Southwark Council (202229495)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229495

Southwark Council

16 April 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 handling of a water leak into the property.
2. The Ombudsman will also investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

3. The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under a secure tenancy. The property is a 3-bedroom maisonette and he lives there with his wife and 5 children.
4. On 4 October 2021 the resident reported a leak to the landlord. The landlord tried to attend the upstairs flat but was unable to gain access. It then raised a work order for a specialist contractor as it found that when it poured with rain, water was leaking through the walkway above into the resident’s property. On 15 November 2021 the landlord referred the job to its major works team as it believed the work was covered under a guarantee.
5. The resident chased the landlord several times and on 24 October 2022, when the issue still had not been resolved and he had not been updated, he raised a complaint. He said the leak had ruined his wooden flooring, mould had built up, the light in the toilet had not worked for a year, and the toilet door could no longer close as it had absorbed water and expanded. He said that he had to miss work to come home and put buckets under leaks when it rained heavily, and their energy bills had increased due to the cold and damp conditions.
6. On 17 November 2022 the major works team passed the job back to the repairs team, as they said the work was not under guarantee and not for that team to deal with. The repairs team said it would raise a job on 8 March 2023, but there is no evidence the job was raised at this time.
7. The resident contacted this Service on 23 March 2023, and we directed him to raise the complaint with the landlord as its internal complaints process had not been exhausted.
8. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 2 May 2023, in which it said that work was now scheduled to start soon. It said that once this was complete, it would arrange for an inspection of the internal damage and raise the remedial work. The complaint handler said they would speak to a manager about compensation, but did not offer any compensation in this response, and there is no evidence a follow up offer was made. The landlord provided a link for the resident to make a claim on its insurance policy for his damaged belongings.
9. The landlord’s records state that the upstairs balcony was recoated on 4 May 2023. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated as the leak had not been resolved. The landlord sent a contractor to carry out internal decorating work on 4 September 2023, but they were unable to carry out the work as they said the cause of the leak needed to be established first.
10. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 14 September 2023, in which it did not acknowledge that the leak was still unresolved. It listed the internal work that needed to be done, and dates for these jobs to be carried out. It offered compensation of £480, made up of £5 per week for both distress and delay for 23 weeks, and £250 for time and trouble. It also provided the resident with a form for him to make an insurance claim for his belongings. The resident was not happy with this response as he said the property was not habitable. He contacted this Service on 2 November 2023 and asked us to investigate the complaint.
11. In January 2024 a ceiling in the property collapsed and the resident and his family were initially decanted into temporary accommodation. An inspection carried out in February 2024 deemed the property uninhabitable and the family have since been permanently rehomed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

12. The resident has raised concerns about his family’s health and the impact on this by the issues raised. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspect of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

The landlord’s handling of a water leak into the property

13. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for repairing any external leaks to the property. It categorises such repairs as non-urgent, and sets out a timescale of 20 working days for these repairs.
14. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) sets out guidance for landlords on identifying hazards in a home. This explains that mould is a threat to physical and mental health, which can lead to breathing difficulties and asthma, among other things.
15. The earliest record of the resident reporting a leak to the landlord was on 4 October 2021. He told the landlord it had been ongoing for 4 months, however no evidence has been provided that the landlord was aware of the problem earlier than 4 October 2021. On 26 October 2021 the landlord identified that a specialist contractor was needed, as the problem appeared to be with the coating of a walkway upstairs.
16. On 27 November 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to say the leak was still a problem and that it had now stopped the light in the toilet from working. He said he felt the property was unsafe for his family to live in.
17. On 16 December 2021 the landlord raised a job to clear the gutters on the upstairs balcony. At this time it recognised that there had been a delay to reports being sent to the right team. Its internal emails said there had been a communication gap and that it needed to give more consideration to the case.
18. Internal emails from 10 February to 26 April 2022 show that the resident had been continuing to chase, but no progress had been made. There is no evidence the landlord proactively kept the resident updated or communicated internally to get the work completed.
19. On 24 October 2022 the resident raised a complaint. He said that the leak had now ruined the wooden flooring they had recently had installed, making it sharp and uneven and dangerous to walk on barefoot. He told the landlord that 2 of his children had developed asthma, his energy bills had been higher due to the cold and damp conditions, and he had lost earnings due to having to return home during heavy rain to place buckets under the leaks. He also said that the toilet light had not been working for a year and the door now could not shut as it was swollen from water absorption.
20. The landlord’s internal email records show that on 16 November 2022 it was established that the walkway was not linked to major works, and so was not for that team to deal with. The work was passed back to the repairs team, however there is no evidence anything was done at this time, despite a complaint handler chasing an update on the repair on 15 December 2022.
21. On 8 March 2023 the landlord’s internal records show that it said it would raise a job, but despite the resident chasing an update there was no confirmation of a job being raised.
22. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 2 May 2023. It confirmed that the job had been referred to major works, but was not their responsibility, however it provided no explanation or apology for the delay in the job being sent back to repairs. It said work was now scheduled to start soon and that it would then arrange an internal inspection and raise remedial work.
23. The landlord provided a link for the resident to complete a form in order for him to claim for damaged belongings under the landlord’s insurance. This was a reasonable way for the landlord to resolve the issue of damaged belongings. This Service has not since any evidence that the resident has pursued an insurance claim under the landlord’s policy.
24. The landlord’s internal email records of 16 August 2023 say that a coating was done to the balcony on 4 May 2023, however the landlord has provided no evidence of its repairs log showing that this was done. It has also not provided any evidence that it followed up after this work to check that this had resolved the leak.
25. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated on 9 August 2023 as the leak had continued. The landlord carried out an inspection on 31 August 2023, where it identified a large number of required repairs. However, when a contractor attended on 4 September 2023 to redecorate, they could not complete the work because of the ongoing leak. They said that the source of the leak needed to be established and fixed before internal work could be carried out.
26. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 14 September 2023, and in this it did not acknowledge that the leak was ongoing. It set out appointment dates to carry out the internal remedial work, which was inappropriate as its contractor had told it 10 days earlier that this could not yet be done.
27. The landlord offered £5 per week compensation for both distress and delay from 4 May 2023, when it coated the walkway, to 12 October 2023 when the repairs it had proposed were due to be completed. However, this did not consider that the resident had first reported the leak in October 2021, or that the work would not actually be able to be completed without the leak being fixed first.
28. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for £5 per week for ‘minor impact’, £10 per week for ‘medium impact’ and £20 per week for ‘major impact’. It did not explain in its stage 2 response why it considered the impact on the resident to have been minor, and given what the resident told the landlord about the impact on him and his family, it was not appropriate for it to consider the impact as minor.
29. The landlord also offered £250 compensation for time and trouble, bringing its total compensation offer to £480. This amount does not fairly recognise the impact of the issue over a two year period, especially as the landlord did not set out how it planned to resolve the leak at that stage.
30. On 2 January 2024 the landlord’s contractor had to attend to complete an emergency make–safe as the property’s ceiling had collapsed due to the leak. The notes from this visit stated that the leak was coming from where the stack pipe and rain water pipe were housed and that work was needed urgently. It said that the health and safety of the family needed to be considered as the resident had small children.
31. On 5 January 2024 a local charity contacted the landlord and said that the family needed to be urgently decanted. On 9 January 2024 the family were moved into temporary accommodation. The landlord’s records from the same day state that the property was unsafe due to the condition of a joist on the landing and the presence of mould throughout. The landlord has confirmed that the family has since been permanently rehomed and that the property will not be relet until all remedial work has been completed.
32. It is commendable that the landlord proactively moved the resident and his family to a new home, rather than leaving them in temporary accommodation for a prolonged period. However, if the landlord had acted promptly to identify and fix the cause of the leak, this move would likely have been unnecessary, and the resident and his family would not have experienced this disruption.
33. The Ombudsman considers there to have been severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of a water leak to the property. There was an 18 month period between the resident reporting the leak and the walkway being recoated where the repairs were not progressed. The landlord’s records do not show that anyone was monitoring the progress of the job and this raises serious concerns about its knowledge and information management as there is no evidence of a system in place to stop jobs being forgotten about.
34. The landlord took too long to carry out repairs and did not consider the risk posed to the family’s health by the ongoing damp conditions. The resident told the landlord in October 2022 that mould was present and this was affecting his daughters’ health, however the landlord still failed to take any action at this time. It has not acted in accordance with the HHSRS or with the recommendations set out in this Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould.
35. The fact that the property ended up in an uninhabitable condition, more than 2 years after the initial report, demonstrates the extent to which the landlord got it wrong on this case. Its overall response was not proportionate to the reports it received.
36. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for compensation from £600 for cases where “there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident”. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £1,200 to recognise the significant impact on him and his family over a more than 2 year period. This brings the total compensation for this issue to £1,680.
37. A recommendation has also been made for the landlord to review its repairs handling processes to ensure it has a robust process in place for allocation of repair work and effective repairs handling.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

38. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord’s complaint process lacked customer focus, took too long to respond and failed to address the key issue.
39. The resident raised the complaint on 24 October 2022, and the landlord sent an automatic response the same day, confirming it had received the complaint. It said that it would acknowledge the complaint within 3 working days and respond within 15 working days, in line with the timescales set out in its complaints policy.
40. However, the landlord did not send its stage 1 response until 2 May 2023, more than 6 months after the resident raised the complaint. No evidence has been provided that the landlord updated the resident to provide an explanation for the delay, and no work was undertaken to rectify the leak during this time. This was an unacceptable delay in responding to the complaint, which likely contributed to the delays in the leak being repaired. It also raises concerns about the landlord’s knowledge and information management as it should have systems in place that prevent a complaint being overlooked for a prolonged period.
41. The response said that the complaint handler would speak to a manager about compensation, but did not provide any explanation of why this had not been considered before the response was sent. This was not appropriate, especially given how long it had taken for this response to be sent. And, there has been no evidence provided that the complaint handler spoke to a manager, or offered any compensation to the resident at this stage. The landlord also failed to properly acknowledge and apologise for its failings at this stage.
42. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated on 9 August 2023 and the landlord sent its stage 2 response 26 working days later, on 14 September 2023. This was a day longer than the 25 working day timescale set out in its complaint policy, however its records show that a survey was conducted during this time, so it is not an unreasonable delay.
43. Whilst this response was sent reasonably promptly, it failed to address the fact that its contractor had told it 10 days previously that the leak was not fixed. The stage 2 response did not mention this, and instead set out appointment dates for work that its contractor had said could not yet be completed. Its failure to acknowledge the ongoing leak during the internal complaints process led to further delays in getting the leak fixed.
44. The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It failed to respond to the resident’s initial complaint in a reasonable timeframe, nor did it update him with any explanation for the delay. And, at stage 2, it failed to pick up on the fact that the underlying problem, the leak, was still ongoing. After completion of the internal complaints process the situation was not resolved and there was no plan in place to get it fixed.
45. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for compensation from £100 for cases where “there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and/or made no attempt to put things right”. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £350 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its complaint handling.
46. A recommendation has also been made for the landlord to review its complaint logging processes and systems to ensure it has clear oversight of outstanding complaints so it can manage these effectively.

Determination

47. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of a water leak in the property.
48. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

49. The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £2,030, less any amount already paid during its internal complaints process, broken down as follows
    1. £1,680 for the landlord’s handling of a water leak in the property, including the amount offered by the landlord during its internal complaints process.
    2. £350 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
50. A senior manager at the landlord to provide the resident with a written apology for the impact these issues had on him and his family.
51. The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 28 days of this report.

 Recommendations

52. The landlord to review its complaint logging processes and systems to ensure it has clear oversight of outstanding complaints so it can manage these effectively.
53. The landlord to review its repairs handling processes to ensure it has a robust process in place for allocation of repair work and effective repairs handling.