Southwark Council (202207291)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207291

Southwark Council

15 February 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 decision to decline the resident’s mutual exchange application, on the basis that he was responsible for vandalising his kitchen.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
3. The landlord’s repair records state that on 25 February 2022, the landlord’s contractor attended the property and removed the kitchen cupboards. This was to access the kitchen floor and undertake a repair. The records state that the cupboards were not put back up on this date, and there is no record of the cupboards being reinstalled at a later date.
4. After the resident applied for a mutual exchange of his home in March 2022, the landlord inspected the property on 21 March 2022, to ascertain if it was in a suitable condition for the exchange. On 29 March 2022, it denied the resident’s application, stating that the kitchen units needed to be replaced by the resident before it could continue with his application. It explained that it believed that the resident had removed the units, and it was his responsibility to replace them.
5. The resident requested a review of the application refusal on 11 April 2022 and submitted a complaint on the 21 April 2022. He disputed that he had pulled out the kitchen units, explaining that the contractors had done so to fix the flooring issues. The landlord responded on 22 April 2022. It stated that its repairs team had concluded that the resident or associated persons had damaged the kitchen. It did not believe that it had removed the kitchen cupboards. Therefore, the landlord decided that it was the resident’s responsibility to repair the kitchen units and quoted a price of £1,702.18 for the relevant repairs. The resident escalated his complaint on 27 April 2022, disputing the allegations that he had removed the kitchen.
6. After intervention from this Service, the landlord replied on 15 August 2022. It stated that it had reviewed its records and photographic evidence, and was satisfied that the kitchen had been vandalized. It denied that it had removed the kitchen units itself. It also stated that the resident had not sent any evidence to prove that the contractors had caused the damage.
7. In his complaint to this Service, the resident continues to dispute that he removed the kitchen units. He would like the landlord to replace the units and to allow his mutual exchange to take place.

Assessment

8. The landlord’s websites states that if residents wish to swap their homes, permission will not be unreasonably withheld. It continues to explain that some conditions may need to be satisfied before permission will be granted. In the mutual exchange criteria sent to the resident, it states that if any repairs are found to be the resident’s responsibility, these must be completed before the mutual exchange is approved.
9. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is not responsible for repairs caused by damage or neglect by the resident. It outlines that if it needs to carry out repairs caused by the resident, it will charge the resident the full cost of the work.
10. The resident has stated that he has had ongoing issues with his kitchen flooring while living in the property. He has explained that his kitchen cabinets were removed by the landlord’s contractors, so they could undertake repairs to his kitchen floor. This is consistent with the landlord’s repair records (supplied to this Service), as they state on 25 February 2022 the resident’s “Kitchen unit drawer needs repair, the cupboards were removed as resident needed the flooring and underneath it sorting out”. The records state that “this has now been rectified but no cupboards were put back”. There is no record of the cupboards being replaced at a later date.
11. The landlord inspected the resident’s home on 21 March 2022, and found the kitchen units were missing. In such circumstances, the landlord would be expected to investigate why this was the case. Specifically, it should have checked its records to ascertain if there were any reports of repairs to the resident’s kitchen. The landlord instead concluded that the resident had vandalised his kitchen, based on photos of the kitchen and a statement by one of its repair team. The photos depicted the space where the kitchen units had been, but did not show the cupboards in good repair after the contractors had visited in February 2022. It is unclear why the photos would prove that the resident damaged his kitchen, as they simply show that the cupboards were missing, which is not in dispute. The statement made by the repair team explained that it had not removed the resident’s kitchen cupboards. This contradicts the landlord’s own repair records, which (as shown above) clearly state that the cupboards were removed by the landlord (its contractors). The landlord’s dependence on unreliable evidence, rather than its own record keeping was not appropriate. The landlord failed to assess the available information properly, which is a failing in the circumstances.
12. Vandalism is an anti-social or criminal act. When suggesting a resident has acted anti-socially or unlawfully, the emphasis is on the landlord to provide evidence to support that allegation. The landlord has not provided clear reasoning or evidence to show that the resident ever removed his kitchen units. From the evidence provided to this Service, it shows that the landlord (its contractors) removed the kitchen units in February 2022, and there is no record to show that it ever replaced them. The landlord has failed to show that the resident is responsible for the disrepair, and so it therefore remains obligated to replace the resident’s kitchen units.
13. The landlord’s criteria for mutual exchange states that it will not refuse an application unreasonably. To act inline with this policy, the landlord would be expected to assess applications properly and arrive at a fair conclusion. However, the landlord refused the resident’s mutual exchange application on the basis that there were outstanding repairs that he was obligated to fix. This was unreasonable, as the landlord arrived at this conclusion without any tangible evidence. It also disregarded, or did not investigate existing evidence that indicated that it had removed the units itself. This was a failing.
14. The landlord did not act appropriately in its complaint responses as it failed to properly investigate the resident’s complaint. In line with general customer service standards, it should have identified that it had removed the resident’s kitchen units from its repair records. It should also have recognized that it did not have any tangible evidence to support an accusation that the resident had vandalised his kitchen. In-line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, the landlord should have identified and acknowledged its errors, and attempted to put things right with a proportionate remedy. The landlord did not recognise any of its mistakes in how it had handled this complaint. This was a failing in the circumstances.
15. It is concerning that the landlord made serious accusations without the necessary records to support its allegations. The impact on the resident was serious, as he was accused of a criminal act, asked to pay for repairs that were not his obligation and denied a mutual exchange of his home. Additionally, it is apparent that the resident has been without kitchen units since February 2022. The landlord should learn from its failures, and ensure that it is taking appropriate steps to support any future allegations against residents with actual evidence.
16. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the cumulative impact of the landlord’s failings in this case amount to severe maladministration, as it has not only had a detrimental impact on the resident’s mutual exchange application but has caused significant distress and inconvenience. This is coupled with the unnecessary time and trouble incurred by the resident in pursuing his complaint, given that the evidence was on record for the landlord to consider, which would have prevented the complaint in its entirety.
17. As the failure had a significant impact on the resident, financial redress is ordered in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance which states ‘compensation awards of £600-£1000 will be ordered where there has been maladministration/ severe maladministration which has had a significant impact on the resident. The circumstances for severe maladministration apply (there was a single significant failure in service or a series of significant failures which have had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident and the landlord’s response to the failures, exacerbated the situation and further undermined the landlord/resident relationship), but the redress needed to put things right is at the lower end of that scale’.

Determination (decision)

18. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its decision to decline the resident’s mutual exchange application, on the basis that he was responsible for vandalising his kitchen.

Orders

19. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £1000 compensation in recognition of the significant distress and inconvenience caused by:
       1. Its poor handling of his mutual exchange application.
       2. Failure to properly investigate his complaint.
       3. Failure to complete repairs in a timely manner.
    2. Provide a written apology to the resident for its failures in investigating the complaint, incorrectly denying his mutual exchange and allowing repairs to remain outstanding for a significant period of time.
    3. Reconsider/continue to process the resident’s application for mutual exchange.
    4. Complete the repairs to the resident’s kitchen.
    5. Reimburse the resident for any actual financial expenditure (if any) that he has incurred in repairing or replacing the kitchen units.

Recommendations

20. The landlord should consider retraining its staff on how it handles complaints, to ensure that investigations are being conducted thoroughly.