Southwark Council (202121162)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121162

Southwark Council

31 January 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

The landlord’s handling of reports of:
1. Defective heating in the property.
2. Damp and mould in the property.
3. Repairs needed to the property.
4. A rodent problem in the property.
The related complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant. The tenancy agreement started on 26 November 2018. The property is a two-bedroom bungalow.
The landlord’s records note that the resident is a vulnerable resident. She has medical conditions including asthma and has an adult disabled son.
The landlord is a Council.
In her contact with the Ombudsman on 10 February 2021, the resident said the damp and mould in the property had affected her asthma.
It is not the role of the Ombudsman to investigate if there was a causal link between reports of health issues experienced by the resident and the actions of the landlord. The resident may wish to seek legal advice about this, as a personal injury claim may be a more appropriate way of dealing with this aspect of the complaint. As this type of claim is more appropriately dealt with by a court or other procedure, this allegation will not be investigated.
At the end of 2019 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord for which the landlord provided a final response in March 2020. The Ombudsman has not had sight of this complaint and as it has not been brought the Ombudsman within a reasonable timeframe, this review will not consider this complaint. Any references to the resident’s complaint raised in 2019 within this report, is for context only.
The landlord’s repair records show:
1. On 29 January 2020, an issue was reported concerning a lack of heating and hot water at the property. This was repaired on the same date.
2. On 22 September 2020, a leak to the toilet was reported and was attended to and repaired on same day.
3. On 8 March 2021, an issue with the district heating was reported which was closed on 9 March 2021.
On 30 July 2021, the resident raised a stage one formal complaint with the landlord. She stated there were lots of problems with the property, some of which she had previously complained about, yet they had not been resolved.
The resident advised that she did not have central heating in the bedrooms, kitchen and bathroom. The only room which had heating was the living room. However the fan was “so old” that when she turned it on, dust and odour emitted from it. Every winter she used electric heaters to heat up the property, which resulted in a “huge electricity bill”. The resident further stated that her service charge bill included a charge of £12.99 for heating. She stated that she should not be paying this charge for something she was not receiving. If the landlord wanted her to pay, the whole property should have heating and it should work properly.
The resident said that she should be getting hot water in her shower from central heating, but she was not as she had an electric shower, which costed her extra money.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident in August 2021, although the exact date is unclear from the available evidence. Within its response, the landlord summarised the resident’s complaint as her experiencing on-going issues with the heating and hot water in the property and her use of fan heaters and electric shower.
The landlord referred to a previous complaint made by the resident at the end of 2019, which it said was investigated and resolved in March 2020, when its inspector confirmed that the heating system was working as it should.
The landlord said it had checked its repairs database and it could not see that any jobs had been raised since the previous complaint was investigated. It advised that if she was experiencing issues with either the heating or hot water, they need to be reported to its contact centre. The landlord provided a telephone number for the resident to use.
On 12 December 2021, the resident advised she was unhappy with its response to her initial complaint and requested escalation to stage two of its complaints process.
Within her stage two escalation request, the resident stated that she had had an issue with the heating system since moving into the property in November 2018. When the resident viewed the property, she found it did not have central heating and was told this would be installed before she moved in. The resident reiterated her concerns regarding the lack of central heating and said she was paying service charges of £56.29 per month to the landlord for heating, however she was not using this as her shower and heater was electric. She used hot water to wash her hands only. This was very costly, especially during winter months as she was a single mother with a disabled son.
The resident advised the heater in her living room broke last winter and the landlord agreed to reimburse her £100 for the money she paid out for additional heating costs.
The resident said there was damp and mould in the property and this significantly affected her asthma. The fan was dirty and she and her family could not breathe properly when it was in use. The landlord are aware of her health condition, including that an iron deficiency which makes the resident feel constantly cold.
The resident advised that she previously asked for the landlord to replace her windows which were very old. However, the resident believed this was not taken seriously by the landlord until she contacted her MP. She said that after contact from them, the landlord inspected the windows, but no works had been carried out.
The resident also referred to a leak coming from her bathroom that had happened on 22 September 2020. She said that she reported it as an emergency at around 3pm and it took the landlord until 7pm attend. Due to the water having flooded everywhere, the wooden floors in the living room and bedroom were damaged. The resident advised that as a result of the flood, she gets slugs in the bathroom.
She also advised there was a mouse problem in the property and there were mice droppings everywhere. The issues have caused her significant distress. The resident said she would like all of the issues dealt with as a matter of urgency.
On 16 December 2021, the landlord acknowledged her stage two complaint and advised it would provide a response by 25 January 2022.
On 25 January 2022, the landlord provided a stage two final response in which it apologised for the delay in responding.
It acknowledged the resident had raised issues in her escalation request, that she had not previously raised at stage one. It said in the interests of completeness it will review all the issues raised.
Regarding the historic heating complaint, the landlord reiterated that the issues concerning her heating were addressed in 2020, following an investigation. There had been no further issues raised with the heating system since the resolution of that complaint. Following a recent visit by its Technical Quality Officer (TQO) on 20 January 2022, it was noted the heating system was in working order. It understood her request for it to be changed to a central heating system however, this was not something it would consider as it deemed this as an improvement, not a repair. As the heating system was working, the landlord advised it was meeting its obligations. It advised the resident to raise any new heating issues with the repairs team should they arise.
In response to reports of damp and mould within the property, it could see that a recent works order was raised in connection with this. Whilst one appointment was missed, the job to carry out an anti-fungal wash to the walls affected by condensation/mould growth was completed in December 2021. The landlord provided the resident with links to its damp and mould information and guidance on condensation for further support. During the TQO visit of 20 January 2022, it was noted that a small amount of mould growth was affecting the external wall to the front bedroom. It advised that a job had been raised to investigate and resolve this as well as a number of repairs identified, including the bathroom and kitchen extractor fans.
In relation to the leak which occurred on 22 September 2020, this was attended to as an emergency on the same day. Whilst the resident had mentioned damage to the wooden floors, the landlord said this was addressed in her previous complaint when she was advised to make a claim on her home contents insurance or, alternatively, to complete its insurance liability form to see if it could assist with the cost of repairing the damaged area.
Regarding the windows, the landlord referenced a job completed in 2019, to make safe the windows and doors after the resident reported a burglary. It also said whilst it had previously refused her request for new doors and windows however the doors and windows to the rear elevation were recently renewed from timber to UPVC due to rot found. It advised that its TQO had checked the condition of the windows on 22 January 2022, and had found no further issues or repairs needed to the windows.
In response to the pest control issues, the landlord provided a link to information on pest control on its website and advised the resident that she could report a pest problem with the pest control team, in order to receive help with any mice infestation.

Post final response.

On 10 February 2022, the resident told the Ombudsman she had no central heating, that there was still damp and mould in the property which affected her asthma.
On 22 February 2022, the resident advised the Ombudsman that the landlord promised to provide a grant if she downsized from a four-bedroom property to a two bedroom property. The resident downsized and moved in 2018, however has not received the grant. The resident also requested that the landlord pay for items stolen from her home when her property was broken into in March 2019, as it failed to repair a window before she moved in as promised. As there is no evidence of these complaints exhausting the landlord’s complaints process, the Ombudsman is unable to consider these events in this review.
In the resident’s communication with the Ombudsman dated 31 March 2022, the resident provided photos of a mouse in her property. She also provided photos of mould growth on a wall within the property. The resident provided further photos to this Service in June 2022, some of which showed mould growth to walls.
On 17 August 2022, the landlord told the Ombudsman that:
1. The resident’s heating is working as designed, the resident is seeking an improvement rather than a repair.
2. There are no outstanding repairs to the property.

Assessment and findings

Report of defective heating in the property

The landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair any installation provided for heating and hot water. This is echoed in the Tenant’s Handbook which states the landlord is responsible for maintaining pipes for water, electricity, gas and drainage inside of the property
In her formal complaint, the resident raised concerns about the heating system that serves the property and refers to wanting “central heating” in all rooms. She suggested it was not keeping the property sufficiently warm and disputed that she should have to pay the landlord’s service charge for heating each week.
Heating and hot water at the resident’s property is provided through a district heating system which uses pipes to distribute heat to a number of properties. The tenancy agreement confirms this and that the resident pays a service charge to the landlord of £12.99 per week, for heating via this method.
In its stage one response, the landlord referred to its repair records stating there had been no reports of any issue with the heating since the resident’s previous complaint was resolved, some 18 months ago in early 2020. It is reasonable to expect a resident to report any issues experienced with heating to the landlord, to enable it to investigate and resolve any issue found. This is confirmed in the landlord’s repair guide for resident’s, which details its free phone service. Therefore, by checking its repair records to ascertain if the resident had made any recent reports, the landlord acted appropriately. The landlord’s records confirm that a previous report concerning the heating breakdown was resolved in January 2020. The landlord also indicated that there was a further report made on 8 March 2021, concerning a loss of heat affecting the property and the neighbouring property. It is not clear if the resident made this report. However, the record shows the landlord raised a job on the same day and that an operative attended the following day. The landlord noted that works to the “boiler house” were being undertaken to resolve a leak which had caused an interruption to supply.
Whilst the landlord did not reference the 8 March 2021 repairs report in its complaint responses, it was attended promptly, and there is no evidence of any further issues encountered after this date. On balance, this indicates that the landlord appropriately addressed the issue on this occasion.
Following the resident’s stage two complaint in which she reiterated her concern regarding the heating, the landlord arranged for its TQO to inspect the heating at the property. The landlord’s internal communications show its TQO found the heating at the property to be “in working order”. The landlord explained this to the resident in its final complaint response and said for this reason it would not consider the resident’s request for a change to a central heating system.
The step taken by the landlord to arrange for its TQO to inspect the heating at the property in response to the resident’s continued concern raised, was appropriate. However, in view of theresident suggesting that the heating system was not providing sufficient heat during the colder months, causing her to use electrical heaters, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have addressed this specific concern during its complaints process.
The landlord told the this Service in August 2021, that the heating system is working as designed. However, we have not been provided with details of the heating system serving the property, for example, its age. Although the low and infrequent number of reports shown in the landlord’s repair records do not, on the face of it, suggest any serious problems, in light of the resident’s concern raised about an inadequate level of heating, this issue ought to have been assessed during the inspection on 22 January 2022. There is no evidence to show that it was or, of the landlord checking this at any other time. Also, the landlord has not addressed this specific concern in its final complaint response.
Therefore, whilst the landlord has shown it has met its obligation to keep in good repair the heating system, the lack of evidence to show that additional checks were made to ensure the heating system was sufficient to keep the property warm enough through the winter months, was a failure in the service provided.
It also failed to address the resident’s concern raised regarding the charge she paid the landlord for heating; she was unclear about the amount, as stated in her Tenancy Agreement, being for the heat to her home as provided by district heating system. Its failure to provide clarification on this point is further evidence of failure in the service provided.

Damp and mould

In regards to reported damp and mould, information on the landlord’s website (its policy) states on receiving a report of damp and mould, one of its officers will inspect the property to find the cause of the problem. It will normally help address the issue by washing down the mould, fitting different types of fans or it may need to repair part of the block or property itself.
In the resident’s stage two complaint she raised concerns in relation to damp and mould within the property and the condition of the windows.
In its final complaint response the landlord referenced that a recent works order for an anti-fungal wash to be applied to affected walls was completed in December 2021. Further, it advised that its TQO had identified on 22 January 2022, that there was a small amount of mould growth affecting the external wall to the front garden and that a job had been raised to investigate and resolve this. Within its response, the landlord also provided links to its information on damp and mould and to its guide for tenants on condensation, damp and mould.
The repair records provided by the landlord confirm that a contractor was due to attend in December 2021, to apply anti-fungal mould wash “to affected walls”. This evidence indicates that after one appointment was missed on 6 December 2021, the job was completed on 16 December 2021. Further, the landlord’s internal email from its TQO dated 24 January 2022, shows that during the subsequent inspection on 22 January 2022, they identified that:
1. Mould growth was affecting the front bedroom;
2. There was no extractor fan in the kitchen and that the existing fan in the bathroom needs to be overhauled. The landlord raised a further works order on this date for these issues to be investigated and resolved.
The landlord acted in accordance with its policy position when addressing the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property. The landlord applied anti-mould wash to affected walls, arranged for an officer to inspect the property to assess reports of damp and mould. It then raised a works order to further investigate the mould growth and to address the lack of adequate fans found in the property.
The landlord has provided a report from a roofing contractor dated 23 February 2022, which shows they investigated if water ingress was the cause of mould growth. The report states that the roof had been renewed the previous year and was in “very good condition”. It refers to the “black mould” in the bedroom of the property being “purely condensation”.
Therefore, by arranging for its contractor to investigate if there was any water ingress causing the mould growth, the landlord followed the TQO’s recommendation. Whilst the outcome of this indicates the cause of the mould growth is condensation, it is unclear from the landlord’s repair records if it also followed through with the TQO’s recommendation to repair the extractor fan in the bedroom and install a fan in the kitchen. It did provide useful information and guides to the resident in relation to managing condensation, but ensuring the kitchen and bathroom have effective fans to allow moist air to escape is key to enabling the resident to help manage condensation within the property.
Whilst the landlord told the Ombudsman in August 2021, there were no outstanding repairs, due to a lack of adequate repair records, this Service has not been able to verify if the recommendations to overhaul and/or install fans in the bedroom and kitchen were followed. This constitutes evidence of a failure in the landlord’s service provided.

Repairs

The landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property including external doors and windows. This is echoed in the Tenant Handbook. This states that emergency repairs will be attended within 4 hours.
In regards to concern raised about the condition of the windows, following the resident’s stage two complaint, the landlord’s TQO checked the windows at the property and in their email to the landlord dated 24 January 2022, confirmed they found no repairs needed to the windows. They also noted that the windows and door to the rear elevation had recently been renewed from timber to UPVC (due to rot having previously been identified). The landlord explained this to the resident in its final response. By getting its TQO to carry out a further check of the windows to establish if any further repairs were required, the landlord acted in accordance with the tenancy agreement.
The resident also told the landlord in her stage two complaint that damage to living room and bedroom flooring had been caused as a result of a previous leak. In its final response, the landlord confirmed a leak from the toilet had been reported on 22 September 2020, which it said was completed as an emergency repair on the same day. It said damage caused to the resident’s flooring as a result of this leak had been addressed in her previous complaint, when it advised the resident to make a claim on her home contents insurance or submit an insurance liability claim form to its insurance team.
The landlord’s repair records that it attended and resolved the leak on 22 September 2020 within the 4 hour timescale required for emergencies. It is usual practice to refer residents to their household insurance in respect of damage or, to the landlord’s own insurance where applicable. Therefore, it was reasonable for it to have reiterated this advice in its final response in response to the resident’s concerns raised regarding damage to flooring.

Pest control

The landlord’s pest control policy confirms that it will assist where reports are made of homes infested with some pests including rodents, however not with others, e.g. slug infestations. Further, its policy indicates that an operative will inspect the property to identify if there is an infestation, assess health and safety concerns and advise the resident of the findings and proposed treatment.
In the stage two complaint the resident raised a concern about mice and slugs within the property. The landlord’s records show the resident had not made any reports to it in relation to these issues over the previous 12 months.
In its complaint response, the landlord signposted the resident to its information page on its website, which included a link to follow to report the issue to its pest control team. It explained however, that it could not provide any assistance with infestation of slugs.
The information the landlord provided to the resident regarding this issue was useful as it informed her about how to report the issue, nonetheless, on balance it could have done more to assist, for example by asking the pest control team on behalf to arrange an inspection of the property to ascertain the problem and agree a plan of action. Had it taken this additional step when she reported the issue via her formal complaint, it may have expedited a resolution to the issue for the resident. However, on balance this issue is not so serious to establish a failure in the service provided by the landlord in this regard.
The resident’s contact with the Ombudsman dated 31 March 2022, indicated there was still a mice problem at the property at this time, although it is unclear if this has since been resolved. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to include a recommendation below for the landlord to contact the resident to check if mice remain at the property and if so, to arrange for an operative to inspect the property to assess the infestation.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a two stage complaints process under which it is required to acknowledge a complaint within three working days, provide a stage one response within 15 working days and a stage two response within 25 working days.
The landlord provided the resident with its stage two final response on 25 January 2022. As the resident requested escalation of her complaint on 12 December 2021, this indicates a slight delay therefore showing the landlord did act in line with its own 25 working day timescale. Moreover, it is noted that the timescales for the landlord’s stage one and two responses within its complaints policy do not comply with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which requires landlords to provide these within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
Furthermore, within its complaint responses, the landlord did not address all the concerns raised by the landlord. Apart from those instances mentioned above, it also failed to respond to the resident’s claim that she was promised central heating when she moved into the property nor did it explain why it was unable to respond to this point.
As the Code makes clear that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint, this indicates a complaint handling failure by the landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of defective heating in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of reports of damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs needed to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of a rodent problem at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling the resident’s related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord’s repair records show few reports raised by the resident concerning the district heating system and that it promptly resolved issues that were reported. However, it did not show it investigated or addressed the resident’s concern about the level of heating within the property being inadequate.
The landlord took reasonable steps to address the resident’s reports of damp and mould. However, its records do not demonstrate it followed a recommendation made during its the complaints process to address a lack of adequate fans in the property to assist with managing condensation.
The landlord demonstrated that it had inspected the property to assess the resident’s report that repairs were needed to the windows. It found that no repairs were required. It also reiterated previous appropriate advice given concerning damage caused to flooring.
The landlord’s repair records show no reports had been recently made concerning mice within the property. As it provided appropriate advice in its complaint response regarding how to report an issue with rodents to the relevant team, overall it acted reasonably.
Whilst there was only a minor delay by the landlord in providing the stage two response within the timescale stated in its complaints process, the timescales for providing its stage one and two responses in its complaints process do not comply with the Code. Further, it did not address all the resident’s points raised in the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord:
1. Pay the resident total compensation of £500 comprising:
  1. £200 in compensation for not fully addressing all of her concerns raised about defective heating in the property.
  2. £100 in compensation in respect of its handling of damp and mould reports.
  3. £200 in compensation for its service failures whilst complaint handling.
2. Investigate the resident’s concern raised about insufficient level of heating in the property and advise the resident and the Ombudsman of the outcome of its investigation and any course of action.
3. Provide evidence to the Ombudsman showing it has followed its TQO’s recommendation dated 22 January 2022 to address the lack of adequate fans at the property. If it has not the landlord should agree the schedule of works and proposed timescales with the resident and this Service.
4. Review its record keeping with a view to keeping more comprehensive repair records which detail all jobs raised and the date they were completed.
5. Review its complaints policy with a view to revising the timescales for providing complaint responses so that they comply with the Code.
6. Comply with the above orders within four weeks.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord contact the resident to check if mice remain at the property and if so to arrange for an operative to inspect the property to assess the infestation and any plan of action.