause of the problem is yet to be established or there are complex or interdependent repair issues. Although frustrating, this is unfortunately sometimes the case and it is appropriate that works are carried out in a proper manner and not completed haphazardly or in such a way that doesn’t address any underlying issues, which could lead to repeated problems. This does not mean that the sense of urgency in carrying out a repair should be lost, however. In this case, that sense of urgency was even more important, due to the vulnerability present.
In terms of the other works to the flooring, the landlord has attributed delay to carrying out these works as being due to lack of access, which again the resident disputes, as discussed above, stating that calling cards were merely posted through the door. It is not known why an appointment was not booked with the resident in advance, rather than being unannounced. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was an unacceptable way of addressing the issue which was inconsiderate of the resident’s own personal time, and would have been understandably frustrating for her. This Service notes that there was also a missed appointment, on 5 October 2021. There is no explanation provided for this, nor recognition, apology or offer of compensation in the landlord’s response to the complaint, which would have been appropriate.
The resident states that the landlord’s repairs records are inaccurate, with jobs having been marked as ‘closed’ when they were not. She believes this contributed to the delay, and review of the records by this Service confirm this. It is clear that not all works could be carried out without other works being carried out first and undoubtedly this also contributed to confusion and delayed matters.
The landlord’s repairs records indicate various works associated with the leak and impact thereafter, having been completed on several dates up until 29 April 2022, over one year on from the original leak taking place. With consideration of matters as a whole, it took over twelve months to complete all of the required repairs following the leak, which was unacceptable and well beyond the landlord’s own timeframes for carrying out repair. There was a clear communication issue during this time too. Whilst the resident may not have been as persistent with chasing the works as might have been expected, it was the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that the repairs it was made aware of, were carried out in good time. Moreover, the elderly resident was vulnerable and as the landlord was aware, reliant on her daughter to raise these issues for her.
In cases concerning a leak at a property, it is ordinarily the case that the landlord is responsible for carrying out the repair where the leak is not the fault of the resident and is due to structural defect, for instance. It is also reasonable for the landlord to address internal decoration, where there has been damage to the plastering and flooring, for example. Where a resident’s belongings may have been affected, however, it is appropriate for a landlord to refer the resident to its insurer, or alternatively, the resident’s own contents insurance if this is held.
The precise causes of the leaks are not entirely clear besides that one or more came from the property above/communal pipes and some from the resident’s bath itself. Notwithstanding this, the landlord carried out the repair to the leak and agreed to carry out the remedial works to the resident’s property and having done this, this gave rise to a reasonable expectation that these would be carried out in accordance with its usual timescales.
The resident has said that she actually carried out her own decoration and replaced the carpet herself, as she was tired of waiting for the landlord to take action and for this, she wants compensating. As the landlord explained, however, for personal belongings in particular, this would need to be pursued via its insurer (or the resident’s own). As such, it was appropriate that the landlord offered to share this information with her, and the resident should follow this up if she has not done so already.
The leak that occurred in March 2021, was remedied quickly and the associated making safe of the electrics were carried out promptly and appropriately, yet it took the landlord a number of months to resolve the issue with lighting following this, as discussed above and up until the following year to be completely resolved. The landlord has said that this was due to not being aware (‘on notice’) of some of the issues, which is why they were raised following receipt of the complaint. Indeed, there were additional issues reported in the complaint, such as a problem with the taps and an additional leak was found with the bath, with no evidence of these being reported prior, for which the landlord cannot be responsible for any delay whilst it was unaware. However, there was a delay to the substantive works and follow-up due to a lack of oversight and management of the works in totality, which is aggravated by the resident’s vulnerability – and reports of mould – of which the landlord was aware.
What’s more, it is unclear why, despite the resident suggesting that it do so, the landlord did not attend and undertake a full inspection of the property to enable it to put together a full schedule of works. Its fractured and response-only approach meant that a protracted length of time passed before the property as a whole was put back in the state it had been prior to the leak. It is clear to this Service that the landlord could have handled this matter better.

Complaints handling

The landlord did not provide a stage one response to the complaint. It explained to this Service that this was not done as it did not want to send a complaint response before the issues were resolved and that it was raising works and following up with what support could be offered to the resident. This meant that the resident, dissatisfied and frustrated with the delay, requested escalation of the complaint to stage two of the complaints process, which the landlord did, following intervention from this Service.
It was inappropriate that the landlord did not issue a stage one complaint response. This is because the landlord’s complaints process is that it will issue a stage one response to a complaint within 15 working days, not when an issue is resolved, which could be any indeterminate amount of time. The Ombudsman expects a two stage complaints process, as outlined in this Service’s Complaint Handling Code, and the landlord to follow its own procedures which it did not do here.
The purpose of a stage one complaint is for the landlord to investigate the issues raised and attempt to put things right. Putting things right may mean that repair works are booked, for example, but they do not have to have been completed by the time the complaint response is sent; this may need more time. It should nonetheless follow up on and monitor the situation however, ensuring that it does what it said it would do.
Further, the purpose of a stage two complaints procedure, is to review the response provided at stage one and to determine whether it appropriately investigated and responded to the complaint at that time. In the absence of a stage one response, however, where the stage two becomes the only response, the resident is not given the opportunity to correct or challenge the landlord’s position, and the landlord is unable to be sure that the right approach has been taken. This does not allow for a fair process.
Adding to this, the landlord did not manage the resident’s expectation well. This Service can see that at stage one, it was not until the resident chased the landlord to establish what the usual turnaround time was for complaint responses, that she was advised of this.
In terms of its stage two response to the complaint, this makes reference to works which it says took place and where completed, which the resident disputes. This is indicative of a continued lack of communication and discussion of the issues as part of the complaints process, which is an important aspect of resolving a complaint. Responding to a complaint provides an opportunity for the landlord to demonstrate that it has heard and understood the issues raised and an attempt to put things right. The resident understandably did not feel heard or understood.
Turning to the level of compensation offered, the landlord’s compensation policy states that it will offer £50 compensation for missed appointments, unless there is a reasonable reason why it did not attend. The landlord does not address the resident’s assertion that there was a missed appointment on 5 October 2021, explain why an appointment had been missed, apologise or offer compensation in accordance with its policy. This was a missed opportunity.
While the landlord did recognise that the absence of the stage one response was an oversight, and offered an apology and £50 compensation for this, as a whole, this Service is not satisfied that this was sufficient to reflect its handling of the complaint or to put things right. It has subsequently been determined that there was a service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord, in respect of the complaint about its handling of the repairs required to the property following the leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to confirm with this Service that it has:
1. Paid the resident a total of £400 comprised of:
  1. £300 for the maladministration found by the landlord in respect of carrying out remedial works and repairs following the leak.
  2. £100 for the service failure found in its handling of the complaint.
2. Arranged to meet with the resident to discuss any works required at the property and any support she may need, in light of her vulnerability.
The compensation amount ordered should be paid on top of the £70 already offered by the landlord.