The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Southwark Council (202206334)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206334

Southwark Council

27 November 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports of missing window keys.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy which began on 27 March 2019. The resident lives in a 2 bedroom flat with her 4 children, 2 of which have vulnerabilities.
  2. On 23 and 24 December 2021, the resident asked the landlord for keys to lock her windows. The resident raised concerns that her youngest child who has vulnerabilities could open and climb out the windows.
  3. On 27 January 2022, the resident made a complaint to the landlord due to its lack of response to her request for window keys and issues with her housing application. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 3 February 2022 and stated it would provide a response by 24 February 2022.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 17 February 2022. The landlord stated it had raised the window key issue as a priority with its contractors. An appointment would be arranged within 5 working days to supply new window keys or fit new locks.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord to ask how she could raise a complaint about her housing application. The landlord confirmed it had passed on her complaint to the relevant team within the council.
  6. On 1 March 2022, the resident escalated her complaint. She stated that the contractors inspected the windows on 24 February 2022 but she had not been updated since. On the 22 March 2022, the landlord apologised for the delay and said it would respond by 28 April 2022.
  7. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 28 April 2022. It stated the window handles were replaced on 22 March 2022. It upheld the complaint and offered the resident:
    1. £110 compensation for the delay in dealing with the resident’s housing application.
    2. £75 compensation for the lack of communication, update and failure to raise the housing application complaint.
    3. £85 compensation for the delay in carrying out the window repairs, lack of communication and for the resident’s time and trouble.
    4. An apology for the above failings and for its lack of communication.
  8. The landlord stated the compensation would be paid by cheque within 4-6 weeks.
  9. On 2 and 28 June 2022, the resident chased an update on the compensation payment. On the 28 June 2022 the landlord stated it paid the compensation into the resident’s bank account on 7 June 2022. The resident stated she no longer had access to that bank account and requested the compensation was paid into her rent account. This was done on 29 June 2022.
  10. The resident contacted this Service on 28 June 2022 stating she wanted further compensation to be paid for the delay in receiving compensation owed and the distress this caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In accordance with paragraph 41(d) of the Scheme this Service cannot consider complaints which concern matters in respect of local housing authorities in England which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing, or the management of dwellings which it owns and lets on a long lease. Therefore, this Service is unable to investigate the resident’s complaint about her application for a transfer to a larger more suitable property. In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme this complaint would fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
  2. In her referral to this Service, the resident stated her balcony door was unsafe. This was a new issue that had not been raised to the landlord or been through its internal complaints process. As per paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme it will therefore not form part of this investigation. This Service is supporting the resident under case reference 202212091 to take this issue through the landlord’s complaints procedure.
  3. The resident has referenced how the landlord’s handling of her reports of missing window keys impacted her physical and mental well–being. However, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and her household.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of missing window keys

  1. The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 states a landlord must ensure the property is fit for human habitation on the day of letting and throughout the tenancy. When determining whether a property is unfit the landlord must assess any risk of harm to the health or safety of an occupier of the dwelling. This includes any hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System. The landlord also has a separate obligation under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to make repairs to the structure and exterior of the property, which includes windows.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states it is responsible for repairing a damaged window lock, handle or fastener. It states it will deal with urgent repairs within 3 working days, and non-urgent repairs within 20 working days.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will look at whether there has been a low, medium, or high impact on the resident. It states it will pay between £5-£20 per week for delay and distress and between £50-£250 per week for time and trouble.
  4. The resident reported the missing window keys twice in December 2021. The landlord did not acknowledge or respond to these reports. This led the resident to make a complaint on 27 January 2022.
  5. In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 17 February 2022, it addressed the resident’s complaint about the windows and provided information on what steps it was taking to resolve the issue. The landlord raised the works with its contractor on 17 February 2022, this was 38 working days after the resident’s initial reports. This was an unreasonable delay considering the landlord had been put on notice of the potential risk of harm to a household member with vulnerabilities. However, once the landlord actioned the resident’s report it acted reasonably by raising the works as a priority with its contractors. The contractor attended the property within 5 working days.
  6. The landlord did not consider the impact of the windows not locking on the resident and her family and failed to evidence it explored any alternative or temporary solutions with the resident. In the resident’s initial reports, she raised her concerns of the health and safety risk posed to her child. We would have therefore expected the landlord to assess the level of risk which would have assisted it with the prioritisation and its handling of the repairs. The landlord did not act appropriately as it failed to evidence clear decision making, by carrying out a risk assessment when the resident put the landlord on notice of the matter.
  7. No evidence was provided to show the landlord communicated with the resident or the contractor after the contractor attended the property on 24 February 2022. This led the resident to chase for an update on 1 March 2022. The contractual relationship is between the landlord and the resident. The landlord must ensure it maintains contact with the resident throughout the repair process and avoid leaving external contractors to communicate with residents directly. This ensures the landlord is fully aware of all issues and the onus is not put on the resident to report these or chase for updates. Poor communication was a significant factor for the delay in the replacement of the window locks.
  8. The landlord’s stage 2 response states the window locks were replaced on 22 March 2022. The landlord did not provide any evidence the works were completed. However, the resident has not disputed this. The work was completed 61 working days after the resident’s initial report. This is significantly longer than the timescales given in the landlord’s repairs policy for both urgent and non-urgent repairs. The evidence shows there was a lack of effective communication between the contractor and its internal departments, which caused delays in the window locks being replaced. The landlord must ensure effective communication between its internal staff and contractors. This will ensure all parties have access to accurate and current information and will avoid unnecessary delays.
  9. In its stage 2 response the landlord said although it should have done more to raise the work order sooner, the resident could have directly contacted the repairs team. The resident initially asked the landlord for the window keys, it was only established that the locks needed to be changed after the contractor attended the property. Therefore, it was unreasonable the landlord suggested the resident was partly to blame for the delay as she did not report a repair. The landlord also stated in future she should report any repairs online or via email. This contradicts its repairs policy, which states the best way to report a repair is by phone and email should not be used for emergency or urgent repairs.
  10. In the stage 2 response the landlord apologised to the resident for the delay in completing the window repairs and for its lack of communication. The landlord explained that it had given feedback to those involved in the case management of the complaint. This showed learning and that the landlord was taking steps to put things right. The landlord offered the resident £85 compensation for the delay in the window repairs and lack of communication. The amount of compensation offered was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.
  11. Although there were initial delays in the landlord responding to the resident’s reports of a missing window key, on balance the landlord took steps to put things right. It completed the agreed works, it apologised for its failings and sought to put things right. It showed it learnt from its failings and paid appropriate financial redress. The Ombudsman has therefore concluded there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of missing window keys.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states if a resident is dissatisfied the complaint will initially go through an early resolution phase. The policy states that the landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process and it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 15 working days and stage 2 complaints within 25 working days.
  2. This Service notes that the above early resolution stage and the timescales are not compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code). The Code states that stage 1 complaints should be responded to within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  3. The resident made a complaint on 27 January 2022. The landlord correctly acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days and stated a response would be given within 15 working days. Although as per above this timescale is not in line with the Code, the landlord did send its stage 1 response within the 10 working days.
  4. In its stage 1 response the landlord stated it could only deal with the resident’s complaint about the windows. The landlord did not explain why it could not investigate the resident’s housing application complaint. This led the resident to chase for an update. The landlord responded stating it had passed her complaint onto the relevant team, however, it did not explain which team this was or how the resident could contact them. This left the resident without any means to get an update on her housing application complaint.
  5. In the stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint about the window locks and detailed what steps it had taken to resolve the situation. However, the landlord did not acknowledge its delay in dealing with the resident’s initial reports of the issue. The Code states landlords should acknowledge and apologise for any failure identified, give an explanation and, where possible, inform the resident of the changes made or actions taken to prevent the issue from happening again. The landlord did provide the resident with a point of contact to ensure there was effective communication going forward. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have also apologised and given an explanation to why the delay occurred.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint about the windows on 1 March 2022. The landlord acknowledged this 15 days later on 22 March 2022, this is longer than the 5 working days the Code states. The landlord apologised for the delay, but it did not explain what caused the delay or how it would prevent any future delays. A landlord should ensure it has effective communication with its residents throughout its complaint’s procedure and take steps to put any failings right at the earliest opportunity.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 28 April 2022. Although this was within the 25 working days stated in its complaints policy, as stated above this is not in line with the Code which states a response should be given within 20 working days.
  8. In its stage 2 response the landlord addressed all elements of the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged there were delays and a lack of communication when she reported the window issues and with the repair process. The landlord also recognised the delay and lack of communication in referring the resident’s housing application complaint to the relevant council department. The landlord explained why it failed and that it had provided staff feedback to prevent the issue from happening again. It apologised to the resident for the above failings and offered her compensation in line with its compensation policy.  
  9. The resident told this Service she remained dissatisfied due to the fact the compensation had not been paid. Whilst there was a delay in the landlord paying the compensation, it was paid to the resident. This Service cannot investigate the landlord’s actions around the payment of compensation as these events have not been through the landlord’s complaints procedure. The landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond.
  10. The landlord has since self-assessed itself against the Code and issued a new complaints policy in October 2023. The response times are now in line with the Code and the landlord no longer operates an early resolution phase.
  11. In summary the landlord did not acknowledge its delay in picking up the resident’s reports at the earliest opportunity, there was short delay in the landlord acknowledging the resident’s escalation of her complaint and it did not set the resident’s expectations in relation to her housing application complaint. However, the landlord acknowledged the above failings, took steps to put things right, and offered redress within its internal complaints procedure. The Ombudsman has therefore concluded there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaints handling which in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves this complaint satisfactorily.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of missing window keys.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so the landlord should carry out a self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
  2. The landlord should review its staff’s training needs in relation to its complaint handling.