Southwark Council (202222991)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222991

Southwark Council

26 February 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of outstanding repairs in the property.
2. Handling of damp and mould in the property.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint, including the level of compensation offered.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the property which is a 3-bedroom flat. The resident has asthma and arthritis. The landlord has stated that it has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 29 July 2022 regarding unfinished work within her property. She said she first complained in 2018, and work started in 2019 but remained unfinished, 3 years later. The resident said she was confined to one room and outlined the outstanding repairs to be completed. She said the situation had made her illness worse and she would like compensation for the delays. The outstanding repairs listed were:
1. The sitting room had damp by the wall and the window ledge needed to be sealed with plastic.
2. The balcony door was cracked.
3. Damp treatment was required in the kitchen, bathroom, WC, bedrooms, front door, and hallway cupboard.
4. The bathroom had cracked tiles which needed to be fixed.
5. The bathroom taps needed to be changed to lever taps and the shower hook needed to be changed. The resident stated this was due to her disability.
6. Bathroom, WC, passage cupboard, front door and smaller bedrooms to be painted.
7. Larger room – plastering to be finished, plastic to be fixed on the window, flooring to be done, air vent to be done, and skirting board to be finished.
8. Vent to be put in the passage and the vent in the passage cupboard to be fixed.
9. Small bedroom – plastering to be fixed, along with skirting board and electric socket. The window to be sealed with plastic.
In its stage 1 response the landlord said all the repairs were marked as completed on its system and therefore it had arranged an inspection of the property. Following the inspection, it raised the subsequent work orders:
1. Treat mould in kitchen, WC, bathroom, and spare room.
2. Install plastic vent to hall cupboard door.
3. Install UPVC sill to bathroom/spare room and bedroom windows.
4. Install electrical socket in spare room and make good the damaged skirting board within the room.
It stated that the inspection had raised all the repairs which it was responsible for. The resident disagreed with the response and said the works she had outlined were all raised following the initial inspection in 2018. She said she would like the issues to be resolved as they had caused her great inconvenience and affected her health. She reiterated that she would also like to be compensated.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 16 November 2022. It said the completion date for the works outlined in the stage 1 response was 19 September 2022. It said they had been scheduled for 25 November 2022 and 13 December 2022. It acknowledged that the appointments were outside of the target completion date and said the resident should be compensated for the delay. It said her request for additional repairs had been declined as it was deemed not necessary. It upheld her complaint and offered £150 compensation for the delay in raising the work order and the resident’s time and trouble.
The resident was dissatisfied with the response and contacted the Ombudsman. She said she was not satisfied with the way her landlord had treated her in relation to the ongoing repairs. She said the damp kept coming back, the work remained unfinished, and it had caused her health to become worse. In a telephone call to the Ombudsman in February 2024, the resident said the landlord had completed most of the repairs. The resident remains dissatisfied with the amount of compensation paid.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has referred to her health and that the landlord’s handling of the repairs could have had an impact on this. It is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to determine whether there would have been a direct link between the actions or lack of action by the landlord and any subsequent impact on the resident’s health. The resident may wish to seek legal advice on making a personal injury claim if she wishes to pursue this. Although we cannot assess the impact of the landlord’s actions on the resident’s health, consideration has been given to the distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of the situation.

The landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs in the property.

In accordance with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for the repair of the structure and exterior of the property. The landlord’s repairs policy categorises the repairs in 3 ways. Emergency repairs have a 24-hour turnaround, urgent repairs have a 3-working day turnaround, and non-urgent repairs have a 20-working day turnaround.
In her formal complaint the resident raised a number of outstanding repairs in the property which she said were initially raised in 2018. While the Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s account, the Ombudsman must rely on contemporaneous documentary evidence to determine what events took place. The Ombudsman has not had sight of the inspection report in 2018 and it is not clear from the notes on the landlord’s records which repairs were raised from it. Due to the time lapsed it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange an inspection of the property.
The landlord stated that the previous repairs raised by the resident were marked as completed. It also said to the Ombudsman that the repairs raised following the resident’s formal complaint were not related to any previous repairs. It is difficult for the Ombudsman to determine that this was correct. While it cannot be determined from 2018, the inspection which took place on 19 August 2022 raised repairs which do appear to have been raised previously. An example of this isthe landlord’s repair noteson 30 September 2020 which stated, “not finished needs follow on: small vent to be fitted on cupboard door”. The same repair notes also refer to new lever tap heads for the bath and an electrical socket in the bedroom, which were included in the resident’s formal complaint.
As such, it is reasonable to assume that some of the repairs raised in the resident’s formal complaint had been raised previously. The landlord should consider why the jobs were marked as completed at the time, when they had not been. This led to avoidable delays and caused distress to the resident.
In its complaint responses the landlord said it would not be raising the additional repairs requested by the resident as they were not deemed necessary during the inspection. While it is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinion of relevant qualified professionals, the resident had advised the landlord of her health conditions and that some of the repairs were required in relation to that. The landlord would be expected under both the Equality Act 2010 and the Social Housing Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard, to demonstrate it had taken steps to ensure it understood her needs. The landlord’s complaint responses did not suggest this was considered when determining which repairs were required in the property. It would have been useful for the landlord to have assessed the risk to the resident and provided a response which clearly outlined what action it could take in line with that.
In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged that there had been delays in completing the work it outlined in its stage 1 response. At the time of its response, the work remained incomplete, and it said appointments had been made for 25 November 2022 and 13 December 2022. It offered £60 compensation for the delay in raising the correct work order and awarded £90 for the resident’s time and trouble. The landlord’s repair log shows the repairs as completed on 28 March 2023, a further 4 months after its stage 2 response.
It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the delays which took place following the inspection of the property on 19 August 2022 and to award compensation for that. However, the landlord failed to consider if there were delays since 2018 and if so, to provide an explanation for why some of the jobs were not completed. The resident made the landlord aware of her health issues, however, the landlord did not appear to take these into consideration. There were avoidable delays in the handling of the outstanding repairs which resulted in the resident having to chase the landlord. As a result, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the outstanding repairs in the property.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property.

The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to assess hazards and risks within its properties. Damp and mould growth are outlined as a potential hazard.
The landlord’s repairs guide states that where damp is reported, it will arrange to inspect the property within 20 working days to assess the most appropriate course of action. The landlord’s leaflet on damp and mould states that it will be thorough in its investigations. It states it will complete a full survey of the resident’s home and block before deciding what to do next.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould states that landlords should consider their current approach to record keeping and satisfy themselves it is sufficiently accurate and robust. The report encourages landlords to go further and consider whether their record keeping systems and processes support a risk-based approach to damp and mould.
It does not appear the landlord assessed the historic reports in detail. In its stage 1 response it said all the repairs were showing as completed on the repairs system. In its correspondence to the Ombudsman, it also stated that there were no requests or reports of damp issues in 2018. In the landlord’s repair records there was a “trigger for damp letter” on 6 April 2018 and “damp inspection” on 7 December 2018. There were also repairs raised in 2019, 2020 and 2021 in relation to damp and mould. By considering the historic reports of the resident’s damp and mould in the property this would have demonstrated that the landlord had assessed any patterns of reoccurrence. This would have helped inform the inspection which took place on 19 August 2022 and reach an appropriate long-term solution.
While the landlord stated that it had no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident, the resident informed the landlord of her asthma and arthritis in her formal complaint. The landlord’s repair notes in 2020 alsoreferred to the resident being “vulnerable due to health condition”.The inspection highlighted that mould needed to be treated in several rooms. The landlord should have considered the resident’s health conditions when handling her reports of damp and mould in the property. There is no evidence to confirm that following her formal complaint the landlord considered risk assessments and/or property condition surveys to ensure the safety of the resident and the habitable condition of the property.
The landlord’s records show all repairs as completed on 28 March 2023. The resident has disputed this. While she has said that most repairs have now been completed, she said that there are still outstanding repairs required in her property. In the absence of a risk assessment, it is unclear whether any of the repairs should have been categorised as urgent. However, the repairs were still significantly outside of the landlord’s repair timescales for non-urgent repairs. It was not appropriate that the resident had to wait at least 7 months following the inspection for the work to be carried out and it is not clear why there were such delays. In line with the above failings, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould within the property.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint, including the level of compensation offered.

The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a 2 stage complaints procedure.It is to respond to a complainant at stage 1 within 15 working days and within 25 working days at the final stage. It states that it will acknowledge a complaint within 3 working days. The policy also states that the landlord will usually only consider compensation when it reviews if the complaint has been adequately resolved. It states that compensation should only be considered where the complaint investigation has identified maladministration, which it described as “a mistake or delay that has caused a customer to suffer an injustice.”
The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord’s complaint handling timescales are not consistent with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which sets out 10 working days to respond at the first stage and 20 working days at the second stage. The Complaint Handling Code will become statutory from 1 April 2024, meaning that landlords will be obliged by law to follow its requirements. Therefore, no order in relation to this has been made. The Code aims to achieve best practice in complaint handling and ultimately to provide a better service to residents.
The resident’s formal complaint was dated 29 July 2022. The landlord said that it had received the complaint on 22 August 2022, and it would respond to the resident by 13 September 2022. As the resident’s formal complaint was submitted via post it is difficult to determine whether there were delays in acknowledging the resident’s formal complaint. By stating that the resident would receive a response by 13 September 2022, the landlord was not acting in accordance with its complaint policy which stated that it should provide a response within 15 working days. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 4 October 2022 which was a total of 43 working days after it received the resident’s formal complaint. It was not appropriate that the landlord did not acknowledge the delay in its stage 1 response or provide a reason for it.
The landlord spoke with the resident on 4 October 2022 following the stage 1 response and she confirmed that she would like to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The landlord contacted the resident on 12 October 2022 to apologise for the delay in escalating her complaint and said a response would be provided by 16 November 2022. Again, it was inappropriate for the landlord to have provided that timescale as it was 31 working days after the stage 2 escalation, which was not in line with its policy.
As already addressed, the landlord’s complaint responses did not consider the additional repairs raised by the resident and its responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010. As a result, the landlord’s responses appeared to be dismissive to the resident’s concerns. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have shown how it had considered the resident’s health issues when deciding which repairs it was responsible for.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was reasonable in acknowledging that there had been a delay in completing the resident’s repairs following the formal complaint. It also acted reasonably by offering some compensation to acknowledge its failings. However, the resident’s complaint revolved around the completion of the outstanding repairs since 2018. This issue was not addressed in the landlord’s complaint response, as the landlord only assessed its immediate response to the complaint. It is a further failing that the landlord did not consider those delays and the impact on the resident.
In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged that the correct works were not raised following the inspection. It offered £60 compensation for the delay in raising the correct work order and £90 for time and trouble. While the compensation amount was reasonable for the delays following the inspection, it does not consider the longer delays which were raised by the resident. It also did not consider the delays in responding to the resident’s complaint at both stage 1 and 2. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, which was also not considered in the compensation offer. As such, the amount of compensation offered by the landlord was not appropriate.
In her complaint, the resident referred to damage to her belongings due to damp. While it was not addressed in the landlord’s complaint responses, the Ombudsman has seen correspondence to the resident on 8 September 2022 in which the landlord provided its insurance details for the resident to make a claim. It was appropriate for the landlord to respond to the resident with that information.
The landlord did not put right its failures in handling the outstanding repairs to the property and in following its complaints process. Its offer of compensation was not in line with the delays experienced nor did it fully recognise the impact on the resident. In light of the above findings, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, including the level of compensation offered.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs to the property.
2. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property.
3. maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling, including the level of compensation offered.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is to inspect the property to ascertain if any repairs remain outstanding. If it intends to take further action, then it must provide an outline of its intended actions with a timeline for events. If it proposes no further action, then it must write to the resident explaining its decision making.
The landlord to pay the resident a total of £1,600 compensation comprising of:
1. £600 for the delays in carrying out the repairs following the formal complaint and any distress and inconvenience caused as a result. This is inclusive of the £150 the landlord previously offered to the resident.
2. £600 for the landlord’s failure to consider any of the delays raised since 2018.
3. £200 for its failure to consider the resident’s health issues and appropriately risk assess the outstanding repairs within the property.
4. £200 in recognition of the landlord’s failures in complainthandling.
The landlord is to provide compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

The landlord should reflect on its record keeping in this case. It should look at its information sharing with contractors and where follow on work is required, whether the systems in place effectively raise this. Prior to closing a case on its system, the landlord should have a mechanism to ensure the reported repair has been completed. This will assist the landlord in preventing any recurrences.