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

Southwark Council (202218329)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218329

Southwark Council

13 February 2024

(Revised following review on 4 June 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:
    1. Repairs to the resident’s fire exit door.
    2. The resident’s request for anti-climb paint to be installed on the gas pipe outside the property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident occupies the property, owned by the landlord, under an assured tenancy. The property is a 2 bedroom maisonette flat with a front door on the 6th floor, and a fire exit door on the 7th floor. She lives there with her three children.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 17 September 2022 via its webform to report that her fire exit door (leading from her flat to a communal landing) had been tampered with from the outside. She said the incident happened around 17 August 2022 and that the door was not secure.
  3. On 18 October 2022 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord, as it had not yet started a repair. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 26 October 2022 which said that an appointment had been made for 27 October 2022, which it had to reschedule for November 2022.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 November 2022 to say that someone had tried to get in through the fire exit door. She also raised a further issue about a gas pipe outside the property which someone had been able to scale to get onto her balcony. On 11 November 2022 the resident requested that the complaint be escalated to stage 2.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 9 January 2023. It said that a new door had now been fitted and follow up decorating was planned for 26 January 2023. It offered £220 compensation for delays and distress. The resident was not happy with the level of compensation and that work was still outstanding, so she asked this Service to investigate.
  6. After the landlord had completed its internal complaints procedure, and the resident asked this Service to investigate, the landlord made an additional offer of £220 compensation for delays and distress. It has also told this Service it would like to offer £200 compensation to recognise the delays in its complaint handling.

Assessment and findings

Scope of this investigation

  1. The resident has also raised a complaint with the landlord about anti-social behaviour (ASB). It has investigated this as a separate matter and a separate complaint about this has been brought to this service. So, this investigation will not look into the resident’s reports of ASB.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s fire exit door

  1. The landlord’s repair policy sets out its obligations. This states that it is responsible for entrance doors and door locks. Whilst the policy does not specify that it is responsible for fire exit doors, the policy does not say this is the resident’s responsibility. And, as this door leads from the property into a communal hallway, it would be appropriate for this to be treated in the same way as the property’s main entrance door, therefore being the landlord’s responsibility to maintain and repair, which the landlord has not disputed.
  2. The resident said the incident that led to the fire exit door being damaged happened around 17 August 2022 and that she reported it to the landlord around this time. The landlord logged the repair when the resident raised it via the landlord’s repairs webform on 17 September 2022. However, the resident has provided a copy of an email she sent to the landlord’s complaints mailbox raising the issue on 7 September 2022. The landlord has not acknowledged her reporting the issue at this time. It could have acted more proactively to contact her at this time to understand the issue.
  3. In the webform form, the resident told the landlord that the door had been tampered with and the lock was exposed. She said this was putting her and her children’s safety at risk as anyone could gain access to her flat from the communal landing.
  4. On 20 September 2022 the landlord asked the resident to report the incident to the police, and said the repair would be chargeable to her if she did not provide a crime reference number. The repairs policy states that if the home is damaged by criminal action, it must be reported to the police and a crime number obtained. The landlord acted reasonably and in line with its policy in asking the resident to take this action before agreeing the repair. The resident initially said she did not want to report it to the police, however on 22 September 2022 she provided the landlord with a crime reference number.
  5. The landlord raised the repair job on 26 September 2022, with a target date of 24 October 2022, in line with the timescale for non-urgent repairs in its repairs policy. The policy states that any repairs that result in the property being insecure should be treated as an emergency and the landlord should attend within 24 hours. The landlord did not act appropriately when categorising the repair. It has acknowledged this, but not until after it had completed its internal complaints procedure.
  6. Despite the resident raising safety concerns from the outset, linked to the ASB mentioned above, the landlord did not take into consideration the security risk posed by the fire exit door not being secure. It also failed to acknowledge that this was a vulnerable household with a young child.
  7. On 18 October 2022 the resident raised a complaint as the door had not yet been secured. In its stage 1 response of 26 October 2022 the landlord said that an appointment had been made for 27 October 2022 but that it had to reschedule this for November 2022, with no reason given. The complaint process was an opportunity for the landlord to realise that the repair had been wrongly categorised but it failed to identify this and act accordingly.
  8. The resident emailed the landlord on 6 November 2022 to say that someone had tried to get in the door at 1:30am that morning. It responded on 8 November 2022 to say that contractors were booked in to come and secure the door. On 10 November 2022 this visit took place, with a contractor securing the door by screwing it shut.
  9. The resident emailed the landlord the next day asking when the door would be fully repaired. She explained that if a fire was to break out downstairs, the fire exit door would be the only way out, however as it was screwed shut, it could not be used as an exit. She said this presented a health and safety risk. In this email she also told the landlord that the door, locks and frame would all need to be replaced.
  10. On 23 November 2022 the landlord raised a repair job for a brand new door. It updated the resident to let her know that a new door and frame would need to be made and then installed. The landlord did not then send a contractor to measure the door until 2 December 2022. Whilst a wait for a new door to be manufactured was unavoidable, the landlord failed to identify the need for a new door for more than 11 weeks after the resident first raised the issue, which was an unreasonable delay. Once it identified this, it then took more than a week to measure the door which was also unreasonable, given how long the resident had already waited.
  11. The resident emailed the landlord on 2 December 2022 to let it know that the contractor that came to measure the door said that the door was still unsafe. On 6 December 2022 a contractor put more screws into the door and sealed the gaps with fire mastic so the door could not be levered open. The next day, as a temporary measure, the mastic was removed and a new lock and handle were fitted so that the door was operational. The landlord’s internal email of 7 December 2022 said that the new door was due to be fitted the following Tuesday.
  12. The replacement door was not fitted until 9 January 2023, 16 weeks after the resident first reported the problem. Emails between the landlord and the resident during February and March 2023 show that there was some confusion about whether this door was the permanent door, or a temporary one. The resident let the landlord know on 27 February 2023 that there was a gap around the door allowing wind access.
  13. On 7 March 2023 the contractor confirmed to the landlord that the door was permanent, and the landlord emailed the resident to tell her this. It said a follow up appointment had been booked in to resolve the issue with gaps around the door. This took place on 8 March 2023, meaning that it took 25 weeks for the landlord to fully repair the door. This was outside all repair timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs policy and did not represent a reasonable response to the issue. The landlord also failed to respond to the resident’s reports from a fire safety perspective, despite the fire door not being operational for almost a month due to it having been screwed shut by the contractor. It was a reasonable expectation on the resident’s part that the fire door would be, at all times, functioning in its main purpose. That the landlord left the property without this essential function for this period was of significant concern.
  14. The landlord offered compensation of £220 during its internal complaints process. This was calculated at £10 per week each for delay and distress for the “medium impact” of the 10 week period between the resident reporting the issue via the webform and the temporary repair being made to allow the door to usable. This compensation was offset against the resident’s rent arrears.
  15. After the completion of its internal complaints process, the landlord identified that the repair had been miscategorised. The resident had expressed concerns during the internal complaints process that the issue was not “medium impact”. Upon review, the landlord offered the resident an additional £220 in line with its “high impact” rate, to recognise the fact that someone gained access to the property again, after she had reported the problem. The resident told this Service during a call prior to investigation that she had rejected this offer.
  16. The Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the fire exit door. Its failure to consider the seriousness of the situation and its own policy meant that it did not categorise the repair correctly and it did not take action in an appropriate timescale. This led to a long delay in the repair and more than a 8 week period where the resident’s property was not secure.
  17. There was a further 3 week period where the door was secure but could not be used as a fire exit. Both of these periods represented a serious risk to the resident and her family, which the landlord failed to properly acknowledge. The compensation the landlord has already offered did not do enough to acknowledge the impact of the risk on the resident and her family, or the inconvenience in her having to chase the landlord regularly to ensure progress was made.
  18. It is also noted that a significant proportion of the compensation offer was made after the completion of the landlord’s complaints process. While this Service will always encourage resolution action, it also expects member landlords to identify suitable and proportionate resolution whilst the complaint process is live. This demonstrates a complaints process that complements a landlord’s overall service delivery, with issues identified and addressed in a prompt and effective manner.
  19. 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 additional compensation of £400 to the resident to reflect the distress caused to the resident and her family by having to live in an unsecure property. This brings the total compensation for this issue to £840, including the £440 already offered by the landlord. Any compensation not yet paid is to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent arrears.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for anti-climb paint.

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that repairs and maintenance of installations such as gas pipes are its responsibility. It is silent on which party is responsible for the installation of preventative measures such as anti-climb paint.
  2. The resident raised the issue with the gas pipe via an email to the landlord on 6 November 2022. It responded 9 November 2022 to let her know that the gas distribution network were responsible for gas pipes, so adding anti-climb paint to the pipe was not classed as a repair. The landlord said she would need to contact the gas distribution network herself.
  3. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to say that installing anti-climb paint was not a repair issue, the tenancy agreement explains that the resident must not alter the structure and fabric of the property without written permission from the landlord. The external gas pipe forms part of the structure of the building, rather than being contained within the resident’s property, therefore it would be outside of the terms of the tenancy agreement for her to have arranged for alterations to have been made to this.
  4. As such, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have contacted the gas distribution network to enquire about the application of anti-climb paint, as it had the authority to allow modifications to the structure of the building.
  5. The Ombudsman considers that there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for anti-climb paint. It wasn’t appropriate for it to direct her to speak to the gas distribution network herself, and should have done this on her behalf.
  6. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for compensation from £50 for cases where “there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and /or fully put them right”. An order has been made for the landlord to pay compensation of £50 to the resident to reflect the distress caused by its failure to raise an enquiry with the gas distribution network about the installation of anti-climb paint. An order has also been made for the landlord to make this enquiry on behalf of the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. 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 and it took too long to escalate the complaint to stage 2, delaying the final outcome.
  2. The resident raised the complaint via the landlord’s webform on 18 October 2022. She said that her fire exit door had been unsecure since August 2022. She also raised other issues which have not been brought to this Service as part of this complaint.
  3. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 26 October 2022, 6 working days after it was raised, in line with its complaints policy. In its response it said that a job had been raised for the fire exit door with an appointment in November 2022, when a contractor would attend and secure the door.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord on 6 November 2022 saying that she wanted things investigated further, and sent photos of the damaged lock and door. She emailed again on 8 November 2022 saying that the issue with the fire exit door was causing mental health issues for her and her children. On 11 November 2022 she specifically requested that the case be escalated to stage 2.
  5. The resident emailed the landlord again on 13 November 2022 to ask for confirmation the complaint had been escalated. The landlord responded on 14 November 2022 asking her for a reason for it to be escalated. She responded the same day to say that although the door was now secure, it was screwed shut from the outside, so represented a health and safety issue.
  6. The landlord told the resident on 15 November 2022 that a manager would decide if the case could be escalated. It did not provide any further update on this until 30 November 2022, when it acknowledged her escalation request and said it would send its stage 2 response by 9 January 2023, 25 working days from the acknowledgement date.
  7. Whilst the complaints policy sets out a response timescale at stage 2 of 25 working days, this Service would expect this to be 25 working days from her request, not from the date the landlord decided it would accept the escalation. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 9 January 2023, which was the date it had given the resident. But, as it took an unreasonable amount of time to escalate the case, it failed to meet the timescale set out in its policy. The stage 2 response was sent 38 working days after the resident confirmed she wanted it to be escalated.
  8. A multistage complaints process should be designed to ensure that a thorough review of the initial complaint response is carried out, and any errors in the initial investigation picked up and rectified. Since completing its internal complaints process, the landlord has found that it categorised the fire exit door repair incorrectly, something not picked up in either stages of its internal complains process. It has now also acknowledged delays in its complaint handling and said it would be willing to offer £200 compensation for this issue.
  9. The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in relation to its complaint handling. Whilst it has itself now acknowledged there were delays in its dealing with the complaint, this should have been picked up during its internal complaints process. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £200 to recognise the distress caused by the failures in its complaint handling. This compensation is to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent arrears.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handing of repairs to the resident’s fire exit door.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s request for anti-climb paint.
  3. 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

  1. The landlord to pay the resident £1,090 of compensation, less any amount already paid during its internal complaints process, broken down as follows:
    1. £840 for the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s fire exit door.
    2. £50 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for anti-climb paint.
    3. £200 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
  2. The compensation payment to be made directly to the resident and not offset against any rent arrears.
  3. A senior manager at the landlord to provide the resident a written apology for the impact these issues had on her and her household.
  4. The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this service within 28 days of this report.
  5. The landlord to carry out a review of its repair logging procedures to ensure the appropriate risk assessment is carried out and that repairs get the correct priority categorisation. It must complete a written report, to be shared with both the resident and the Ombudsman within 8 weeks of this report.