Southwark Council (202225883)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225883

Southwark Council

13 May 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a contaminated water supply.
2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

3. The resident is a secure tenant of a 3-bedroom flat. The tenancy began on 6 August 2018. The landlord has no known vulnerabilities registered for the resident.
4. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint because he had concerns that the water from the tap in his property was contaminated. He said the hot water tank was full of lime scale and this needed to be changed. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that its contractor had attended and ran the hot water tap. It could not see any evidence of contaminated water. It explained that the water in the area was hard which caused limescale, but it would not renew fixtures because of this unless they were beyond repair.
5. The resident disputed that the water had been tested and asked for the complaint to be escalated to a stage 2. The landlord responded and said that it was satisfied that it had adequately tested the water. The tank was functional and the limescale issue was not a health concern. There had been no other factors put forward to show that a replacement was required. It acknowledged that it had delayed in issuing its stage 2 response and it offered £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused by its delay.
6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response as he wanted the issue with the water to be investigated further.

Post Complaint.

7. In January 2023, the landlord tested the resident’s water due to an unrelated back surge into the bath. It found no issues with the water supply.
8. In April 2023, the water tanks were replaced, and a new combi boiler was installed.

Assessment and findings

9. In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the installations in the property for the supply of water. Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs or works it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
10. The landlord’s repair policy states it must repair and maintain installations that directly or indirectly bring services like water into resident’s homes. It will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours. Urgent repairs within 3 working days and non-urgent within 20 working days.
11. It is recognised that the situation was distressing and inconvenient for the resident and his family. Its adverse impact on the family’s health is also acknowledged. It may help to explain that, unlike a court, the Ombudsman is unable to establish liability, so we cannot calculate or award damages. Nor can we evaluate medical evidence. On that basis, the resident’s concerns around any damage to his family’s health are beyond the scope of this assessment. 
12. The resident has said he was being discriminated against because of his name by the landlord. In accordance with paragraph 42 (g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not investigate matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal, or procedure. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as these are legal terms which are better suited to a court to decide. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s allegations.
13. On 3 August 2022, the resident reported that the cold-water storage tank in his home was leaking. He said that the water was also contaminated and was affecting his and his family’s skin. The landlord attended and completed an inspection on 9 August 2022. This was only just outside of its 3 working day response time which was reasonable. The repair notes said that a new cold water storage tank and hot water cylinder or the fitting of a combi boiler would resolve any issues with limescale in the water. The notes said the tank and cylinder were old. The records do not show what if anything was communicated to the resident.
14. On 15 August 2022, the resident contacted the landlord as he had been sent a satisfaction survey based on the landlord’s recent repair visit. The resident said that no one had been to the property since the inspection. The issue still remained unresolved. The repair notes said the job was raised as complete.
15. The landlord had clearly not kept the resident updated in respect of the next steps in its repair process. That it had not was a failing which caused the resident further time and inconvenience having to chase up the repair. The resident then had to wait a further 27 working days until the landlord attended again on 16 September 2022. This was outside of the landlord’s own timescales even if it had been classified as a routine repair after the initial inspection. This was a failing in its handling of the matter.
16. During the visit, the landlord’s contractor ran the hot water tap and no green water or bits came out of the tap. The resident called the landlord after the visit. He said that the contractor had not tested or checked the water. The resident reported the water was slimy. The landlord advised that it was waiting for the report from its operative who had attended that day. Once the report was received it would contact the resident to advise next steps. This was a reasonable response at this point. However, there are no further records to show that it did contact the resident to update him after this which was a further failing.
17. On 27 September 2022, the landlord sent the resident another satisfaction survey. The resident responded to advise that the job remained outstanding and shortly after this raised a stage 1 complaint.
18. The landlord should be able to rely on the findings of its appointed contractors. Within its stage 1 response the landlord explained this which was appropriate. The landlord clearly set out its position in respect of the fixture not being renewed because of limescale.
19. However, the landlord failed to consider how it had communicated with the resident about the repair. The resident had had to contact the landlord to chase up the repair. There is no evidence to show that the landlord updated the resident to keep him informed of its actions or its findings. That it did not was a failing. The resident had health and safety concerns which the landlord was aware of, and he was living with the uncertainty of this.
20. The landlord did go further in its stage 2 complaint response. However, this response was several months after the resident had raised his initial concerns. The landlord explained that it had obtained a further opinion from its gas and water contract manager to offer some reassurance. It provided additional advice on how to counteract the effects of hard water. It also said that the resident should contact again if he saw any other signs of contamination. This showed that the landlord had taken the resident’s concerns seriously and was trying to offer some reassurance. This was reasonable.
21. In respect of the resident’s concerns about discrimination the landlord said it had not seen any evidence of discrimination in relation to its decision. The tank was functional and the limescale issue was not a health concern. There had been no other factors put forward to show that a replacement was required. This was a reasonable response in the circumstances and showed the landlord had listened to the resident.
22. It is noted although not part of this assessment that the water was tested in January 2023 post complaint because of a back surge. The test results showed that there was no contamination in the water. The landlord then upgraded the system to a combi boiler in April 2023.The tanks were therefore made redundant and removed. The landlord advised this Service that it could not see that it had informed the resident in January of the outcome of the water test results. It said it should have informed the resident to further reassure him. It said that it would apologise to the resident and offer compensation in respect of this. This Service agrees that this would be appropriate and has made a recommendation in respect of this.
23. In summary the landlord is correct in that it can rely on the findings of its contractors. However, in this case the landlord failed to show that it had adhered to its own repair response timescales and that it had adequately communicated with the resident about the repairs. These failings amount to maladministration. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience in living with the uncertainty of the water condition for longer than was necessary. It also caused the resident further time and effort having to chase the repairs with the landlord. The impact of these failings on the resident have been considered in the order and compensation below.

Handling of the complaint.

24. The landlord’s complaint policy in place at the time noted a 15 working days response time for stage one complaints, and 25 working days for review. While this timescale was in accordance with its policy at that time, the policy was not compliant with the Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code states that a landlord should respond to a stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. Since October 2023 it is acknowledged however that the landlord has now updated its policy and its timescales now align with the Code.
25. The landlord’s compensation policy provides that it will consider the extent of inconvenience a resident has experienced. This includes the time taken to deal with the complaint itself.
26. The landlord’s complaint response although not incorrect lacked evidence of a full investigation. It should have considered its own communication with the resident as well as the findings of its contractors. This would have enabled it to fully satisfy itself that it had done all it could. That it did not was a missed opportunity to perhaps put matters right at an earlier stage. A recommendation for refresher training on effective complaint handling has been made in respect of this.
27. The landlord did not provide its stage 2 response until 45 days after the escalation request. This was not in accordance with its policy timescales. It had however contacted the resident in November to apologise for its delay. It explained that it had large back logs, which it was working through, and it provided an estimated time scale. Within its stage 2 response it went further and offered redress of £50 for the inconvenience caused by its delays. Failure to adhere to timeframes for responses is a service failure. This Service therefore considers the landlord appropriately acknowledged its failing and the impact by offering sufficient redress.

Determination (decision)

28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a contaminated water supply.
29. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s opinion there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

30. The landlord is ordered to do the following within the next 28 days:

1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident £175 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a contaminated water supply.

Recommendations

31. Pay the resident £50 compensation if not already paid as offered in the landlord’s stage 2 response.
32. Considering the complaint handling failings in this case, the landlord should take steps (in the form of a refresher course or workshop, based on the contents of this Service’s Complaint Handling Code) to remind its relevant staff of their complaint handling responsibilities and the best practice approaches. The landlord may wish to refer to the Ombudsman’s Centre for Learning for appropriate courses.
33. The landlord to write to the resident (if it has not done so already) to apologise for not informing him of the outcome of the water tests at the earliest opportunity. It should also consider appropriate compensation in respect of this failing in accordance with its compensation policy.