Southwark Council (202306807)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306807

Southwark Council

22 August 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 repairs to the living room door frame.
  2. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom flat. The resident occupies the property with his family.
  2. The block was built in 2019 and the resident was the first person to occupy the property. In March 2020 a defects inspection was carried out with the developer, landlord, and the resident present. During this inspection it identified a defect and it was agreed to repair the cracks in the living room door frame.
  3. On 14 August 2020 the resident first reported the cracks in the door frame had not been repaired. Between 2020 and 2023, the resident reported issues 6 times with cracks in the living room door frame. He also chased the landlord for a response 4 times.
  4. On 9 September 2020 the resident emailed the landlord. He said:
    1. There were cracks in the living room door frame and the paint was coming off.
    2. He was frustrated by the response and wanted an update.
    3. He was seeking compensation for time and trouble.
  5. On 22 June 2021 the landlord explained to the resident that the developer was disputing that the cracks in the door frame was a defect.
  6. On 19 October 2021 the landlord provided a stage 1 response to the resident. It apologised for the time taken to resolve the door frame issue. It advised him to email its repairs team, who would be able to fill and decorate the cracks. In October 2022 the resident requested to escalate his stage 1 complaint.
  7. On 1 November 2022 the landlord attended the property and advised no remedial work was required to the door frame. It documented that the cracks only affected the paintwork and did not need further work.
  8. On 3 November 2022 the landlord offered the resident £50 for giving incorrect information about what was said in the defects inspection in March 2020.
  9. On 17 November 2022 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said:
    1. It had previously awarded £50 for the inconvenience of being given the incorrect information.
    2. It apologised for its lack of response and the duration the issue went on for.
    3. It had recommended further training for its complaints handling staff.
    4. It upheld the resident’s complaint and offered £250 for inconvenience.

Post complaint

  1. The landlord decided to undertake a review of the complaint after receiving a request for evidence from this Service. The landlord subsequently agreed to undertake repairs to the door frame, and the works were completed on 1 February 2024. On 7 February 2024 the landlord made a further offer of compensation of £1,500 for the resident’s time and trouble. The resident did not accept this offer.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says that internal doors are the resident’s responsibility. The policy does not mention whether internal door frames are the responsibility of the landlord or the resident.
  2. The National House Building Council (NHBC) policy says for2 years after the property’s construction, the warranty covers the owner for both structural issues and defects. After 24 months, only structural problems are covered. Therefore, from the third year onwards, snagging issues, fittings and fixtures issues, and small non-structural problems are the owners responsibility to deal with and rectify.
  3. The NHBC cracks guidance says a crack that’s 2mm or less is generally regarded as being cosmetic and won’t affect a property’s structural stability or safety.
  4. The landlord’s repairs procedure document says that non-urgent repairs should be dealt with within 20 working days.
  5. The landlord has accepted that it failed to meet its service standards with regard to the cracks in the door frame. In March 2020 the developer identified this as a defect and agreed to fill in the cracks.
  6. In October 2021 the developer reversed its decision after a considerable period of time, the landlord informed the resident of this. It should have been proactive in then making a decision, if it would carry out what had been committed to earlier or explain why it would not. It did offer redress for giving out incorrect information which was reasonable.
  7. On 1 November 2022 the landlord inspected the door frame and came to the same conclusion as the developer that it was not responsible for repairs. The landlord did not sufficiently explain this to the resident. The landlord raised the resident’s expectation when it told him to report the repair to the repairs team and it would be fixed. This caused the resident to be disappointed when told it would not happen. The landlord did not consider the full circumstances of the case when it would not conduct a repair in November 2022 despite previously agreeing it would undertake the repair 2 years previously and again in October 2022.
  8. The repair occurred after the landlord reviewed the case in February 2024. It offered further redress to the resident due to the delays and his time and trouble. The landlord took a confusing approach to the issue, it gave conflicting information throughout the period of the complaint. It is concerning that the landlord took a significant time to change its position and agree to undertake the works to the door frame. We are unclear why this occurred and it does not appear to have explained the reasons to the resident.
  9. The landlord has apologised for its lack of communication and complaint handling and attempted to put things right with an offer of redress on 11 November 2022 in its stage 2 response. The landlord awarded the resident £250 for inconvenience for the lack of response and time.
  10. The landlord carried out a review when we asked them for evidence as part of this investigation. It agreed to make the repair and increased the offer of compensation to a total of £1,500. It provided an explanation of how it reached the figure of £1,500. This was calculated on £250 for time and trouble each year for the time taken for the work to be carried out. The time period was from 2019 until 2024, this was 6 years. It did not mention whether it should have done the repair sooner. The landlord agreed to subsequently undertake the repair. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer financial redress and assess the adequacy of the amount against the landlord’s compensation tariff.
  11. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests payments of between £600 and £1,000 where there has been a significant impact on the resident as a result of maladministration. The resident has experienced delays and repeatedly had to chase progress on his repair. The landlord’s revised offer of compensation in the Ombudsman’s opinion was reasonable. This Service considers this is a fair reflection of the impact on the resident according to the evidence contained in the inspection report and the photographic evidence seen by this service.
  12. While it is positive that the landlord reconsidered its position and made an increased offer of redress, the Ombudsman is unable to consider the landlord’s offer as reasonable redress because the offer was made after the Ombudsman accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation on 17 November 2022 and significantly after the landlord provided its stage 2 response.
  13. The Ombudsman has not ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation because it considers the landlord’s offer of £1,500 sufficient to put things right in relation to the failings identified in this investigation. The Ombudsman also notes that the landlord has already apologised to the resident for its failings.
  14. The matter became protracted and caused inconvenience time and trouble for the resident. Failing to take those steps at the right time meant more delay in resolving which prolonged the resident’s sense of distress and frustration. Therefore, whilst noting the landlord’s subsequent offer of redress, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s poor record keeping affected it’s communication to the resident and its handling of his complaint. Based on the records provided, it is unclear what the landlord addressed in its stage 1 complaint and what issues the resident raised in his original complaint. The landlord’s stage 1 response was sent in an email and was not in a letter format or marked as a Stage 1 response. The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of complaints and responses. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken, and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. It has explained this is because it has changed complaint systems and does not hold records from its previous system. It was unsatisfactory for it to fail to take steps to ensure it had adequate records of complaints at the time of its system change.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as ‘any expression of dissatisfaction, however made.’ In this case, the resident made a service request about the cracks in the door frame in August 2020. On 9 September 2020 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. This is when the resident said he was frustrated by the landlord’s lack of response, wanted an update on the repair and compensation for his time and trouble. The landlord did not reply to the resident’s email until 22 June 2021. It did not send a complaint response until 19 October 2021. This was an unreasonable amount of time for the landlord to respond to the resident and log a formal complaint. It is important for landlords to consider earlier expressions of dissatisfaction whenever a related complaint is raised.
  3. The landlord’s policy states it will respond to complaints within 15 working days for stage 1 and 2. It carries out reviews within 25 working days. The landlord will let the resident know if it needs more time to respond.
  4. The landlord is unable to show when a complaint from the resident was logged on its system. We consider the complaint was made on 9 September 2020 as mentioned above. This means the landlord should have provided its complaint response for stage 1 by 30 September 2020 to comply with its policy.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 8 October 2022. The landlord did not provide any evidence that an acknowledgment was sent to the resident. It also did not tell the resident it needed more time. It subsequently took until 17 November 2022 for a stage 2 response to the resident, this was 33 working days which exceeded its policy timeframe.The landlord did not effectively manage the resident’s expectations regarding its anticipated response timeframes or confirm the complaint points.
  6. The landlord said it has recommended that its team consider further training regarding it complaints, which is positive. However, it has not shared evidence of any practical changes to its procedures that could prevent complaints like this one from happening again.
  7. The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord’s record keeping directly impacted the effectiveness of its complaint handling. This contributed to delay, distress, and inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor as it did not keep the resident updated or explain the system change issue. We would like to see the learning that the landlord has taken from this complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of repairs to the living room door frame.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of this report:
    1. Pay the resident £250 in relation to the poor complaint handling and record keeping.
    2. Pay the resident £1,500 in compensation it has offered at the review stage if not already done so.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is to review the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management when reviewing its record keeping procedures. This sets out the benefits of good record keeping and provides recommendations for landlords.
  2. The landlord is to review its record keeping procedures in relation to complaint handling. This includes the retention of resident’s complaints and stage 1 responses, ensuring that there is a clear audit trail. This provides details of specifically when contact was made, what was said, timescales and expectations were, and what actions subsequently took place.