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

Southwark Council (202205299)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205299

Southwark Council

11 July 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of adaptations to the resident’s kitchen and reports of damage caused during the work.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated formal complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord at the property, a one-bedroom flat. The resident lives alone and has a long term, degenerative physical injury. Following a self-referral to Occupational Therapy (OT), the resident was assessed as requiring adaptations to be made to her kitchen due to her difficulty accessing kitchen cupboards. The recommendations were sent to the landlord’s Home Adaptations team in July 2021. On 3 March 2022, the work began.
  2. The resident first complained on 20 April 2022 about the delay in completing the work, which she had expected to take 7-10 days, and was not yet completed after 7 weeks. The resident complained about the way that work was being carried out, the lack of communication and that due to property conditions she was staying with a friend.
  3. On 12 August 2022 the landlord sent its stage 1 response to the resident. It explained there was no timescale for adaptation work, as they were improvements and not repairs. The landlord acknowledged that there were some unexpected delays, outside of its control, due to discrepancies which had to be accounted for in the plan. The landlord offered £50 as a goodwill gesture and apology for not providing a full stage 1 response in its email of 27 April 2022.
  4. On 18 August 2022, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. The resident complained about the level of compensation, the quality of the work, the timescale for adaptations and that she had to stay with a friend for the first two months of work as her flat was hazardous.
  5. On 26 September 2022, the landlord issued its stage 2 response, which did not uphold the complaint. The landlord stated that “the works were carried out within a reasonable timeframe” and that any delays were outside of its control. It said that the inconvenience caused by the works was to be expected; it also said that it had ensured the resident could live in the property as there was heating, water supply and electricity and that the OT had not raised any concerns in its original assessment that support would be required during the work.
  6. On 29 September 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to object to its decision. The resident commented that the landlord had overlooked her damaged items (“blinds, carpet, coffee table etc”) and failed to arrange for an independent surveyor to assess the kitchen layout, which she considered hazardous. The resident referred to a list of damaged items, and photographs, which she had provided and stated that her MP had written to the landlord on several occasions to request an independent survey. The resident confirmed receipt of the £50 goodwill payment but refused to accept it as a resolution to the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman has not received a copy of the resident’s list of damaged items, or photographs, referred to in her email of 29 September 2022. Apart from the damage to the kitchen/living room wall, there is no mention of damaged items in any of the resident’s complaint correspondence seen by the Ombudsman. In the landlord’s post-stage 2 response dated 6 October 2022, it stated that it was not aware of any alleged damage to items.
  2. The damaged items were first mentioned in the resident’s email of 29 September 2022, which post-dates the landlord’s complaint process.  As such the damage to items falls outside of the scope of this investigation as this was not raised as part of the complaints process under investigation. Paragraph 42 (a) of the Ombudsman’s Scheme states that the Ombudsman would not consider matters which in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.  If the resident would like to pursue this aspect of the complaint, she will need to make a new complaint to the landlord regarding the damaged items or else seek advice if she wishes to make damages claim.

Handling of adaptations

  1. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any documents that set out an agreed timetable for the completion of the adaptation work. The resident’s complaint email of 20 April 2022 states that the work was meant to be completed within 7-10 days.
  2. In the documents provided by the landlord, there is a partially obscured Housing Adaptations Team process for delivering major adaptations. This flowchart includes a stage at which “The surveyor will arrange a pre start meeting with the Contractor and Resident to agree work programme…and arrange a start date 2 wks (10 days)” and “On completion of work the Surveyor will complete final inspection within 7 days of notification.” It states that the timescale “From pre start meeting to completion of works 8 wks (40 days)”. The flowchart also includes an inspection following work completion.
  3. There is no evidence of a pre-start meeting between the surveyor, the contractor and the resident. The work started on 3 March 2022. The records show that the work was paused between 11 and 14 March, while the OT’s approval of changes in the plans was sought, and between 12 and 20 April until a change to the schedule of work was agreed. The work resumed on 26 April following receipt of awaited units. This chronology appears to be supported by the landlord’s documents and the resident’s emails.
  4. Internal emails seen by the Ombudsman confirm that the works were recorded as completed on 27 April 2022, with connection of new electrical appliances outstanding (hob and oven). The hob and oven were connected on 3 May 2022.
  5. According to internal correspondence, the landlord’s building surveyor visited the property on 5 May 2022 following a complaint by the resident from 4 May that the new equipment was very dusty and that handles kept clashing and were over hot areas on the hob, which was hazardous. She also reported damage to the living room wall.
  6. Following this visit, the resident was satisfied with the hob distance issue and reassured about the kitchen layout. However, the landlord intended to recall the contractor as the damaged wall had not been repaired adequately. On 19 May 2022, internal correspondence suggests that an additional wall unit was awaited, and the project manager intended to investigate whether it was possible to make changes to the breakfast bar support legs when installing the unit.
  7. There are no further records to confirm when and whether the wall unit was installed and if the wall was repaired adequately, apart from the stage 2 response itself, in which the landlord stated that 16 June 2022 was when snagging works had concluded. This was disputed by the resident in her email of 29 September 2022, in which she asserted the kitchen was hazardous.
  8. There is no evidence provided about why the work was signed off on 27 April 2022 when a wall unit remained outstanding, changes to the breakfast bar were under consideration, and the repair to the kitchen/living room wall was “not adequate”. Signing off the works before completion of some items and with snagging work outstanding was unreasonable. It raises concerns about the reliability of the landlord’s record keeping. It also led to the resident having to chase outstanding work on 4 and 24 May 2022, which caused further delays and frustration.
  9. As per the landlord’s records the work commenced on 3 March 2022 and was completed on 16 June 2022, with 13 days of pause for good reason discounted while awaiting for OT approval. The work therefore took about 3 months. In its final response, the landlord stated that it has no time limitations for adaptation works and its practice was for them to be completed within three months. However, it was not clear from its response whether this period started from the moment it received the OT recommendations or from the commencement of works.
  10. According to its major adaptations flowcharts, the landlord should complete the work 8 weeks from the start meeting with the resident and contractors. There is no evidence of such a meeting and as such the landlord could not demonstrate that it had followed its process. Additionally, there was a considerable delay in completing the works given the commencement date of 3 March 2022 and the end date more than three months later.
  11. The resident stated in her correspondence to the landlord that she was given 7-10 days for the works to be completed from their start date. Whilst the landlord stated that it had no time limitations for adaptation works, it did not dispute or respond to the resident’s statement that it had advised her the works would be completed for 7-10 days. It is noted that the landlord paused the works due to going back to the OT. While there is no evidence of any correspondence confirming timescales, it is not disputed that the resident had to live in a property with unfinished work for a considerable period. As such, the delays in completing adaptation works were not reasonable and its statement that it had no limitation for adaptation works was unfounded considering the adaptation flowchart timescales.
  12. Additionally, the correspondence between the parties suggests that there was poor and only reactive communication from the landlord. From the commencement of the work, when the resident appears to have been given a 7–10-day timescale, when she was not told that her kitchen was to be gutted, and that she would not have cooking facilities, to the reasons why work was paused and timely updates on when they would resume. This led the resident to suffer upset and lack of certainty regarding the works and obliged her to chase the landlord. This was not reasonable in the circumstances, given that the adaptation works were for a disabled resident, living alone.
  13. During its stage 2 review, in internal correspondence the landlord stated that properties should be left with hot water, washing facilities, running water, mains drinking water, WC, and cooking facilities. If a kitchen cannot be used, it would provide an allowance for meals (by prior agreement) and a surveyor would assess and decide whether decanting was needed. In this case, while the landlord stated that “the building surveyor confirmed the property as being habitable whilst works were being carried out”, there are no further details, or a copy of an assessment. Additionally, there is no evidence the landlord considered the lack of cooking facilities for the period of works.
  14. Whilst the OT stated that the work did not raise concerns in its original assessment, it is unclear what timescale that assessment was based on, and whether the OT envisaged that there would be no cooking facilities and delays in completing the works from when they started. It would have been reasonable in these circumstances for the landlord to assess the condition of the property given the work duration and the impact on the vulnerable resident.
  15. In all the circumstances of the case, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of adaptation works. The landlord failed to complete them in a timely manner; it also failed to communicate clearly about any delays and obstructions. Additionally, the landlord failed to acknowledge its failures with regards to the timescales and there was a lack of ongoing consideration of the conditions due to the delayed adaptation works. As such it failed to also put things right for the resident. 
  16. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for compensation from £600 to £1,000 for cases where “there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, and the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and/or made no attempt to put things right.” The landlord has not taken any steps to put things right for the resident. The events in this case, including the resident’s vulnerability, indicate that a payment at the top end of this scale is warranted and an order has been made for the landlord to pay compensation to the resident of £1,000 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to her by its failures.

Complaint Handling

  1. The landlord’s Complaint Policy states that it will acknowledge stage one and stage two complaints within 3 working days, providing the “full contact details of who is to investigate the complaint” and the deadline for the reply. A full stage one response will be provided in 10 working days, and a full stage two response provided in 20 working days.
  2. The landlord’s complaint acknowledgment of 22 April 2022 did not provide the name or contact details of the investigator; however, it did provide the general complaints email. The landlord’s complaint escalation acknowledgment of 2 September 2022 did not provide the name or contact details of the investigator. It stated that the complaint would be reviewed by an Investigating Officer, and asked the resident to send any queries to the Complaint Support Officer that wrote the acknowledgment. The policy infers that the name of the officer would be provided, but it has not been in either case.
  3. The landlord suggested in the stage one response dated 12 August 2022 that the email dated 27 April 2022 was in fact its stage one response. There is no copy of this email provided to this Service, but parts of it were quoted in the landlord’s stage one response. Additionally,  it was recorded as sent in the landlord’s record. The landlord’s email dated 27 April 2022 did not indicate that it was a formal response despite the landlord’s later clarification. In addition, if the landlord considered its response of 27 April 2022 to be a stage one response, the appropriate step to take after the Ombudsman’s contact would have been to escalate the complaint. It did not do so and as such caused confusion about its complaint process. Issuing two stage one responses was not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code.
  4. Additionally, in stage one response of 12 August 2022, the landlord awarded a £50 goodwill payment as the 27 April 2022 email did not provide a ‘full response’ or advise the resident how to escalate her complaint. However, in the stage two response of 26 September 2022, the landlord stated that the £50 was awarded for the delay in providing a reply. This added to the overall lack of clarity in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
  5. The stage two acknowledgment was provided 11 days after the resident escalated her complaint. This is a delay of 8 working days from the deadline in the Complaint Policy. The full stage two response was provided 27 days after the escalation requests and as such with a delay of 7 days.
  6. In its final response, the landlord failed to address the damages to the walls and the expenses the resident incurred due to the lack of cooking facilities. Additionally, the landlord referred to inaccurate information and provided details of the wrong Ombudsman for the resident to pursue her complaint further.
  7. The resident was put to time and trouble due to the insufficient response of 27 April, which led to her contacting the Ombudsman twice, first to complain and then to report she had not received a response by the deadline set by the Ombudsman. This also contributed to the overall delay in progressing the complaint as the resident was not aware that the earlier response was through its formal process and as such of the need to escalate if she remained dissatisfied.
  8. The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling process. The landlord failed to provide clear information as to how to follow the complaints process including referral rights to the Housing Ombudsman. It failed to follow its policy when acknowledging the complaint, failed to comply with the relevant timescales, and failed to recognise its mistakes and address all the issues raised by the complainant.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the adaptations.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £1250 for the failures identified in this report. Payment should be made directly to the resident and not offset against the rent account. The payment comprises:
      1. £50 previously offered to the resident if not already paid.
      2. £1000 in respect of distress and inconvenience the resident experienced caused by its delays in handling of the adaptation repairs at the resident’s property.
      3. An additional £200 compensation in respect of the time and trouble incurred by the resident by its handling of the complaint.
    2. Issue a written apology by a senior member of staff for the issues identified in this report.
    3. Inspect the property to investigate further the adaptation works were carried out to a sufficient standard and whether the kitchen is safe for the resident. If additional works are identified during the inspection, the landlord to confirm the anticipated timescale for completion of these works.
  2. The landlord to provide evidence to this Service that it has completed the orders listed above within four weeks of this determination.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should provide training and guidance on its adaptation works process, focussing on managing resident expectations in terms of standard of works and expected timescales.