Southwark Council (202013842)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013842

Southwark Council

27 May 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 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a water leak in his property.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. He has been assisted by a representative throughout his complaint. Both parties will be referred to jointly as ‘the resident’.
3. The resident explained in his formal complaint that on 22 September 2020 “I noticed water on the floor of my toilet. Upon investigation, water was coming out a hatch in the wall and going down the wall onto the floor”. The resident reported the leak to his own plumber and then to the landlord. The landlord’s contractor attended at around 1.20am on 23 September. The resident said that the contractor advised him that as he could not access the property above, another contractor “would come back by 8am the latest later that day” to fix the leak.
4. The resident also explained that he then called the landlord at 10am on 23 September. The landlord advised him that it had no record of its contractor attending at 1.20am. The resident explained the situation, and the landlord said it would send another contractor to attend. The resident said that at 15.45pm the contractor told him the leak was fixed.
5. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 2 October 2020 about its handling of the leak. He asked why it had not forced entry into his neighbour’s property and what actions it had taken to gain access. He also asked why it was unaware of the situation when he called on 23 September, why the contractor did not attend by 8am, why he had to report the leak multiple times on 23 September, and why the landlord took 16 hours to resolve the leak. He said that his neighbour was aware of the leak but continued to use water, and therefore asked what action the landlord would take against them for this. The resident explained that “I am 90 years of age and disabled. The leak and the dreadful way it has been handled made me extremely stressed, made me feel very unwell and I suffered huge inconvenience and also damage to my property.” He requested compensation for:
   1. the cost of his plumber’s appointment (£60)
   2. damage to his property
   3. the stress and inconvenience experienced
   4. the landlord failing to gain emergency access to his neighbour’s property
   5. the landlord failing to track and monitor the leak
   6. the landlord leaving water in his property for 16 hours.
6. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 23 October 2020. It explained that it had arranged for a £60 refund for his plumber expense, and had arranged for him to receive an insurance claim form for his damaged belongings. It said that its contractor’s actions from 1.20 am on 23 September had not been logged at the time, as there was a slight delay logging out-of-hours actions in its records system. It confirmed that it had made efforts to gain access to his neighbour’s property. It said that it would only force entry if there was an uncontainable flood. It apologised for the inconvenience caused.
7. The resident immediately responded to the landlord. He said that it had not answered his question of why the contractor did not attend by 8am. He said it had not responded to all of the reasons he had requested compensation. The landlord explained in response that its contractor should not have advised that someone would attend by 8am. It apologised for this, and said that it had raised the matter with its contractors to avoid a repeat. It said it could not consider compensation for a leak that was not a flood, and which was resolved the following day. It said that leaks usually had a three working day target. Nonetheless, it said that it would discuss the resident’s complaint internally and provide him with a final response.
8. On 29 October 2020 the landlord informed the resident that it had escalated his complaint to stage two. It said its contractor denied having advised that someone would attend by 8am. It said that it would not consider further compensation as the leak was resolved within 16 hours.
9. The resident escalated his complaint on 4 November 2020 (the evidence indicates that it had already been escalated at this point). He reiterated his concerns that the landlord had not responded to his stage one complaint in full, and listed why he was claiming compensation.
10. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 8 December 2020. It summarised its understanding of the resident’s complaint. It explained that the leak was containable, it was not “a heavy, flooding flow of water of a constant pressure”, and did not pose immediate danger as it was not near electrical connections. It reiterated that its timeframe for controllable leaks was three days, and that the resident’s was resolved within 16 hours, despite it having been reported outside of standard working hours. It said that there was a delay in updating out of hours activity, and that the repair work order had been raised against the neighbour’s property (as the source of the leak). It explained that when the resident called at 10am on 23 September, it was possible that its officer had only looked at the records for his property, and not his neighbour’s, so had not seen the repair order. It apologised for that.
11. The landlord repeated its explanation for the contractor’s error in saying an operative would attend by 8.00am the next day, and explained why it did not agree that the resident had had to make an unreasonable number of calls about the leak. It explained that his neighbour would not have initially known there was a leak, as the contractor could not gain access to inform them. It said that even if access had been granted, it was unlikely it would have asked the neighbour not to use their water. It said that it did not uphold the complaint, and would not offer the compensation the resident sought because it had not identified negligence or poor practice in its handling of the matter. It concluded by explaining how the resident could refer his complaint to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

12. The landlord’s tenants’ handbook states that the landlord will attend to emergency repairs (when there is a risk of injury to people or major damage to the property) within 24 hours. It considers non-containable and serious leaks to be emergencies. It will attend to urgent repairs (ones that can be a serious nuisance if not repaired) within three days. These timeframes are consistent with general standards across the social housing sector. The handbook also states that the landlord will only force entry into a property under special circumstances. For example, when it needs to protect the wellbeing of its residents, or when there is a serious repair problem, and it has been unable to contact the resident.
13. The evidence shows that the resident reported a non-emergency, containable leak. The landlord resolved it within its target emergency repair timeframe of 24 hours, even though it would usually have been classed as an urgent (as opposed to emergency) repair with a target of three days.
14. The landlord responded in detail to the points raised by the resident in his complaint, and provided reasonable explanations to each of his questions. For example, its explained why its officer could not find a repair order record when the resident called (as it had been raised for the neighbour’s property). It then apologised for not having looked at the records for both properties.  While this would have obviously been frustrating for the resident, in the circumstances and timeframes involved, that mistake was not significant enough to be considered a service failure.
15. The landlord explained why it would not have forced entry into his neighbour’s property, and, after investigating, that its contractor had denied saying an operative would attend by 8.00am the next morning.
16. In his complaint the resident explained that he was elderly and disabled. He did not explain, nor is there evidence of, any specific circumstances that meant the leak should have been treated as an emergency because of the resident’s age or disability. Even if there were, the landlord resolved the leak within its emergency timeframe.
17. Overall, the landlord responded promptly to the leak report, and fixed it well within its published timeframes. It explained how the resident could claim for any damage to his property, and reimbursed him for the cost he incurred from arranging a plumber himself. There is no denying that the leak and follow up may have been inconvenient and frustrating for the resident, but the landlord’s response to, and handling of the matter were reasonable in the circumstance of this complaint.

Determination (decision)

18. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

19. The landlord responded promptly to the resident’s report and completed the repair in line with its obligations. It gave detailed and reasonable responses to the resident’s complaints, which demonstrated how it considered the complaint in its entirety.