The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Southwark Council (202306737)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306737

Southwark Council

22 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 landlord’s handling of disrepair reported by the resident.
    2. The landlord’s handing of a request to move property following the collapse of the resident’s ceiling and subsequent repairs, and her banding on the housing allocations system.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(e) and 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
    1. The landlord’s handling of disrepair reported by the resident.
    2. The landlord’s handing of a request to move property following the collapse of the resident’s ceiling and subsequent repairs, and her banding on the housing allocations system.
  3. Paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings.
  4. On 6 July 2021 the resident, through her solicitors, issued a letter of claim to order that the landlord carry out works and for damages (compensation). The works related to the roof, ceiling and alleged related damage, including water damage, mould and structural collapse. The resident claimed loss of comfort, including her distress. These were the same issues and facts that was the subject of the resident’s first complaint. The provision of temporary accommodation was also handled by the landlord’s disrepair team and discussed with the resident’s solicitor during proceedings, which ultimately ended with a settlement prior to the scheduled court date. This provided opportunity for any issues with the distance and cost of the decant to be raised during the proceedings.
  5. In this case the parties agreed a settlement using the disrepair protocol. The Ombudsman is satisfied that, whilst ultimately this did not progress to court, the resident had the opportunity to raise her concerns about the repairs needed to the property as part of the process and therefore this part of the complaint is not within our jurisdiction to consider further.
  6. Paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body.
  7. The Housing Ombudsman can investigate complaints relating to a landlord’s housing management – for example property condition and repairs, charges, and complaint handling. The Memorandum of Understanding between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) set out that the LGSCO investigates complaints regarding applications to the local authority housing register (such as increasing the applicant’s banding, or priority) and for emergency housing under Part 6 and Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 respectively.
  8. In this case, the resident has made a complaint about her priority banding on the housing allocation system as she feels she should be awarded a higher banding. Any application for rehousing in this manner would be made under Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996 and so this complaint falls within the remit of the LGSCO.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant and has lived at the property with her dependant son since August 2019. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the fifth floor of a purpose-built block.
  2. On 6 July 2021 the resident’s solicitor issued a letter of claim to the landlord in line with the ‘Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Conditions Claims’. This letter requested that the landlord inspect the property as a matter of urgency as the resident had been experiencing a leak from the roof into her property since the commencement of the tenancy. As a result, the plaster on the ceiling was damp and damaged. A disrepair survey was carried out by the landlord on 2 August 2021 and it was found that there was a leak from the room causing water ingress in the bedroom and kitchen. On 7 August 2021 the resident reported that her ceiling had collapsed as a result of heavy rain. She and her son were decanted to temporary accommodation on 12 August 2021.
  3. On 2 November 2021 the resident’s solicitors accepted an offer on behalf of the resident, which comprised of £1063.21 for damages and completion of the works identified on the disrepair survey on 2 August 2021 to be completed within 120 days.
  4. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 11 July 2022 as the repairs had not been completed and she was still in temporary accommodation. She also informed it that the temporary accommodation was a long distance from her work and her son’s school, and it was costing her a considerable amount of money. As a result of the decant, she had also had to rehome her cat with her mother as the temporary accommodation would not accept pets. She stated that she did not want to return to the property due to the amount of disrepair and the distress from the collapse of the ceiling, and requested a property move. On the same day, the resident’s solicitors contacted the landlord to advise it was in breach of the settlement.
  5. The landlord responded on 26 July 2022, and advised it could not respond to the disrepair elements of the complaint as it was subject to a disrepair claim. It confirmed that her rehousing application was open however required additional verification as her son was not listed on the application. It advised that she needed to add her son’s details to the application and if there had been any change in medical circumstances to ensure her application reflected this. It also stated that a medical assessment had been completed on 13 January 2022 which found no medical requirement for a property move. The landlord did offer to contact the disrepair team and determine whether they would award additional priority for a property move. Internal notes indicate that the disrepair team felt there was no justification for additional priority on the housing allocation system.
  6. On 10 August 2022 the resident’s solicitors accepted an additional offer on behalf of the resident, which comprised of £400 for damages and completion of the works identified on the disrepair survey on 2 August 2021 to be completed within 90 days of the settlement.
  7. On 30 March 2023 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. She advised that she had needed to leave the temporary accommodation due to the distance and had handed the keys back on 25 January 2023. She and her son were residing with her mother, but there was limited space. The repairs had not been completed, and she was upset that since moving to the property all the furniture she had purchased had been damaged, and in some cases lost due to the disrepair issues. She also said that her son was ‘petrified’ to return to the property as he recalled seeing leaks throughout the property. She was under the impression that she would be given band 1 priority for rehousing, however no action had been taken. The landlord responded on 12 April 2023 to advise that it was experiencing high demand and the stage 2 response would be delayed. A further acknowledgement letter was sent on 19 April 2023 advising that she would receive a response by 19 May 2023.
  8. The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued on 23 May 2023. This reiterated that it could not consider the disrepair due to the disrepair claim, and that the resident needed to ensure her details were accurate on the choice based lettings system. It found that the stage 1 complaint outcome was upheld, and provided the Ombudsman’s details if the resident remained dissatisfied.
  9. The resident and her son left her mother’s property on 13 June 2023 and moved into an additional temporary placement secured by the landlord until 22 November 2023 when they returned to the property.
  10. On 14 July 2023 an additional offer of damages was accepted by the resident’s solicitor on her behalf for the amount of £850, as the works still had not been completed.
  11. At several points during their time in temporary accommodation the resident requested to be moved to a different property permanently due to the issues she had experienced with her property. She stated that her son was having difficulties which had been noticed by his teachers and was experiencing anxiety as he was scared of the ceiling coming down again. She felt that the disrepair, length of time taken for repairs to be completed and her medical status would be sufficient reason for a priority property move.
  12. On 5 September 2023 the resident approached the Ombudsman as she was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 response to her complaint. She advised that she and her son were homeless, the disrepair still had not been resolved, and she wanted the landlord to rehouse her.
  13. The landlord advised her to update her account on the choice-based lettings system to reflect her medical needs and to add her son as another resident. On 14 September 2023 the local authority completed a household medical assessment and determined that there was no medical priority for the resident or her son. She returned to her property on 22 November 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a two-stage complaints policy. It promises to respond within 15 working days at stage 1, and 30 working days at stage 2. The policy specifies that residents may request escalation to stage 2 if they are unhappy with the outcome at stage 1. It also directs residents to the Ombudsman should they be dissatisfied with the final outcome of the complaint.
  2. The stage 1 response was issued within the appropriate timescales, however the stage 2 response was issued 35 days after the escalation request. The landlord did communicate with the resident on 12 and 19 April 2023 to advise the complaint response would be delayed due to high demand. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the slight delay in response was adequately managed by the landlord due to its communication with the resident.
  3. The policy also states that it cannot consider complaints “where legal proceedings, court or tribunal action is being taken (although related issues that are not subject to legal proceedings may be considered)”.
  4. It was appropriate for the landlord not to respond to the disrepair matters in the complaint, as the legal claim began before the complaint was made, and were settled after the stage 2 response had been issued. However, it could have responded to the resident’s complaint about the location of the temporary accommodation as, although this matter was linked to the legal claim, it was not the focus of it. This would have potentially limited the disruption for the resident, and may have reduced any additional costs she incurred.
  5. While it was understandable that the landlord did not address the temporary accommodation in this complaint, given it was discussed with the disrepair team, it should bear in mind whether it should use its discretion to do so in similar cases in the future. A recommendation will be added to the end of this report.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of disrepair falls outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of a request to move property following the collapse of the resident’s ceiling and subsequent repairs, and her banding on the housing allocations system falls outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider how it exercises its discretion when disrepair cases are subject to legal proceedings and the resident has a complaint about a related matter such as temporary accommodation. Given that the complaints policy has the caveat that it may accept complaints for related matters, it should consider its approach for future cases. The Ombudsman has guidance for landlords relating handling complaints related to the pre-action protocol for housing conditions claims at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/guidance-notes/guidance-on-pre-action-protocol-for-housing-conditions-claims-and-service-complaints/.