Southwark Council (202002332)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002332

Southwark Council

26 January 2021

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 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 response to concerns raised by the resident about major works, in particular:
   1. The amount of service charge.
   2. The length of time taken to complete the works.
   3. The quality of the decorating work.
   4. Complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a), (g) and (i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: the length of time taken to complete the works and the amount of service charge for the major works.
4. Paragraph 39 of the Scheme says:
5. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:
   1. (a) are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale;
   2. (g) concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase;
   3. (i) concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.
6. The issue of the length of time the works took to complete formed part of the complaint that the resident raised with the Ombudsman. However, as it was not considered by the landlord as part of a formal complaint, the landlord has not yet had the opportunity to respond and therefore this matter is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme.
7. Another aspect of the complaint concerns the level of the service charge for the works. Paragraph 39(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Service Scheme applies to the complaint about the level of service charge. The issues the resident raised are best dealt with by the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The Tribunal can make a binding determination on these matters and therefore paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Service Scheme also applies to your complaint. The Ombudsman can consider the complaint about the quality of the works and complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

8. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The property is a three-bedroom flat. The landlord is a council.
9. The landlord’s guide for leaseholders explains that major works are larger items of work it must do under the terms of the lease to keep the building and communal areas in good repair and sometimes can include extensive refurbishment to a whole building or an estate. Common types of works carried out in our major works contracts include external decorating.
10. The guide explains that where works cost more than £250 for each individual homeowner, the landlord has to consult with them in a specific way before the works are carried out. This is done by issuing a Section 20 notice, or notices.
11. The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure. At stage one the complaint is dealt with by officers, contractors or the service manager in the section providing the service and a response issued within 15 working days. At stage two, the customer resolutions team carries out an independent review of the complaint and responds within 25 working days. The landlord will not normally consider a complaint that is made more than twelve months after the individual first became aware of the issue they want to complain about.

Summary of events

12. On 26 October 2016 the landlord wrote to the resident noting her concerns about the quality of the redecoration work at the property. It said that its contractor was required to undertake the work to an acceptable quality standard and it would be inspected before the works were signed off.
13. On 21 March 2017 the resident contacted the landlord about several issues namely the lack of progress by the contractors, the standard of work and a lack of respect shown by the contractors who had left rubbish around the outside of the building.
14. The resident provided an account of her exchanges with the landlord. In brief:
    1. On 30 March 2017 the landlord agreed to remove excess paint from exterior brickwork and remove the rubbish left by the contractors.   
    2. On 28 April and 8 May 2017 the resident raised with the landlord her concern about the delay in taking down the scaffolding. It was removed later in May 2017.
    3. On 14 August 2017 the resident told the landlord that the glaziers had left broken glass around. The landlord took action against the contractors and those subcontractors were removed.
    4. On 15 August 2017 the landlord apologised for the problems with the glazier. It arranged for a competent subcontractor to complete the further remedial work to the windows.
15. On 3 September 2017 the contractor certified that it had completed works to the property (external decoration and repairs) in line with specifications and the works were to be signed off as complete.
16. Almost two years later, on 12 August 2019, the resident made a complaint to the landlord saying that the major works were supposed to have been signed off around November/December 2018 and she had not yet had a final bill or inspection. The resident added that the paintwork was already showing signs of wear and tear and that there had been a lack of care and respect shown by the contractors to her and the property.
17. On 30 August 2019 the landlord told the resident, among other things, that:
    1. Its contractors had confirmed that they had carried out a final inspection with all works agreed and completed as per instruction from the Project Manager and this had been verified by the Senior Contracts Manager.
    2. Due to the complexity of the major works and the number of properties involved, the final bill for the work had not yet been finalised.
    3. It would ask its lead building surveyor to review the level of deterioration of the paintwork and take a view as to whether or not the works were completed satisfactorily.
    4. It was sincerely sorry for the way the works were managed at the property and that it was the intervention from senior management that ensured the workmanship, quality and poor behavioural issues from the contractors were addressed at the time.
    5. It did not approve of any reports of a lack of care and respect and expect that those issues were addressed efficiently.
18. On 2 September 2019 the landlord responded to the resident at stage one of its formal complaints procedure. In brief it gave background information about how it planned its maintenance programmes. In respect of the complaint the landlord said that its consultants had confirmed handover of the property to the required standard. It added that the final account process was still ongoing as per its process and procedures. It did not uphold the complaint and explained how the resident could ask for a review of the complaint response.
19. On the following day the resident asked for a review of that decision.
20. On 18 October 2019 the landlord issues its stage two response to the resident under its formal complaint procedures. In brief it said:
    1. Its records show that external works to the building started on 16 January 2016.
    2. The scaffolding was removed on 17 May 2017 and low-level works had continued.
    3. The contractor listed the works as being complete on 13 September 2017.
    4. While the defect period for the works had expired on 7 November 2018, the Contract Manager had agreed to schedule a joint inspection of the building with the resident and the contractors. The landlord noted that the contractor was not obliged to agree as the defect period had expired.
21. The landlord did not uphold the complaint and signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
22. When the resident approached the Ombudsman, she said was unhappy with the quality and cost of the major works which she considered to be very high.

Assessment and findings

The quality of the works

23. The evidence shows that the resident first reported her concerns about the quality of the works being carried out in 2016 (paragraph 11). The Housing Ombudsman Scheme limits the Ombudsman’s consideration of a case to issues that have been raised with both the landlord and the Ombudsman within a reasonable timeframe. Therefore, whilst the historical background provides contextual background to the complaint, this investigation has focussed on events that occurred from August 2018, which takes into account the provisions’ of the landlord’s complaints policy (paragraph 10).
24. It is clear from the evidence that there were issues with the painting of the property and glazing as well as contractors leaving rubbish around the building (paragraph 12). The landlord took appropriate action to remedy these historical issues (paragraph 13).
25. The resident raised further concerns about the quality of the painting as part of her complaint in August 2019 (paragraph 15). While these concerns were raised some nine months after the defect period had ended, the landlord took reasonable action by agreeing to try to arrange a joint inspection with the contractors to inspect the paintwork (paragraph 19). There was therefore no service failure by the landlord.

Complaint handling

26. The landlord issued the stage one response within its timescales and responded fully to the issues raised in its complaint handling. However, the landlord’s action in issuing the stage two complaint response was not appropriate because it took six weeks to issue it, rather than the timescale of 25 working days as set out in the complaints procedure (paragraph 10). This was a minor failure.

Determination (decision)

27. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
    1. its response to the resident’s concerns about the quality of the decorating work.
    2. its complaint handling.

Reasons

28. The landlord took reasonable steps to act on the resident’s concerns about the quality of the decorating work that she raised after the defect period had ended.
29. There was a slight delay by the landlord in issuing the stage two response; however, this Service does not consider that that on its own amounts to a service failure.