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

Southwark Council (202110802)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110802

Southwark Council

18 March 2024

 

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:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak and request for compensation.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of no heating or hot water.
    3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of unlawful occupation and noise nuisance from a neighbouring flat.
    4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s freedom of information request.
    5. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder. The property is a third floor flat and the landlord holds the freehold to the building. Heating to individual flats is provided through a district heating system, for which the resident pays a service charge. The landlord told this Service it was unaware the resident had any vulnerabilities, although the records confirm he told the landlord he was diabetic and had high blood pressure.
  2. The resident reported the flat next door was illegally occupied on a number of occasions in 2015 and 2016. He made a further report to a councillor on 6 April 2020 and said the baby was crying during the day and at night.
  3. The resident reported a leak on 2 December 2020. He said it was outside his front door and spreading but he was unable to identify its source. He contacted the landlord again on 3 December 2020. The landlord raised a repair to inspect and remedy a leak and attended on the same day. The water supply was isolated, but the landlord said it was unable to get access to the resident’s home. A further job was raised to repair the hot water outlet and reinstate the hot water but was subsequently cancelled because the resident was a leaseholder. The resident was told the repair was cancelled when he chased up the landlord about the job. He was advised to arrange for the work to be completed himself.
  4. The resident arranged for a plumber to repair the leak on 3 December 2020. This confirmed the barrel pipe was corroded and the pipe was beyond repair. New copper piping was fitted for the hot water supply the following day. The plumber also replaced the pipe to the bath and sink. The resident paid the invoice. He contacted the landlord again on 24 January 2021 and reported he had no heating. He submitted a freedom of information request on 17 March 2021.
  5. The resident made a complaint on 17 March 2021. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 9 April 2021 and issued its stage 1 complaint response on 23 April 2021. It apologised for any misunderstanding caused by its contractors and said:
    1. It arranged for an emergency job to be raised to remedy the leak on 3 December 2020.
    2. It attended on 3 and 4 December 2020 but was unable to gain access to the resident’s flat.
    3. The repair was cancelled on 4 December 2020 because the resident was a leaseholder. The resident should have been informed the repair was cancelled.
  6. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 12 May 2021. He said:
    1. The landlord knew he was a leaseholder when he reported the leak.
    2. The landlord told him someone would attend within 2 hours to repair the leak but no one turned up. He was not told he was not entitled to use the emergency out of hours repairs service.
    3. The landlord told him to contact a plumber. He wanted reimbursing for the cost of the work.
    4. He had no heating or hot water for 29 days and wanted compensating for this.
    5. The landlord had taken no action following his reports of unlawful occupation and noise nuisance from a neighbouring flat.
    6. The landlord’s contractor used his electricity for 5 days and he wanted reimbursing for this.
    7. He was unable to use the lift because people constantly urinated in it. The landlord should install CCTV cameras at the entrance to the building and next to the lifts.
  7. This Service asked the landlord to escalate the resident’s complaint on 12 November 2021 and provide a response by 26 November 2021. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 31 December 2021. The resident’s complaint was not upheld. The landlord said:
    1. It could find no fault with the way it handled the report of the leak. The resident was advised at the time that as a leaseholder he was responsible for maintaining the hot water pipes in his home. The water was cut off to allow the resident to arrange a repair.
    2. It responded to the resident’s freedom of information requests on 26 April 2021.
    3. The residents report of antisocial behaviour (ASB) was logged as a separate complaint.
  8. The landlord issued an updated final complaint response on 11 April 2022. It confirmed the resident was left without heating and hot water for 36 days. It apologised for this and offered the resident £108 compensation for the loss of amenities and to cover the running cost of the electric fan heaters. An additional £52 compensation was offered for the time and trouble caused to the resident. It confirmed the resident’s ASB complaint had been escalated.
  9. The landlord issued its final complaint response about the reports of ASB on 15 June 2022. It apologised for the delay but did not uphold the complaint. It said:
    1. It had not issued a stage 1 complaint response.
    2. It had not received any ASB reports from the resident for almost 5 years.
    3. It had investigated the resident’s previous reports of subletting and illegal occupation but found no evidence to support the claims he made.
    4. No diary sheets had been received from the resident, despite request for him to do so. The neighbour nuisance team had not received any reports of ASB either.
  10. The resident’s complaint was accepted by this Service on 20 November 2022. He said he wanted the landlord to reimburse him the costs of calling out a plumber to repair the leak. He also wanted the landlord to take action against his neighbour and install CCTV cameras. He said he was a victim of age and racial discrimination.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42 (j) of the Scheme, this Service will not investigate the resident’s complaint about his freedom of information request. This is because the Ombudsman may not consider complaints, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion ‘‘fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body.’’ It is recommended the resident contacts the information commissioner’s office if he wishes to pursue this aspect of his complaint.

Scope of the investigation

  1. In considering the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint, it is noted that he said he was subject to age and racial discrimination. Whilst these concerns have been referenced in this report, it should be noted that this Service is not in a position to make findings on such matters. This is because they did not form part of his substantive complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak and request for compensation.

  1. The leaseholder’s lease says he is responsible for keeping the flat (except any part the landlord is obliged to repair) including all pipes in good repair and condition. The landlord is responsible for providing services to and for the flat and ensuring they are maintained. It is also responsible for keeping in repair any installation connected with the provision of these services. Services include central heating and the supply of hot water.
  2. The landlord’s guide to leaseholders confirms it is responsible for communal boilers including all related pipework whether inside or outside the resident’s home. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that leaks on the heating pipes fall within its responsibility. It also confirmed that it contests the nature of the work carried out and the costs paid by the resident, although does not make reference to this in any of its correspondence with him. The landlord’s building insurance does not cover day to day maintenance or repairs caused by wear and tear.
  3. The landlord confirmed to this Service that it reimburses leaseholders for work it is responsible for as long as certain steps are followed. It says it will arrange an appointment if a leaseholder’s contractor notifies it that a repair is its responsibility.
  4. It was appropriate for the landlord to raise an emergency repair on 2 December 2020 to fix the leak. This was in accordance with the landlord’s handbook. This defines emergency repairs as repairs where there is an immediate danger to a resident or the structure of a building. Emergency repairs that affect residents’ health and safety are attended to within 2 hours. The landlord says it will make the situation safe and return on another day if further works are required. Leaks that cannot be contained are classified as emergency repairs.
  5. There is no evidence the landlord attended on 2 December 2020 and switched off the water supply. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s handbook. A further repair was ordered to inspect and remedy a leak to the hot water pipe on 3 December 2020 following a follow up call from the resident. The landlord attended the same day and isolated the water supply outside his flat. A further job was raised to repair the hot water outlet and reinstate the hot water. This was appropriate. Although the landlord said it tried to gain access to the resident’s flat on 3 and 4 December 2020, it has not provided this Service with any evidence confirming this.
  6. The housing records confirm the repair was subsequently cancelled by the landlord. It said this was because the repair was the leaseholder’s responsibility. The resident was not told the repair had been cancelled until he phoned the landlord requesting an update. The landlord told the resident he needed to seek assistance from a plumber. This was not appropriate or in accordance with the resident’s lease agreement or the landlord’s handbook. There is no evidence the landlord told the resident it would undertake the work if his contractor confirmed the landlord was responsible for it.
  7. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s request to be reimbursed for the costs of the repairs until 19 February 2021; some 2 months after he made his initial request. It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm at this point that someone should have told him what the process was for organising repairs which were identified as the landlord’s responsibility. It was appropriate for the landlord to send the resident an insurance claim form. There is, however, no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s request to pay the excess on his home content’s insurance policy for the damage to his carpets.
  8. The housing records confirm the resident was provided with an update on 4 March 2021. This included confirming that as a leaseholder he was responsible for the maintenance of all hot water pipes within his home. This was not in accordance with the resident’s lease agreement or the landlord’s leaseholder’s guide. The landlord apologised for any confusion that was caused and said it would not pay the resident’s repair bill. This was not appropriate or in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy. This says it will reimburse residents for any costs they have incurred, which would not have been necessary, but for the fault.
  9. In summary, the landlord did not fulfil its repairing obligations under the terms of the resident’s lease agreement or the guidance set out in its guide to leaseholders. It is evident the resident took significant time and trouble pursuing the matter and the landlord did not respond to his letters. He also incurred costs because of the incorrect advice given by the landlord. This caused the resident inconvenience and distress. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and request for compensation. Given the failures highlighted in this report, it has also been determined the landlord should reimburse the resident the full costs of the work.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of no heating or hot water.

  1. The housing records confirm the resident reported he had no heating or hot water on 24 January 2021. It was appropriate for the landlord to raise a repair on the same day. This was in accordance with the resident’s lease agreement. This says the landlord is responsible for the provision of services including heating and hot water. The landlord’s guide for leaseholders also says it is responsible for communal boilers.
  2. The housing records confirm the landlord’s contractor attended on 25 January 2021. This was in accordance with the landlord’s handbook. This says the landlord will attend to reports of no or partial heating and hot water within 3 working days between 31 October and 1 May. The housing records also confirm the contractor was unable to repair the heating system as an electrician was required. It was appropriate for the landlord to leave the resident with temporary electric heaters.
  3. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge in its complaint response on 11 April 2022 that the resident was left without heating or hot water for 36 days. It was also appropriate for it to offer the resident £108 compensation. This was in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy. This says the landlord will pay £3 compensation per day to cover the cost of electricity. It did not, however, offer any compensation for the inconvenience or distress caused to the resident for the lack of heating and hot water.
  4. In summary, the landlord’s initial actions were appropriate and in accordance with its policies. It did not, however, carry out the necessary repairs within its target timescales. It acknowledged there was a delay in repairing the fault and apologised for the level of service provided. It did not offer compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. In this case, this Service finds there was maladministration by the landlord with regard to its handling of the resident’s report of no heating or hot water.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of unlawful occupation and noise nuisance from a neighbouring flat.

  1. Whilst this Service acknowledges the resident made reports of unlawful occupation in 2015 and 2016, these reports have not been considered in this assessment given their historical nature. We have, however, investigated the landlord’s response to the reports made from 2021 onwards.
  2. It is not this Service’s role to establish whether the neighbouring flat was unlawfully occupied or if the reported noise nuisance occurred. Our role is to determine whether the landlord responded in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and if its actions were fair in all the circumstances.
  3. In this case, the records provided by the landlord were limited and has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances. It is good practice for landlords to maintain accurate, contemporaneous records on reports it receives and its actions in response. This enables it to effectively manage any issues raised by residents as well as fulfilling its obligations as a landlord. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord also has an obligation to provide this Service with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation to be undertaken.
  4. The housing records confirm the resident made a complaint to his councillor on 6 April 2020. He said the property next door was unlawfully occupied and the resident’s baby was crying during the day and at night. He made further reports to the landlord in April 2021, May 2021 and February 2022. There is no evidence the landlord acted on this information or responded to the resident’s concerns. This was contrary to the landlord’s commitment to prevent and tackle tenancy fraud. The landlord also failed to respond to the resident’s reports of a baby crying. Whilst day to day noise such as babies crying is not considered ASB by the landlord, it would have been reasonable for it to have confirmed this in writing to the resident. This would have ensured it managed his expectations.
  5. The landlord’s final complaint response of 15 June 2022 makes reference to action it had taken to address the resident’s concerns, but it is unclear whether this related to the historical claims or the more recent reports. Given the lack of evidence, it is unclear how the landlord reached the conclusions it made. It is evident the resident did raise concerns about the neighbouring property, but there is no evidence the landlord acted on these reports. This was not appropriate or in accordance with the landlord’s handbook. This says the landlord undertakes annual tenancy checks to confirm tenants are occupying the property and using it as their only and principal home. This Service has not seen any evidence any checks were carried out.
  6. In summary, the landlord did not acknowledge or act on the resident’s reports of unlawful occupation. Neither did it clarify its position regarding the noise nuisance or manage his expectations. Given these failings, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s reports of unlawful occupation and noise nuisance from a neighbouring flat.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. The landlord did not provide this Service with a copy of the resident’s initial complaint made on 17 March 2021 despite requests to do so. Whilst it acknowledged the complaint, it did not do this until 6 April 2021. This was not in accordance with its complaints policy. This says complaints will be acknowledged within 3 working days. Neither did it provide the full details on who would investigate the complaint. Again, this was not in accordance with its complaints policy.
  2. The landlord did not issue its stage 1 complaint response until 23 April 2021. This was outside the 15 working days target set out in its complaints policy. It was appropriate for the landlord to discuss the complaint with the resident prior to issuing its response. This was in accordance with its complaints policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. This says landlords should confirm their understanding of the complaint and the outcomes being sought with the resident. It is, however, unclear whether the landlord addressed all the points raised in the resident’s complaint. This is because the landlord did not provide this Service with a full copy of its stage 1 complaint response, despite a request to do so.
  3. It is unclear from the housing records when the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated or what the outstanding issues were. It is, however, evident this Service contacted the landlord on 12 November 2021 and asked it to provide a final complaint response by 26 November 2021.
  4. The landlord did not issue its final complaint response until 31 December 2021. This was not appropriate or in accordance with its complaints policy. This says it will respond to requests for complaint reviews within 25 working days. There is no evidence the landlord sought to understand the resident’s concerns or the outcomes he was seeking. Neither did it apologise for the delay in responding to the resident. This was not appropriate or in accordance with its complaints policy. This says it will apologise for failures in service.
  5. The landlord did not address the resident’s complaint about unlawful occupation or noise nuisance in its final complaint response; noting instead that this had been logged as a separate complaint. Neither did it address his request to be reimbursed for the costs of electricity by its contractors, despite the request from this Service to do so. This was not appropriate or in accordance with its complaints policy or this Service’s complaint handling code. This says landlords should address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
  6. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to provide an updated complaint response, it did not do this until 11 April 2022 and only after contact from this Service. There is no evidence the landlord told the resident there would be a delay in responding to his complaint or kept him updated. This was not in accordance with its complaints policy. This says it will keep in regular personal contact with customers until the complaint is resolved. Again, it failed to address the resident’s complaint about unlawful occupation and noise nuisance. Although no apology was offered for the delay in responding, the landlord did offer the resident £52 compensation for the time and trouble he had gone to. This Service does not believe this offer of compensation was reasonable given the failures highlighted in this report and effort the resident had to go to.
  7. The landlord did not issue its final complaint response regarding unlawful occupation and noise nuisance until 15 June 2022; some 15 months after the initial complaint was made. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the delay in responding and to confirm its position in relation to the allegations that were made. This helped ensure it managed the resident’s expectations.
  8. In summary, the landlord did not follow its own policy and there were unreasonable delays in responding to the resident’s complaint. It also failed to address aspects of his complaint. This caused the resident time and trouble pursuing the matter. Given these failings, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42 (j) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about his freedom of information request is outside the jurisdiction of this Service.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and request for compensation.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of no heating or hot water.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s reports of unlawful occupation and noise nuisance from a neighbouring flat.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to offer an apology to the resident for the failings set out in this report.
  2. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay £1,991 compensation to the resident. This is to be paid directly to the resident and made up as follows:
    1. £1,331 to cover the costs incurred by the resident repairing the leaking pipe work.
    2. £300 for the time and trouble caused to the resident in the handling of his complaint.
    3. £100 for the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident in its handling of his reports of no heating or hot water.
    4. £100 for the inconvenience caused to the resident with regard to his reports of unlawful occupation and noise nuisance from a neighbouring flat.
    5. £160 previously offered to the resident, if this has not already been paid.
  3. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident and clarify its position regarding the installation of CCTV cameras.
  4. Evidence of compliance with the above orders should be shared with this Service.