Southwark Council (202403907)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202403907

Southwark Council

24 February 2025

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:
   1. reimbursement payments to the resident for running costs associated with its dehumidifier.
   2. a damp and mould survey at the property.
2. The Ombudsman will also assess the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a secured tenant of the landlord. She has lived in her ground floor, 1 bedroom flat since April 2006.
4. In February 2023 the landlord issued the resident with a dehumidifier to help with the damp and mould in her home while it sought to remedy the issues. It agreed that it would pay for the running costs of it on a monthly basis.
5. In May 2023 the resident told the landlord that she had not received May’s reimbursement payment for the dehumidifier. In response, the landlord said that it would look into the matter.
6. On 5 June 2023 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. She said:
   1. she had not received the associated payments for the costs of running the dehumidifier. She contacted the landlord several times about it but had not received an update.
   2. the landlord had attended to look at the damp and mould in her home in February 2023. It told her that it would return to carry out a full survey. It still had not done so.
7. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 11 August 2023. It said that it was unable answer her complaint because it was still waiting for information from the relevant departments.
8. The resident escalated her complaint on the same day as the issues remained unresolved. She also raised concerns that she was unable to get through to the complaints team by phone.
9. On 27 September 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for its delayed complaint responses and offered the resident £50 compensation. It also apologised for the delayed reimbursement payments and said that all payments had since been made. It said that it had arranged for a damp and mould survey and had escalated the matter so an appointment could be made with the resident.
10. The resident referred her complaint to this Service because she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.

Assessment and findings

Reimbursement of dehumidifier costs

11. In May 2023 the resident told the landlord that she had not received the reimbursement payment for the cost of running the dehumidifier that month. In response the landlord said that it would look into the matter. While this was a reasonable response, there is no evidence that it did. The resident had to chase it several times throughout May and did not receive an update or the payment. This caused her time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience because she was reasonably expecting to receive the payment as agreed.
12. In addition, the resident felt that she had to make a complaint about the matter as payment was not forthcoming despite her alerting the landlord to the fact that it was outstanding. This caused her further time and inconvenience.
13. The resident continued to request the outstanding payments between June 2023 and early September 2023. During this period, she explained she had also not received June or July payments either. It was not until 11 September 2023 that the landlord told the resident that it had arranged for a backdated payment for the outstanding reimbursements. That the landlord only provided the resident with an adequate response after she had chased it for an update for over a 3 month period is unreasonable.
14. On 21 September 2023 the resident told the landlord that she had only received one payment and not the full backdated payments as it had stated that she would. There is no evidence that the landlord responded. That was unreasonable, especially so given the issues she had experienced up to that time.
15. In its 27 September 2023 stage 2 complaint response the landlord said that all payments had been paid at that point. However, the evidence shows that May July and August payments had not been made at the time that it had issued its response. The landlord’s response was therefore incorrect. It was only in October 2023 when the resident reiterated that there were still outstanding payments, that it reviewed its records and discovered that those three payments had not been paid. It is unclear why the landlord did not review its records before it issued its stage 2 response. Not doing so meant that it missed an opportunity to fully resolve the matter at the time of its response. This caused the resident further time, trouble and inconvenience pursuing the matter after its final response.
16. The landlord failed to appropriately respond to the resident’s concerns about the outstanding reimbursement payments throughout this case. Its lack of response caused her time, trouble, and distress. It did not fully reimburse the resident for the ongoing costs for the dehumidifier until October 2023. This meant for it took approximately 4 months for the resident to be fully reimbursed. That was unreasonable. While the landlord acknowledged that there was  a delay in payments, it did not take steps to put matters right for the inconvenience the delay had caused. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of its reimbursement payments for the running costs of its dehumidifier.

 The damp and mould survey

17. In her June 2023 complaint the resident told the landlord that she was expecting it to carry out a full damp and mould survey following its February 2023 visit. The need for a survey has not been disputed by the landlord. However it failed to confirm its position regarding the survey until August 2023. The evidence shows that the delay was caused by the landlord’s confusion on which of its departments was responsible for managing the resident’s overall damp issues at this time. The delay caused the resident distress and inconvenience as she had to wait approximately 2 months for the landlord’s decision on the matter.
18. The damp and mould survey was not carried out until October 2023. The reason for the further delay is unknown. It is noted that the landlord told the resident that it had escalated the matter in its stage 2 complaint response. This meant that the resident had to wait for the survey to be completed for approximately 4 months after she had stated that it was outstanding in her complaint. That was unreasonable.
19. The resident also requested a copy of the outcome of the survey in her stage 1 complaint. Given that the survey was not conducted until after the landlord issued its stage 2 response, it is understandable that it was not able to provide her with a copy at that time.
20. Landlords are not obligated to provide copies of such survey reports to their residents. However, they are encouraged to be transparent. Therefore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explained in its response whether it would issue the resident a copy of the report once the survey was completed. If the landlord was unable to share the report itself, it could reasonably have agreed to share a summary of the findings and proposed remedial work instead. This would not have only addressed her complaint request at that time, but also managed her expectations.
21. As it failed to do so, the resident had to reiterate her request once the survey was completed in October 2023. This meant that she incurred avoidable time and trouble chasing it for a response once the survey was completed. It is unclear whether the landlord has provided the resident with the report, or if not, explained why it has not. Therefore, an order has been made for the landlord to discuss this matter with the resident.
22. Overall, the landlord failed to conduct a full damp and mould survey in a timely manner. It also failed to address the resident’s request for a copy of the survey in its complaint responses. These failures caused the resident distress and inconvenience. Therefore, we have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for an update on its damp and mould survey.

The landlord’s complaint handling 

23. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
24. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was due on 23 June 2023. On 22 June the landlord told the resident that it had extended the response deadline to 28 June 2023. While it was appropriate for the landlord to notify the resident of the delay was appropriate, that the update came only a day before the response was due was a shortcoming. It would have been reasonable for it to have notified her earlier. This would have reasonably managed her expectations.
25. The landlord failed to issue its response as per its revised deadline of 28 June 2023. There is no evidence that it notified the resident that it would be unable to meet the deadline at that time. That was unreasonable. The landlord’s failure to notify the resident meant that she had to chase it for an update. This caused her time, trouble, and inconvenience.
26. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 11 August 2023. This was 49 days after the resident had made her complaint. That was a significant departure from its policy response timescale of 10 working days. 
27. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said that it was unable to respond to the complaint in time because the relevant departments had not provided the information for it to do so. While this is not disputed, this information should have been readily available to the landlord and the length of time that was taken to gather the required information is concerning. The resident had to wait for 2 months for the landlord’s stage 1 response which was inadequate and did not answer her complaints. This exacerbated her distress and inconvenience. In addition, she incurred further trouble escalating the complaint.
28. The resident escalated her complaint on 11 August 2023 and the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 27 September 2023. This was approximately 13 days past its 20 working day response policy timescales. This was a further failing.
29. In her escalated complaint, the resident explained that she was unable to get through to the complaints team by phone and at times had to wait on hold for an hour. The landlord failed to address this concern in its response. This was not in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) that states landlords must address all points raised in the complaint.
30. The reason that the landlord did not is unclear. Nonetheless, that it did not was unreasonable. This meant that the resident’s concerns went unanswered.
31. In addition, there is also no evidence that it looked into the matter. The Code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service it provides to residents and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and positive improvement. Therefore, by not looking into the resident’s concerns, the landlord missed an opportunity to review the efficiency of its complaints department’s phone system to ensure that it was delivering a good service.
32. The landlord also did not address the resident’s concerns that it did not follow through with carrying out an inspection following its visit in February 2023. It should have investigated the matter and addressed this concern in its response. This would have ensured that it fully responded to the resident’s complaint and took reasonable steps to put any matters right where required on the issue.
33. Overall, the landlord failed to:
    1. notify the resident that it was unable to meet its revised stage 1 response deadline.
    2. issue its complaint responses within its policy timescales.
    3. offer the resident reasonable financial redress for its delayed responses.
    4. respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint within its responses.
34. Therefore, we have found that there is maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
35. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for its delayed responses. While this went some way to put matters right, it did not go far enough. Between June and September 2023, the resident incurred time, trouble, and inconvenience due to its late responses and the landlord’s failure to keep her reasonably updated. Therefore, it would have been reasonable for it to have offered compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused.  In addition, we have found further complaint handling failures. Therefore, in line with our Remedies Guidance a further award has been made in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
36. On 8 February 2024 the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This Code sets out the requirements landlord must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024. The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met. In this investigation, we found failures in complaint handling. We therefore order the landlord to consider the failings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code examined under the duty to monitor remit.

Determination

37. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of its reimbursement payments to the resident for the running costs of its dehumidifier in her home.
38. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a damp and mould survey at the property.
39. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

40.  Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. apologise to the resident for the failings highlighted by this investigation.
    2. pay the resident £450 compensation, which is comprised of:
       1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of its reimbursement payments to the resident for the running costs of its dehumidifier in her home.
       2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delay in carrying out a damp and mould survey and associated communication.
       3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
    3. pay the resident the compensation that it offered her in its complaint responses if it has not already done so.
    4. contact the resident to:
       1. ascertain whether there are any outstanding reimbursement payments.
       2. discuss whether it is able to provide her with a copy of the survey report.
    5. consider the failings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code examined under the duty to monitor remit.