Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Southwark Council (201912677)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201912677

Southwark Council

29 April 2021


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 response to the resident’s reports of a faulty window.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water penetration to the property.
    3. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a two–bedroom flat owned and managed by the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 14 July 2008.

Relevant Policies and Legislation

  1. Repairs Guide – The landlord’s repairs guide for resident’s identifies three categories of repair. Emergency repairs should be completed within 24 hours. Urgent repairs should be completed within 3 working days. Non-urgent repairs should be completed within 20 working days. The repairs guide also identifies ‘If we make an appointment for a repair or an inspection and do not turn up to that appointment you are entitled to claim compensation of at least £50 unless there is a reasonable excuse for us missing the appointment’.
  2. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 – This sets out statutory repair requirements for landlords. It requires that the landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling house and keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling house for the supply of water, gas, electricity, sanitation, space heating, and heating water.
  3. Complaints Policy – The landlord has a two–stage complaint process. A complaint should be acknowledged within three working days which should include contact details of who is to investigate the complaint, the subject of the complaint and the deadline for the reply. The response should be sent within 15 working days and should include ‘a clear escalation phrase’. A stage two review response should be sent within 25 working days.
  4. Compensation Policy – The landlord’s compensation policy identifies potential compensation payments for delays in ‘delivering a service’ and for ‘distress’. In both categories, payments can range from £5 per week for a low impact issue to £20 per week for a major impact issue. It also identifies a potential ‘time and trouble payment’ which can range from £50 to £250.  

Summary of events

  1. On 18 November 2019 the resident reported a faulty window mechanism and a cracked window. A repair order was placed on 4 December 2019 to ‘remedy the bedroom window. The glass is cracked. Looks as though if touched it will fall out’.  Works were identified as completed on 30 December 2019.
  2. On 8 December 2019 an order was placed to make safe electrics following a leak from above and was completed the same day. This was followed by an order on 13 December 2019 to reinstate the lights in the hallway and bathroom. This was logged as completed on 17 February 2020.    
  3. On 13 December 2020 an order was placed to repair the tilt and turn mechanism on the bedroom window. This was cancelled on 27 December 2019 though no reason was stated.
  4. On 23 December 2019 a repair order was placed to check the electrics following water damage and was completed the same day.
  5. On 2 January 2020 the resident made a complaint to landlord regarding the repair to window.  The resident stated:
  • That on the first assessment (date not specified) she was advised to add to the repair issue that the security locks needed to be replaced as this may be the reason why the window did not function properly.
  • The contractor attended on 19 December 2019 though did not carry out works as they did not have glass for the window.
  • The contractor attended on 30 December 2019 replaced the glass though said they would need to return the following day to replace the frame and complete the sealing. The contractor did not arrive the following day and she was unable to contact it. On contacting the housing repairs team that day she was told that the contractors were still waiting for glass and that other repairs issues regarding the window had been cancelled.
  • The resident requested compensation for the missed appointment as she had taken time off work and for the discomfort and frustration caused. This included the inconvenience of having to move furniture.
  1. On 2 January 2020 the repairs service raised an order to repair the “Handle on tilt and turn bedroom window”.  The works were identified as completed on 30th January 2020.
  2. On 5 January 2020 the resident sent a further complaint to the landlord. She confirmed that on 3 January 2020 without prior notice a contractor attended to finish off what should have been done on 31 December 2020. She stated the quality of work was poor, as he had used double sided adhesive tape on the glass and that nearly all the frame had collapsed. She confirmed that he did not replace the frame which was left downstairs by the parking area. She identified that the contractor had showed poor professionalism and left the place dirty and dangerous.  The resident confirmed she wanted the work done correctly and another contractor to take over responsibility.
  3. On 8 January 2020 the resident emailed the landlord confirming that an inspection was planned for that day though nobody had attended. This appears to have related to the water penetration from above.  
  4. On 9 January 2020 the landlord emailed the resident apologising for the inconvenience and noting ‘a missed appointment compensation has been arranged for yesterday’. A new appointment was agreed for 13 January 2020.
  5. On 9 January 2020 the resident emailed the landlord’s complaints team reiterating her complaints and attaching photographic evidence. 
  6. On 22 January 2020 the resident emailed the landlord stating she had made two complaints which had not been dealt with. She confirmed that one related to the water leak in December 2019. She raised concern that the issue of leaks from above was an ongoing problem. She identified that the lights in the bathroom and hallway still needed to be re-instated and that the contractor had already missed two appointments. She stated she had no light in the bathroom since the leak and confirmed an inspection appointment was missed in January 2020.
  7. The second complaint is identified as relating to the cracked window and window security locks/mechanism. She reiterated her previous concerns and stated that she had not been able to open her window for two months. She identified that in total she had now experienced five missed appointments and had lost one week’s wages.
  8. The landlord sent a stage one response (the copy provided to the Ombudsman is not dated). The contents of the letter and a compensation form completed on 3 February 2020 indicate it was sent in early February 2020.  It noted that repairs to the window mechanism and cracked glass were reported on 18 November 2019. It confirmed that the contractor attended on 19 December 2020 and did not carry out works. It identified that all works were completed by 27 January 2020. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and confirmed that £50 compensation would be paid.  The letter stated that it could be contacted if the resident wished to discuss the matter further.
  9. On 13 March 2020 the repairs service raised a further order to repair the ‘Broken locking handle to bedroom UPVC window’. This was identified as completed on 22 June 2020.
  10. On 30 April 2020 an order for decoration to the ceiling area of the bedroom, kitchen and bathroom was placed. It was identified as completed on 12 August 2020.
  11. The landlord’s records show its contractors attended again on 26 May 2020 following further water penetration from above.
  12. On 22 June 2020 the contractor was due to attend the property between 12noon and 5pm. The works identified in the appointment letter to the resident were ‘Replace window as UVPC locking handle is broken – bedroom1’. The resident emailed the landlord at 6.13pm that day stating that the contractor had not arrived. The resident then contacted the landlord the following day stating an operative had arrived at 8pm the day before and just took measurements. The landlord responded that the contractor had reported they arrived at 5.25pm and that they had replaced the weights and adjusted the window so it now opened and closed. The resident disputed this and requested evidence to support the contractor’s assertion.
  13. The landlord’s records for 2 July 2020 show internal discussions on whether the complaint would be escalated. These confirm that the repairs team was seeking photographs from the contractor and that if they were not conclusive they would arrange an inspection. 
  14. On 26 July 2020 the resident emailed the landlord and her MP regarding the issues. She repeated concerns previously raised about the repairs and in particular noted that the window still did not open upwards from the bottom and that she had already had eight appointments relating to that repair. She also identified there had been eight appointments since December 2019 for works relating to water penetration from above and that the problem had also occurred previously. She identified two additional missed appointments, 8 January 2020 and 20 March 2020. She stated that following the last missed appointment she was told that the works were logged as completed and had to be rebooked. A further inspection of redecoration requirements was therefore booked for 27 July 2020.  The resident stated a further inspection was unnecessary as she already had a letter from the contractor confirming the works were planned.  
  15. The landlord’s records of 4 August 2020 identify that photographs relating to the window repair had been received from the contractor though as the resident was dissatisfied with the works the complaint should be escalated. 
  16. On 18 August 2020 a repair order was placed relating to ‘cracked window glass bedroom’. This is identified as completed on 23 September 2020 although it is not clear how this relates to the previous repair requests.
  17. On 9 September 2020 the landlord sent a stage two complaint response. It confirmed the complaint had not been upheld, stating:
  • That the window repairs were requested on 18 November 2019 and that the glass was replaced on 30 December 2019.
  • That an order for the adjustment of the mechanism was placed on 2 January 2020 and was completed within target time on 27 January 2020.
  • That an order was placed on 13 March 2020 to repair the locking handle and the contractor attended on 22 March 2020, within target time, and adjusted the weights so the window opened and closed properly.
  • That photographs of the window had been viewed by a technical officer, no further works were required and that the resident’s request to have the window replaced was declined. 
  • In respect of the water leaks from above it confirmed that an order was placed on 26 May 2020 following a report of a leak and an emergency contractor attended the same day to resolve the water penetration. That a repair order was placed to redecorate ceiling areas which was completed within target time on 12 August 2020.
  1. On 11 November 2020 the resident reported further problems with water penetration from above and an order was placed to make safe electrics which was completed the same day. The following day an order was placed to reinstate the bathroom and hallway light when dry. The Ombudsman does not have a completion date for these works. 
  2. In December 2020 the resident and landlord agreed to mediation provided by the Ombudsman. During this process the landlord offered £120 compensation for delays in completing follow up works from 16 June 2020 to 7 December 2020 relating to the water penetration from above. Further issues with water penetration occurred after the internal complaints process was complete and the landlord confirmed a further order for electric checks would be placed and further decorations were completed. The resident raised concern that her wardrobe was damaged as a result of her moving it to allow window repairs. The resident raised particular concern that the window repair still needed to be completed as the window did not open upwards from the bottom. The landlord informed the Ombudsman that it had sent a technical officer to check the window and it was working correctly. The mediation ended in February 2021 as it was not successful.    

Assessment and findings

Window repairs

  1. The landlord did not comply with its repair guide in the delivery of the window repairs. A repair was requested for the window mechanism and cracked glass on 18 November 2019, the order was not placed until 4 December 2019 and yet only addressed the cracked glass. Work to replace the glass was completed on 30 December 2019 which was beyond the 20 working day timescale for non-urgent repairs.
  2.  An order to repair the window mechanism was not placed until 13 December 2019 and this was then cancelled without explanation. A further order to carry out the repair was placed on 2 January 2020 and was identified as completed on 30 January 2020. As the original request was made on 18 November 2019 this was also beyond the 20 working day timescale.
  3. The resident disputed that the window mechanism repairs were completed in January 2020. On the 13 March 2020 an order was raised to repair the locking handle. This was identified as completed on 22 June 2020 however the parties dispute the work that was completed. The Ombudsman does not have evidence to enable it to comment on the disputed events though does note that if it is accepted that the repair was completed, this was also outside the timescale for non-urgent repairs.
  4. The resident raised concerns on two occasions that the landlord’s contractor did not attend as arranged. One in respect of the window repair on 31 December 2019 which the landlord failed to specifically address, but offered £50 compensation for inconvenience caused during the delivery of the repair.  The second being that the contractor was late attending an appointment on 22 June 2020. The time of arrival was disputed though it is noted that the time at which the contractor claims they attended was before the time the resident emailed the landlord stating that the contractor had not arrived.   
  5.  The resident also raised concerns about the number of appointments it had taken to deal with the issue and some where no works were carried out. The Ombudsman is not in a position to comment on whether these appointments were justified though the attendance by the landlord’s contractor does show they were trying to resolve the situation.
  6. The quality of the works carried out and the professionalism of the contractor during January 2020 was also questioned, however the landlord did not specifically respond to this though, in its stage two complaint response in September 2020, it confirmed that photographs of the window had been viewed by a technical officer and no further works were required. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the quality of the work carried out though does believe that the landlord should have provided a full response on this issue at the time.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the window repair at the end of the complaint, identifying that the window did not open as it should. Again, the landlord did not specifically respond on this issue apart from the general comment in its stage two response about photographs having been viewed. While photographs were viewed by the technical officer, there is no evidence that the landlord shared these photographs with the resident to allay her concerns.
  8. The resident continued to pursue this specific issue during the mediation process. The landlord stated to the Ombudsman that a technical officer had been sent to check the window and it was working correctly, but no evidence has been provided to the Ombudsman during the mediation process to show the window fully operational. It is therefore not clear if the landlord’s comment is an incorrect reference to the earlier photographic check or if an inspection took place after the complaint process. The Ombudsman’s view is that as this issue continued to be a concern for the resident the landlord should have carried out an onsite inspection of the window to resolve this issue.  
  9. Overall, there was a service failure in the way the landlord dealt with the window repair requests. There were delays in carrying out the repairs and the landlord did not adequately respond to concerns about missed appointments and poor quality of works. It also did not take reasonable action to investigate the resident’s concern that the window did not open from the bottom up. The landlord did apologise for inconvenience caused in its stage one complaint response and awarded £50 compensation. However, this level of compensation does not appear in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for the overall level of failure and missed appointments and it is the Ombudsman’s view that this did not provide adequate redress for the problems that occurred.    

Water penetration

  1. The landlord’s initial response to reports of water penetration were appropriate as emergency contractors were engaged to address the immediate problem and make safe.
  2. Following the water penetration in December 2019 an order was placed on 13 December 2019 to reinstate the lights in the hallway and bathroom. This was not completed until 17 February 2020. The time taken for this repair was beyond the landlord’s stated timescales. This would inevitably have been an inconvenience for the resident and amounts to a failure of service.
  3. The resident also raised concerns regarding missed appointments relating to the water penetration. This is acknowledged by the landlord in respect of an inspection appointment on 8 January 2020 where it apologised and identified that ‘a missed appointment compensation has been arranged’. However, the resident also identified two appointments missed by the contractor in relation to reinstating lighting and a further missed inspection appointment on 20 March 2020. These reports were not responded to by the landlord.
  4. During the mediation process the landlord did acknowledge that delays occurred from 16 June 2020 to 7 December 2020 in carrying out follow on works to address the water penetration issue. This covered a period when the internal complaint process was still ongoing and also a period after it was concluded. The landlord stated it would pay the resident £120 for the delay that occurred. This was worked out on a weekly basis and therefore £60 was for the period prior to the end of the landlord’s complaint process. The Ombudsman’s view is that this was an appropriate offer of compensation for this particular delay, though was not sufficient to cover other problems that occurred.
  5. Overall, there was a service failure in the way the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of water penetration from above. An order to reinstate lighting was not carried out within the set timescale and the landlord did not respond to the resident’s concerns regarding missed appointments. Appropriate compensation was offered for the delay in follow on works from June 2020, though this did not cover the other failures that occurred, including the stipulated missed appointments.
  6. The resident also identified new concerns which took place after the landlord’s complaint process was exhausted. In accordance with paragraph 39a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman can only investigate complaints that have exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response on further events, then the Ombudsman would advise the resident uses the landlord’s complaint process in the first instance.   

Complaint handling

  1. There was a delay in the landlord sending a stage one response. The copy of the response provided to the Ombudsman was not dated though evidence suggests it was sent in early February 2020. The complaint was made on 2 January 2020 which means the response was sent after the 15 working day timescale identified in the complaint policy. While the delay was not excessive, there was no evidence of an acknowledgment being sent so it would not have been clear to the resident when she would get a response.
  2. The landlord’s timescales for response to complaints are not in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. The code identifies a 10 working day maximum for stage one complaints which can be extended for a further 10 working days with an appropriate explanation to the resident. The stage two maximum is identified as 20 working days with a potential 10 working day extension. The landlord’s timescales are 15 and 25 working days which creates an unnecessary delay. Although the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code was not in place at the time the complaint, a recent check of the landlord’s website shows that the same complaint response timescales are in place. 
  3. The stage one response did not provide ‘a clear escalation phrase’ as required by the complaint policy. The letter stated that the officer responding could be contacted if the resident wished to discuss the matter further though no specific timescales were provided or confirmation that the complaint could be escalated for a stage two review.  
  4. It is not clear how the issue of the water penetration was responded to at stage one of the complaint process. The records show that the water penetration complaint was initially logged as a separate complaint from the window repair. However, the Ombudsman has only been provided with a stage one response relating to the window repair, with the stage two response covering both issues.
  5. There was a delay in escalating the complaint to a stage two review. The resident continued to raise concerns about the repairs in June and July 2020 though the complaint was not escalated until 4 August 2020.
  6. The landlord’s complaint responses did not adequately cover the matters raised by the resident. The stage one response on window repairs did not cover the issue of the missed appointment on 31 December 2020 or the concerns raised about the quality of repair and professionalism of the contractor. It also did not address the reason for the delays in carrying out repairs to the window mechanism. The stage two response also did not address these issues and did not address other concerns regarding missed appointments and the delay in reinstating lighting. It only identified one report of water penetration whereas records show there had been three from December 2019. It also stated that the resident was asking for the window to be replaced whereas this was something stated in a letter to the resident in June 2020.  
  7. Overall, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. There were delays in progressing the complaint and the resident was not given clear information on the escalation process. The complaint responses did not adequately address the concerns raised by the resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was a service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a faulty window.  
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was a service failure in the landlord’s response reports of water penetration to the property.
  3.  In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was a service failure in the way the landlord handled the complaint.

Reasons

  1. There were delays in carrying out the window repairs and missed appointments. The landlord did not adequately respond to these concerns nor concerns raised about quality of works and professionalism of the contractor. It also did not take reasonable action to investigate the resident’s concern that the window did not open from the bottom up. The compensation offered at stage one was insufficient redress for the problems that occurred.
  2. The landlord was slow to carry out lighting reinstatement works following water penetration from above and did not adequately respond to the resident’s concerns regarding missed appointments. The landlord did offer appropriate compensation for delays in follow up works from June 2020 onwards. 
  3. There were delays in progressing the complaint and the resident was not given clear information on the escalation process. The complaint responses did not adequately address the concerns raised by the resident.  

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord to inspect the resident’s bedroom window to check it can be opened upwards from the bottom and to order any repairs necessary. 

The landlord is to confirm compliance with this order within eight weeks.

  1. The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £325 broken down as follows:
  • £100 compensation for any distress/inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to service failures identified with its handling of the resident’s reports of water penetration and repairs required to the window.
  • £175 compensation for the missed/late appointments identified in the resident’s reports of water penetration and repairs required to the window.
  • £50 compensation for any distress/inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to service failures identified with its handling of the complaint.

These payments are in addition to compensation already paid. The Ombudsman understands this to be £50 in respect of window repairs and £110 (£50 for a missed appointment and £60[1] for delayed follow-on works) for issues relating to water penetration. If these payments have not been made then they should paid in addition to the amounts awarded by the Ombudsman.

The landlord is to confirm compliance with this order within four weeks.

Recommendations

  1. That the landlord reviews its complaint policy to ensure compliance with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
  2. The landlord should take steps to ensure that further complaints are responded to in accordance with its complaints policy.

[1] This relates only to the period prior to the end of the landlord’s internal complaint process.