Southwark Council (202213560)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213560

Southwark Council

16 March 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 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 handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of damages and costs following a water leak in her property.
   2. The associated record keeping and complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a maisonette.
3. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 1 December 2020 to install a new filling loop in her boiler. On 2 December 2020, she experienced an urgent water leak in her property that flooded the kitchen, passage and sitting room, which she reported was from the same pipe that had been repaired on the previous day bursting. The resident reported the leak to the landlord at the time, which attended and completed a plumbing job to fix the leak in the early hours of 3 December 2020, leaving her laminate flooring bubbled up that it considered to be her responsibility. It then returned to provide her with two dehumidifiers for her kitchen and sitting room.
4. The resident’s stage one complaint of 8 December 2020 attributed the cause of the leak to the repair work that had occurred on the day before the water leak causing the burst pipe. She described how the leak had damaged her belongings, appliances, food, clothing and flooring, and she requested that the landlord replace the flooring and the items which were “destroyed”.
5. On 29 June 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord and described her dissatisfaction and disappointment with its handling of the complaint, and how she had been referred to its public liability insurance, but had received no further complaint response. She therefore requested its assistance with this and informed it that she was “not good using computers”.
6. The resident subsequently contacted this Service on 26 September 2022 because she was seeking compensation from the landlord, and for it to repair her flooring. We contacted it on her behalf on the same date, and requested that it provide a complaint response by 10 October 2022. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint to this Service on 26 September 2022, and it reported that it acknowledged the complaint to the resident on 14 October 2022.
7. The landlord then issued a final stage complaint response on 27 October 2022, explaining that it had previously responded to the resident’s original stage one complaint, but that it was unable to locate the response as it had changed systems. It therefore escalated the complaint to the final stage of the complaints procedure.
8. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint, however, because it was satisfied that the leak had not been caused by work carried out to her boiler by its contractors, but from a water pipe that it had attended in accordance with its repair guidance within 24 hours. It added that its tenants handbook confirmed that it did not pay for damages as a result of leaks, and that it instead expected residents to either have their own contents insurance for this or to make a claim on its liability insurance, for which it gave her details.
9. The resident subsequently advised this Service that she wanted to progress her complaint about the landlord with us to seek compensation and flooring repairs from it. She also informed it that she had incurred additional electricity costs to use the dehumidifiers that it had provided her with to dry out her property, and that she had been unable to use her front room and kitchen “for a while” because they were damp after they had been flooded.
10. When the landlord then submitted evidence to this Service for this investigation on 28 February 2023, it acknowledged that its final stage complaint response had been incorrect, and that this had provided the resident with incorrect information. It explained that the burst pipe that had leaked had been worked on the day before the leak, and it acknowledged that “based on the balance of probability this was likely the cause.”
11. The landlord therefore stated that this warranted compensation and it suggested offering the resident £300 in recognition of this, and for its lack of stage one complaint records, for which it asked for this Service’s input. It also explained that it had received confirmation from its insurers that, if a claim to them was made for this, a breach would be admitted based on the information held, and so she had been asked to provide details of her losses, but that the case had been closed because she had not done so. Although the landlord confirmed that this could be reopened and that, while it would have been inappropriate for it to have determined its liability for the damaged flooring that was the resident’s responsibility under its complaints procedure, it would have advised her to follow its insurance process for this.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of damages and costs following a water leak in her property

12. The landlord acknowledged to this Service on 28 February 2023 that contrary to its final stage complaint response, “based on the balance of probability this was likely the cause”, in reference to the burst water pipe that its contractors had worked on the day before the leak had occurred. It was therefore reasonable that, following this acknowledgement, it stated that this warranted compensation and suggested offering £300 to the resident for this. The landlord requested input from this Service in relation to the amount suggested, which is provided below.
13. The landlord’s repairs guide obliges it to attend emergency repairs such as burst pipes causing internal flooding within 24 hours, and so it was appropriate that it repaired the burst pipe flooding the resident’s property on 2 December 2020 within that timescale in the early hours of 3 December 2020. The guide also indicates that it is not responsible, and that it is instead her responsibility, to repair or renew her floor coverings, as it explained to her. Furthermore, the landlord’s website outlines that, if there is loss or damage to property that is claimed to be as a result of negligence by it, then the resident can either submit her own contents insurance claim or make a liability insurance claim against it, as it suggested to her.
14. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord referred the resident to its liability insurance to claim for the damages that she reported to her belongings, appliances, food, clothing and flooring. However, as she then reported to it on 29 June 2021 that she had not heard from it since being referred to its liability insurance, and that she required assistance with this and had difficulty using computers, it should have assisted her with submitting a claim to its insurers.
15. Therefore, as the landlord has confirmed that the resident has not provided the necessary evidence to its liability insurers about the damages that she claimed for, which led to her case being closed, but that this can be reopened, it has been ordered below to do the following. It has been ordered to contact her to re-invite her to provide it with information on her losses, to enable her insurance claim to it for her damaged flooring and belongings to be reopened.
16. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that, where residents have incurred costs that would not have been necessary but for a failure on its part, it is usually appropriate for it to reimburse them for these, including for its contractors’ use of their electricity. The resident reported to it that she had incurred additional electricity costs from the two dehumidifiers that it had provided to her for an unspecified length of time to dry out her property following the leak there. However, the landlord did not respond to her or to this Service about these about this, which was inappropriate.
17. Once the landlord had accepted responsibility for the leak, as it did on 28 February 2023 to this Service, it should have instead considered its additional responsibilities in order to be fair and put things right, in accordance with this Service’s dispute resolution principles for it to do so. This included considering providing compensation for the costs that the resident had reported that she had incurred as a result of the leak. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to contact her to invite her to provide it with evidence of her increased electricity costs from running the dehumidifiers at her property, for it to reimburse her for them in accordance with its compensation policy.
18. The landlord’s compensation policy also states that it will offer compensation to residents where there has been the loss of a non-monetary benefit, such as the loss of the use of a room. The resident reported to it that she was unable to use her front room or kitchen for a “while” because they were damp as a result of the leak. This meant that, when it accepted responsibility for the leak, the landlord should have included the reported loss of rooms in its consideration of its suggested compensation payment to her, but it incorrectly failed to acknowledge this.
19. Moreover, the resident described being greatly inconvenienced by the leak, the resulting water damage and damp, and the financial burden of her electricity bills and loss of belongings, including her flooring. The landlord’s compensation policy outlines that compensation for the impact of distress without injury to health should be awarded, when events lead to an “injustice” to its residents and its service has failed to meet the correct standards, of £500 per year.
20. In light of the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of the repair, thit has been ordered below to pay £300 compensation to the resident for this. This is in recognition of her distress, inconvenience, time and trouble from its failures to compensate her for the loss of rooms, her resulting costs, and the incorrect information in its final stage complaint response. This is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, which suggests compensation from £100 where there has been a failure in service by the landlord which has adversely affected the resident, and in light of its compensation policy detailed above.

The associated record keeping and complaint handling

21. It was inappropriate that the landlord only accepted responsibility for the leak and suggested compensating the resident following the final stage complaint response, and without providing a stage one complaint response. This Service recommends a two-stage complaints procedure in our complaint handling code, so that residents can appeal decisions and landlords have the opportunity to review information. As the landlord escalated the complaint to the final stage of its procedure, but without any record of a previous complaint response, it removed its and the resident’s opportunity to review this internally.
22. It is therefore of concern that this external review may not have occurred at all if the resident had not referred her complaint to this Service. To prevent this from occurring again, the landlord has been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its complaints policy, and of our complaint handling code. This is in order to ensure that all information is reviewed when investigating a complaint response at both stages of the complaints procedure, so as to avoid incorrect information being provided to residents without the opportunity for this to reviewed internally.
23. In line with its complaints policy, a complaint is defined as any expression of dissatisfaction made about any of the landlord’s services which requires a response. On 29 June 2021, the resident wrote to it to express dissatisfaction at its handling of her complaint, and to explain that she was yet to receive a response from its insurers. She also informed the landlord that she was “not good using computers”, and of her difficulties in making the insurance claim because of this, for which she requested its assistance.
24. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord responded to this complaint, however, which it should have done in accordance with the complaints policy, and so this was a complaint handling failure on its part. It should have instead used this complaint as an opportunity to assist the resident in making an insurance claim as she had requested, which would have prevented her further time, trouble and inconvenience as she waited for a response from its insurers.
25. It is also of concern that the landlord does not have a record of its stage one complaint response to the resident’s original complaint of 8 December 2020. While this Service understands that the original complaint was made over two years ago, and that it has updated its system during this time, it is nevertheless still expected to keep comprehensive records. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place, or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
26. In this case, this Service is unable to determine whether the landlord provided an adequate stage one response, which appropriately addressed the resident’s concerns. It can be seen from her later correspondence that it provided her with its public liability insurance details, which was appropriate. However, it cannot be determined if the landlord adequately explained the insurance process to the resident, or that it informed her of its responsibilities and how she should proceed, because there are no copies of these records.
27. In its final stage complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that it did not have a copy of its stage one complaint response. It did not apologise to the resident for this record keeping failure, however, which it should have done. Furthermore, the landlord has not shown how it will prevent further record keeping issues from occurring again in the future, so it has been recommended below to review its record keeping practices for complaints. This is to ensure that it keeps correspondence relating to complaints for a reasonable length of time, and that it is able to provide such information to this Service upon request.
28. As per the landlord’s complaints policy, it is expected to acknowledge complaints within three working days, respond to stage one complaints within 15 working days, and to final stage complaints within 25 working days. It is noted that the landlord’s complaints policy is not in line with this Service’s complaint handling code. The latter instead outlines that landlords should issue stage one complaint responses within ten working days, and final stage complaint responses within 20 working days. However, the landlord’s published annual self-assessment of its complaints handling and policy against our complaint handling code considers this to be reasonable, and so it has been recommended below to consider ensuring that these are in line with the code during its next self-assessment.
29. The landlord also issued its final stage complaint response on 27 October 2022 after this Service referred the resident’s complaint to it on 26 September 2022, following her previous attempts to complain to it without any record of a response on 8 December 2020 and 29 June 2021. These delays were not acknowledged by it at that time, however, nor did it apologise for or remedy them, which was a further failing in its complaint handling. Landlords are expected to adhere to timescales in this Service’s complaint handling code, communicate clearly with residents when they are unable to do so, and acknowledge any failings which are made.
30. While the landlord’s subsequent suggested £300 compensation offer to the resident to this Service included its lack of stage one complaint records, this was not proportionate to recognise both its failings in response to her reports of damages and costs following the leak and its poor record keeping and complaint handling. In light of the further failings identified above, it has therefore been ordered below to pay a further £150 compensation to her. This is in recognition of the landlord’s stage one complaint record keeping failings, failure to respond to the resident’s subsequent complaint, and delays in issuing a final stage complaint response and offering her compensation until it was contacted by this Service.
31. This is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, which suggests further compensation from £100 where there has been a failure in service by the landlord which has adversely affected the resident. This is also in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy’s recommendation of compensation from £50 for its residents’ time and trouble in getting a resolution to their problem from it. The below recommendation for it to review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its complaints policy, and of this Service’s complaint handling code, has also been made to ensure that these are followed to prevent its complaint handling delays in the resident’s case from occurring again in the future.

Determination

32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of damages and costs following a water leak in her property.
    2. The associated record keeping and complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

33. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £450 total compensation within four weeks, this is broken down as:
       1. £300 in recognition of her distress, inconvenience, time and trouble for its failures to compensate her for the loss of rooms, her resulting costs, and the incorrect information in its final stage complaint response.
       2. £150 in recognition of its stage one complaint record keeping failings, failure to respond her subsequent complaint, and delays in issuing a final stage complaint response and offering her compensation until it was contacted by this Service.
    2. Contact the resident to re-invite her to provide it with information on her losses to enable her insurance claim to it for her damaged flooring and belongings to be reopened.
    3. Contact the resident to invite her to provide it with evidence of her increased electricity costs from running the dehumidifiers at her property, for it to reimburse her for them in accordance with its compensation policy.
34. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Review its record keeping practices for complaints to ensure that it keeps correspondence relating to complaints for a reasonable length of time, and that it is able to provide such information to this Service upon request.
    2. Consider ensuring that its complaints handling and policy timescales are in line with this Service’s complaint handling code during its next published annual self-assessment against the code.
    3. Review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its complaints policy, and of this Service’s complaint handling code. This is in order to ensure that all information is reviewed when investigating a complaint response at both stages of the complaints procedure, so as to avoid incorrect information being provided to residents without the opportunity for this to reviewed internally, and that these are followed to prevent its complaint handling delays in the resident’s case from occurring again in the future.
35. The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied the above orders, and whether it will follow the above recommendations.