Southwark Council (202208239)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208239

Southwark Council

28 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 resident’s reports of leaks into the property and the subsequent damage and loss of earnings.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident was a leaseholder of the landlord and passed away in 2017. The property is a second floor flat. The resident’s son (the representative) made the complaint on behalf of the resident’s estate. The representative has provided Grant of Probate which names him as the executor of the estate. For clarity, in the report both will be referred to as the resident.
3. On 12 October 2020 the resident reported a leak that had been ongoing for several years. He said he was renovating the flat, which had been delayed by the leak. The landlord completed repair works to the neighbour’s boiler and the resident reported a recurrence of the leak on 23 January 2021. The landlord confirmed the leak was resolved on 30 March 2021.
4. On 12 October 2021 the resident requested compensation for the water damage from an external leak during a period of 6 months as he incurred considerable costs and lost rental income. He said the landlord had been slow to resolve the issue. The landlord said it could not offer compensation and the matter should be handled through insurance.
5. It is unclear when the resident requested to raise a complaint but in its stage 1 response the landlord noted on 26 October 2021 it agreed to “advocate on your behalf regarding compensation following the leak affecting your property”.
6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 11 November 2021. It said the original leak that related to his neighbour’s boiler was reported in October 2020 and resolved in December 2020. The second leak was a separate issue and was resolved in March 2021. As the leak was not ongoing for over 6 months it was unable to offer compensation.
7. The resident requested to escalate the complaint on 1 December 2021 and provided a breakdown of the costs he had incurred, which amounted to £8,755. He then chased the complaint response on 16 February 2022.
8. On 1 April 2022 the landlord sent its stage 2 response to the resident. It said:
   1. It was evident several leaks had directly affected the resident’s property. The leaks were from different areas so were handled as separate incidents, rather than one continuous leak that remained unresolved.
   2. It had acted upon each report in line with its repair guidelines. Containable leaks are considered non-urgent repairs to be progressed within 20 working days. In some instances, it was not immediately able to establish the source of the leak, but it made every effort to remedy the issue.
   3. It was unable to offer compensation for loss of rental income as there is an insurance policy to protect leaseholders, which it had already advised him of. Its compensation policy states it will “not normally pay for valuable items if they have been (or could have been) insured”. The resident would be expected to have contents insurance and landlord insurance to cover damages and losses caused by leaks.
9. In the resident’s complaint to the Service, he said he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the leak and said it demonstrated a lack of understanding of the impact on him. He said the landlord’s communication was poor and it had not confirmed whether the leak had been resolved. He said he had to return to the property after moving out to manage the works. He wanted compensation for the significant financial impact due to lost income and related costs, and compensation for the mental, physical, and emotional impact. He said there were inaccuracies in the landlord’s timeline of events.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. The resident advised the Service on 24 April 2023 that the leak was ongoing, and the damage had recurred. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of the Service. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the new leak this should be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required. The matter may then be referred to the Service. The report will therefore focus on the events considered within the landlord’s complaint responses.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks into the property and the subsequent damage and loss of earnings

11. The landlord’s website states that when the resident is a leaseholder it is responsible for repairs to communal water pipes that serve multiple properties, drains, gutters, and outside pipes. If the leak originated from a tenanted property, the landlord would be responsible for completing repairs. The repairs guide states that emergency repairs should be attended within 24 hours, which includes leaks that are a serious danger to the structure of the building. Urgent repairs should be attended within 3 working days and non-urgent repairs should be completed within 20 working days, which includes minor leaks.
12. The resident initially reported a leak on 12 October 2020, which he said had been ongoing for several years. There is no evidence that the resident had notified the landlord of the leak prior to this, so it did not have the opportunity to resolve the issue at an earlier date. Nonetheless, upon being notified of the leak, it should have responded in line with its repairs policy. The landlord said it told the flat above (flat A) to arrange a plumber the same day it received the resident’s initial report. As the neighbour was a leaseholder, this was a reasonable action to take. However, the Service has not seen record of this correspondence or whether it satisfied that this was necessarily the cause of the leak.
13. The landlord asked the resident on 21 October 2020 to confirm the details of the flat above so it could check whether any works had been completed. A work order was then raised on 27 October 2020, but it is unclear whether a contractor attended. A further work order was raised on 6 November 2020 for an uncontainable boiler leak, in response to a separate report by the resident’s neighbour, which was attended on 9 November 2020. This leak appears to originate from the flat 2 floors above the resident (flat B) and it is evident it impacted multiple properties. It is unclear whether the property was leasehold or tenanted, but the landlord appears to have assumed responsibility for the repairs. Although the landlord attended within 20 working days, which was in line with its repairs policy, it does not appear it initially took sufficient steps to progress the resident’s reports of a leak and correctly identify the cause of the issue.
14. The repairs records on 14 November 2020 state the contractor was unable to complete the work and a specialist contractor was required. It noted “water coming from the overflow running down the wall onto the balcony”. A repair to renew the overflow pipe was completed on 25 November 2020 and a repair to the leaking boiler was attended on 27 November 2020. The landlord said works were completed to the boiler and overflow pipe on 4 December 2020 and further works were completed on 9 December 2020 for a leak to the communal cold-water storage. It therefore took 39 working days to resolve the leak from the resident’s initial report. While it is not always possible to resolve leaks at the first appointment, the landlord should have prioritised the follow-on works to prevent further delays to reach a full resolution, particularly considering the damage to the resident’s property. As it failed to do so, it prolonged the impact on the resident.
15. The resident’s neighbour told the landlord on 20 January 2021 that the leak was ongoing and impacting the resident’s property. The resident asked for an update on 23 January 2021. It is noted that the resident instructed an independent survey on 29 January 2021, which found the landlord should rectify the issue on the “communal corridor to prevent further damage to both flats”, but it is unclear whether the landlord was provided with the report or had the opportunity to act on the information.
16. The landlord raised a work order on 1 February 2021 and subsequently identified a leak from the walkway outside flat B and broken floor around the drain. The resident has raised concerns that the landlord was already aware of the leak from the walkway as it was indicated as a key issue on 14 November 2020, so should have been resolved at an earlier date. However, this related to the overflow pipe and the repair records show it was promptly repaired.
17. The landlord’s repair records on 9 March 2021 stated the leak was traced to flat A’s property and noted the “central heating return pipe under boiler and filling loop is also leaking”. It noted the leaseholder said they would get a plumber to resolve the issue. The landlord would therefore not be responsible for any further delays in resolving this issue as the leak was from a non-communal pipe so was outside the remit of its repair responsibilities. Given the impact on the resident’s property, it would have been reasonable to monitor the progress to ensure the works were promptly completed to limit further impact to the resident. It is unclear when the repairs were completed but the landlord inspected the impacted properties on 30 March 2021 and found the leak had been resolved. The landlord therefore took appropriate steps to identify and resolve the second leak.
18. In its complaint response, the landlord determined that the leaks had been caused by separate issues. As the leaks were found to originate from different properties and there was over a month period in which the resident did not report further issues with the leak, this was a reasonable conclusion. While it is recognised that the multiple leaks had a significant impact on the resident, as they had separate causes the landlord could not necessarily have foreseen or avoided the second leak.
19. The resident has raised concerns that he was not informed of several of the appointments the landlord outlined in its complaint response and the landlord did not update him to confirm the works had been completed. He also said it was unclear in the stage 2 response which flats the repairs related to. While the landlord would not necessarily have to notify the resident prior to the appointments, as access was not required to his property to complete the works, it would have been beneficial to have updated the resident on the actions it was taking to resolve the leak and to have confirmed when it had been resolved. There is also no evidence the landlord told the resident the second leak related to a different neighbour’s property until the stage 2 response, so it missed the opportunity to manage his expectations regarding the steps taken to resolve the leak at an earlier date.
20. The resident requested compensation for loss of earnings and damage to the property. He told the landlord on 13 May 2020 that he intended to rent the property through the landlord’s leasing scheme in September 2020, following completion of the renovation work. He was subsequently unable to do so due to the leaks and damage.
21. The landlord’s compensation policy states “we do not normally pay for valuable items if they have been (or could have been) insured.” It also states it will “seek advice from our insurance section before making any awards for loss of value over £200”. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord advised in its complaint response for the resident to pursue his compensation request through insurance.
22. The landlord has since recognised in its correspondence with the Service that its complaint responses did not provide advice on how to make a claim via the leaseholder building insurance. It is therefore recommended that the landlord confirms the insurance details if it has not done so already. Nonetheless, it promptly advised the resident it could provide its insurance details for internal damages and forms for a public liability claim when he initially raised his concerns in October 2021. As such, the resident had the opportunity to request the information to pursue a claim.
23. Nonetheless, due to the delays in initially progressing the first leak and arranging follow-on work, compensation is warranted. The landlord should also have provided the resident with regular updates to manage his expectations on the progress of the works. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, £200 compensation is warranted as the landlord has not acknowledged its failings or attempted to put things right. It is important to note that this is not a substitute for compensation that could be awarded by insurance. Our remedies guidance states “we do not look at claims the way an insurance provider would, or award financial redress for damage to items which should be covered by insurance”.

Complaint handling

24. In accordance with the landlord’s complaint handling policy, it should respond to stage 1 complaints within 15 working days and stage 2 complaints within 25 working days. This differs from the Service’s complaint handling code which recommends a response at stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. It is recognised that the landlord has recently engaged with the Service to improve its complaint-handling approaches.
25. In the resident’s complaint to the Service, he said he was dissatisfied with the delays in the landlord issuing its stage 2 response. The resident requested to escalate his complaint on 1 December 2021, which the landlord acknowledged the same day. However, it did not respond in line with its response timeframes, so the resident chased the complaint on 16 February 2022 and the landlord apologised for the delay.
26. On 24 March 2022 the staff member handling the complaint said they had been unexpectedly away and had been unable to conclude the investigation by the original date. It was reasonable that the landlord updated the resident to manage his expectations. The complaint response was subsequently issued on 1 April 2022.
27. It took 4 months for the landlord to issue its final response following the resident’s escalation, which was an unreasonable delay. It caused the resident additional time and effort pursuing the matter and delayed his referral rights to the Service. Although the landlord apologised for the delay in correspondence with the resident, it did not recognise it within its complaint response, or take steps to redress the issue. As a result, the matter remains unresolved. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, as the failure adversely impacted the resident and the landlord has made no attempts to put things right, £150 compensation is warranted.

Determination

28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the way the landlord handled the resident’s reports of leaks into the property and the subsequent damage and loss of earnings.
29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the way the landlord handled the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

30. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident:
    1. £200 for the failings identified in its handling of the leak.
    2. £150 for its failures in handling the resident’s complaint.
31. The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with the orders within 4 weeks of the date of the report.

Recommendations

32. The landlord should provide the resident details of its insurance if it has not done so already.
33. The landlord should review its complaint handling practices to ensure it promptly handles complaints and escalation requests.