Southwark Council (202122189)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122189

Southwark Council

25 April 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s reports of leaks into her property from the property above.
   2. Complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of the property, which is a flat in a purpose built block of flats. The landlord is the freeholder. The resident rents out the property to a tenant, however for the purposes of this report, the leaseholder will be referred to as the resident.
3. On 3 July 2021 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord, as there had been a leak into her property from the flat above. She said that this was not the first time this had happened. She said that the landlord had told her previously that leaks had been caused by the neighbour’s actions and that it had refurbished the bathroom as a result. She said the neighbour needed to be rehoused as they had a very large family and lived in a small flat. In her subsequent correspondence with the landlord, the resident said there had been leaks into her property at regular intervals since December 2015 and there needed to be a long-lasting solution to the problem.
4. On 30 August 2021 the resident emailed again to say there had been a further leak from the neighbour’s property and that the plumber told her the neighbour’s property was in a state of disrepair. On 22 September 2021 the landlord confirmed it had raised two jobs for tiling in the neighbour’s bathroom and to clear blocked drainage.
5. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 1 November 2021. It did not uphold the complaint and said that:
   1. There had been issues with leaks over a prolonged period. The repair records showed that there had not been one individual cause and leaks had been traced to different parts of the neighbour’s property, not just the bathroom. It could only share limited information as this related to another property.
   2. The leaks had not consistently been caused by the neighbour’s actions and that as the instances were predominantly out of the neighbour’s control, it would be unfair to take action against them.
   3. It had raised the resident’s overcrowding concerns with the relevant member of staff. Where statutory overcrowding was confirmed, it had an obligation to find other suitable accommodation. However, due to lack of suitable properties, and the possibility that other applicants had higher priority banding, doing so could be a lengthy process.
6. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and was looking for a lasting solution to the recurring leaks. She has reported that her property suffered considerable damage from the leaks and that further leaks occurred in December 2021 and February 2022.
7. The resident subsequently raised a disrepair claim with the landlord, which was settled out of court in July 2022. The resident was awarded £3000 (less service charge arrears) for damages and £2500 for reasonable costs.

Assessment and findings

Response to the reports of leaks

8. The resident’s primary concern is that her property has been subject to leaks on a yearly basis and that measures have not been taken by the landlord to prevent a reoccurrence. The landlord’s repair records show that leaks into the resident’s property have been reported on various occasions between 2016 to 2019, and then again during July and August 2021. The records confirm that the landlord has carried out the following repairs to the flat above to remedy the leaks:
   1. March 2016 – tiles around bath renewed.
   2. April 2016 – tiles around bath renewed, bath and basin resealed.
   3. March 2017 – several issues on bath repaired (no further detail provided).
   4. January 2018 – tiles around bath renewed and bath resealed.
   5. April 2018 – wall/floor in bathroom sealed.
   6. July 2019 – order raised to trace leak into the resident’s kitchen but no evidence to confirm where the leak was from or that repairs were completed.
   7. July 2021 – blockage to bath cleared and waste to bath replaced.
   8. September 2021 – tiles around bath renewed, bath resealed, blockage to basin cleared.
9. It is acknowledged that the landlord attended to the reports of the leak in 2021 within target timescales and that the cause of the leaks in July and September appear to have been different (albeit both from the bathroom of the neighbouring property). Therefore, the landlord took reasonable steps to respond to the reports about the individual leaks at this time.
10. However, the evidence shows that the landlord identified the cause of the leaks reported from 2016 onwards to originate from the bathroom on seven occasions, and that repairs have been repeatedly carried out to the same area of the bathroom (bath and tiling). The landlord concluded in its final complaint response that the leaks had been traced to different parts of the neighbouring property and not just the bathroom. This is of concern as the evidence does not support this conclusion.
11. The landlord would also be expected to investigate the cause of the leaks and take all reasonable steps to ensure they do not reoccur. The evidence provided for this investigation does not show that the landlord adequately did so as its investigation extended to considering the cause of the leaks only. No evidence has been provided to show that the landlord considered the steps it could take to stop the leaks recurring and took any such action in this regard. It is also of concern that the resident reported further leaks into her property since the complaint concluded the landlord’s complaints procedure, in December 2021 and January 2022.
12. Accordingly, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the reports about the leaks. To put things right the landlord has been ordered to carry out a thorough investigation into the leaks, which should include a detailed review of its records relating to the leaks and an inspection of the property above. The findings of this, and whether any further remedial action will be taken, should be confirmed to the resident and the Ombudsman.
13. It is relevant to note that the resident accepted an out of court settlement in respect of her disrepair claim, and accordingly, the aspect of the complaint relating to the claim for compensation is considered resolved. Therefore, no further compensation has been ordered in respect of the landlord’s handling of the reports about the leaks.

Complaint handling

14. The landlord’s complaints policy in place at the time of the complaint confirms that the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within three working days and provide a response within 15 working days.  If the resident is dissatisfied with the outcome at this stage, they can request that the complaint be escalated to stage two and the landlord will respond within 25 working days. It is noted that the landlord has since updated its complaints policy to reflect the response times stipulated by the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
15. When the resident raised her complaint on 3 July 2021, the landlord acknowledged it on 7 July 2021 and responded on 29 July, which was two days outside its 15 working day response guideline. In its response the landlord failed to address the resident’s point that the leaks had been ongoing for many years, which as outlined above, was her primary concern.
16. When the resident requested that the complaint be escalated to stage two for that reason, the landlord should have issued a stage two complaint response that addressed that point and confirmed that the resident could refer her complaint the Ombudsman should she remain dissatisfied. However, on 17 August 2021 the landlord instead responded with a follow-on response from the employee who had responded at stage one. This response again failed to adequately address the resident’s point about the leaks having been ongoing for a number of years. It also did not provide any detail about referral rights to the Ombudsman.
17. On 17 August 2021 the resident told the landlord that she was not satisfied with its response but the landlord failed to respond. It was not until 2 September, after the resident had informed the landlord of another leak and asked the landlord to escalate her complaint a further time, that the complaint was escalated. In line with the complaints policy the landlord should then have provided a stage two complaint response within 25 working days. However, it was not issued until 1 November 2021, exceeding the target by several weeks and the resident had to chase the landlord for an update in the intervening period.
18. Although the landlord did apologise for the delay, it failed to acknowledge or apologise for the other complaint handling failings that this investigation has identified. An apology alone was not a reasonable remedy and therefore the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation to put this right. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases of maladministration where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of leaks into her property from the property above.
20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

21. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified by this investigation.
    2. Pay the resident £100 compensation for its poor complaint handling.
    3. Carry out a thorough investigation into the leaks, which should include a detailed review of its records relating to the leaks and an inspection of the property above. The findings of this, and whether any further remedial action will be taken, should be confirmed to the resident and the Ombudsman.
    4. Provide training to staff in relation to handling of complaints, to ensure it is both in line with its own complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
    5. Orders a and b should be completed within four weeks of the date of this report, and orders c and d should be completed within six weeks of the date of this report. Confirmation of compliance with the orders should be provided to the Ombudsman.