Southwark Council (202122934)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122934

Southwark Council

13 March 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 the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The planned kitchen and bathroom replacement in the resident’s property.
   2. Repairs to the resident’s windows and fire door.
   3. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord.
3. A condition survey of the resident’s property was completed on 23 September 2019 which noted that the resident’s kitchen and bathroom were in poor condition, and recommended both to be renewed.
4. The resident emailed the landlord on 1 August 2021 as she stated the windows at the rear of the property needed to be repaired, as they were rotten and the spring was damaged. On 2 August 2021, the resident raised a complaint as she stated a survey had identified that her kitchen and bathroom required replacement, but no works had been completed. She was dissatisfied that she had not been given an expected timeframe and that the landlord’s communication had been poor. Following correspondence from the resident, this Service contacted the landlord on 17 January 2022 and advised it to issue a response to her complaint regarding the delays in the planned replacement of the kitchen, bathroom, windows and front door.
5. In its stage two response, the landlord stated that the major works programmes had been halted due to COVID-19 national lockdowns and had resumed in April 2021. It stated her kitchen and bathroom renewal would commence in Spring 2022 and be completed in 2023. It apologised that the resident had not been provided with updates. It said it did not have evidence that it responded to her stage one complaint, which it apologised for and offered £100 compensation.
6. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she said she remained dissatisfied as the works had not been completed. She stated she was unable to fully open her bedroom window, which was rusty and dangerous. She raised concerns that her front door was not a fire door. She also said that the landlord only paid her £50 compensation, rather than £100 as outlined in its final response.

Assessment and findings

7. The landlord’s website states that it is responsible for repairs to “essential services to your home”. As such, the landlord is responsible for ensuring it maintains the condition of the resident’s bathroom and kitchen.  In line with the Decent Homes Standard, the landlord would also be responsible for ensuring that the property has reasonably modern facilities and services, including renewing the bathroom and kitchen as part of a major works programme when it is due. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident had reported any repair issues with the condition of the bathroom or kitchen, but as the survey completed on 23 September 2019 identified that they were both in poor condition and recommended renewal, it was reasonable that the landlord included the resident’s kitchen and bathroom within a planned schedule of works.
8. The landlord’s repair guide states that planned major works may have a “reasonable delay before we start work as long as there will be no serious risk to your health and safety”. It is reasonable for landlords to include works such as bathroom and kitchen replacements within a planned programme of work, if there are no imminent repair issues, as it is often more cost effective for the landlord and can reduce disruption to residents.
9. On 20 March 2020 the landlord sent a letter to the resident explaining that all planned works had been postponed due to COVID-19. This was an appropriate reason to delay the works as the landlord had to act in accordance with government guidelines, which were out of its control. On 2 March 2021 the landlord sent a further letter to the resident advising that the planned work programmes would recommence on 8 March 2021. The landlord therefore acted reasonably by providing clear updates to the resident regarding the period the works were delayed, to manage her expectations.
10. The landlord did not provide any subsequent updates specifically related to a timeframe for the works to the resident’s property. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident requested further information regarding the works to her property until she raised a complaint on 2 August 2021. At this stage, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided an estimated timeframe in which the works would be completed. However, it failed to provide the resident with an update until its stage two response on 24 February 2022 in which it advised the works were due to commence in Spring 2022. Although it was not unreasonable that the works were further delayed, as understandably the landlord would have a backlog of planned maintenance works to complete due to the delays caused by COVID-19 and the resident had not reported any imminent repair issues, the landlord should have responded to the resident’s queries within a reasonable timeframe. As a result, there was a period of almost a year (2 March 2021 until 24 February 2022) in which the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations regarding when the work would be completed.
11. In its final response, the landlord apologised that it had not provided the resident with updates, but made no further attempts to offer redress the complaint. In accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance, awards of £50-£100 are appropriate in cases where there was minor failure by the landlord which it did not fully put them right. Ultimately including the resident’s bathroom and kitchen replacement within a planned programme of works and delaying the works due to COVID was reasonable. However, the lack of communication caused inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident in pursuing updates regarding the works. The landlord should therefore pay the resident £100 compensation.

Repairs to the resident’s windows and fire door.

12. The resident reported on 1 August 2021 that there were outstanding window repairs that a contractor had identified on 28 June 2021. Although the landlord should have addressed her concerns, as there was no indication that the resident wanted the issue handled as a complaint, the landlord would not be expected to handle it as such at that stage. However, when this Service contacted the landlord outlining the reasons for the resident’s complaint on 17 January 2022, including the planned replacement of windows, the landlord should have included it within its complaint response. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns, but failed to provide a clear response or any relevant information. This Service’s Complaint Handling Code (published on our website) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices. In accordance with the Code, the landlord must address all the points raised in the complaint, and provide clear reasons for any decisions. The landlord therefore failed to adhere to the Code as it failed to properly address the resident’s concerns regarding the window repairs.
13. Similarly, this Service also advised the landlord on 17 January 2022 that the resident considered the planned replacement of her front door as part of the complaint. In accordance with the Code, “if any aspect of the complaint is unclear, the resident must be asked for clarification and the full definition agreed between both parties”. Therefore, although the resident had not raised the issue with the landlord at an earlier date, as the landlord was made aware of her concerns and had not yet issued a stage one response, it would have been appropriate for the issue to be included. If the landlord required further clarification regarding the issue, it should have contacted the resident to discuss her concerns before issuing its response. However, there is no evidence that the landlord sought further information regarding this element of the resident’s complaint and as it failed to address her concerns regarding the front door. The resident has since clarified to this Service that she remains dissatisfied as her front door is not a fire door and the issue remains unresolved.
14. As the landlord failed to properly address the resident’s concerns regarding both the window repairs and the fire door, the issues remain unresolved as they have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. The resident has therefore experienced additional time and effort pursuing the issues without a resolution. The landlord is ordered to contact the resident to discuss her outstanding concerns, and progress them as a complaint in line with its complaints policy if necessary.
15. In accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance, awards of £100-£600 are appropriate in cases where the landlord’s failure has adversely affected the resident. In this case, the landlord’s failings meant that the resident’s complaint has remained unresolved, causing additional time, trouble and inconvenience. As a result, the landlord should pay the resident £500 compensation.

Complaint handling

16. 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. This Service’s Complaint Handling Code states that landlords should issue stage one complaint responses within ten working days and stage two responses within 20 working days. The landlord should therefore review its complaint handling policy, to ensure that it brings it in line with the Code, to ensure that its complaints process is not unduly long.
17. The resident raised a complaint on 2 August 2021, but the landlord failed to respond. As a result, the resident pursued her complaint with this Service, and we subsequently sent a letter to the landlord advising it to issue a response on 17 January 2022. The landlord then issued a stage two response on 24 February 2022. The landlord therefore significantly exceeded its response timeframe, and caused additional time and effort to the resident in pursuing her complaint.
18. It was also inappropriate that the landlord escalated the complaint to the stage two as it had failed to respond to the resident’s stage one complaint. It is important for landlords to have two-stage complaint processes so that the resident can outline any reasons they remain dissatisfied, respond to any new information the landlord may have provided, and raise any additional queries. As the landlord only issued one response, the resident was not given the opportunity to respond and the complaint remains unresolved.
19. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged its delays in responding to the complaint and offered £100 compensation. However, it failed to acknowledged the detriment of a one-stage complaint process. As a result, additional compensation is warranted and the landlord should award the resident a further £100. It is also of concern that the resident advised this Service that the landlord only paid £50 compensation, rather than £100 as initially offered. The landlord should ensure that it pays the full amount agreed as part of the complaint resolution.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way the landlord handled the planned kitchen and bathroom replacement in the resident’s property.
21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the repairs to the resident’s windows and fire door.
22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way it handled the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

23. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident:
    1. £100 compensation due to its communication failings in handling the planned replacement of her kitchen and bathroom.
    2. £500 due its failure to address the resident’s concerns regarding the front door and windows.
    3. £200 for its complaint handling failures, inclusive of £100 already offered.
24. The landlord is ordered to contact the resident to discuss her concerns regarding the windows and door replacement, and respond in line with its complaint process if necessary.
25. The landlord should provide evidence that it has complied with these orders within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

26. The landlord should review its complaint handling policy, to ensure that it brings it in line with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code.
27. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its staff training requirements regarding complaint handling.