Southwark Council (202232897)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232897

Southwark Council

25 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the resident’s shower and toilet.
2. Replacing the resident’s front door.
3. The resident’s associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant. She lives in a 3 bedroom maisonette with 2 adult children, her younger son and her grandson. The landlord is a council which owns the resident’s home and the block it is in. The landlord employs a tenant management organisation (TMO) to manage the block on its behalf including providing a repair service to its residents.
The resident is disabled and, sometime before 2015, her bathroom had been adapted. The adaptations included installation of a level access shower and a toilet which had an integrated washing facility.
The evidence shows that the resident had reported problems of the shower not heating water sufficiently and low water pressure at least 4 times between 2016 and October 2020. It suggests that the shower was replaced in November 2020.
In January 2021, the resident reported that the toilet was not flushing properly and the washing facility was not working. The TMO’s contractor attended and found the toilet to be working.
In March 2021, the resident reported various issues with her bathroom including low water pressure which caused the electric shower to stop working when in use. She also reported continuing issues with the toilet not flushing properly. The evidence suggests the TMO inspected but it is not clear when this happened.
On 2 November 2021, the TMO emailed the resident apologising for not communicating with her about her repairs. The following day it emailed her saying it had raised an order for her front door to be adjusted and draught proofed. It said it would let her know if a quote given by a contractor for bathroom repairs had been approved.
The TMO raised an order on 19 November 2021 for the level access shower and toilet to be replaced. The evidence suggests they may have been replaced around 3 December 2021.
On 8 March 2022 the resident complained to the council’s arbitration service that she had been waiting for repairs for over 2 years. Relevant to this case, she complained that:
1. She had been waiting for repairs in her bathroom which had only been partially done.
2. The new toilet had not been fitted correctly and was blocking up every day.
3. She had been told her front door needed replacing but was still waiting and it was draughty.
During March 2022, the TMO raised orders to unblock the toilet, investigate the shower water pressure, and repair the front door. On 29 April 2022, the TMO raised an order for the shower and toilet to be replaced again.
The council’s arbitration service emailed the resident on 21 September 2022. It said it could not consider her complaint until she had completed the landlord’s complaint process.
On 9 November 2022, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord which said she had:
1. Previously complained to the TMO but it had not resolved the repair issues she had complained about.
2. Been told to complain to the arbitration service but it could not deal with her complaint.
The landlord acknowledged her complaint the same day and said it would respond by 30 November 2022. The landlord later escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its process.
Between 11 November 2022 and 29 November 2022, the TMO exchanged emails with its contractor about commissioning the washing facility on the replacement toilet and resolving other installation issues with the toilet and shower.
On 23 February 2023 the TMO raised an order to resolve a problem with the toilet splashing when flushed. It raised another order on 21 April 2023 to raise the height of the toilet pedestal.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 24 April 2023 asking it to respond to the resident’s complaint by 1 June 2023. We wrote again on 19 July 2023.
The landlord emailed the resident on 19 July 2023. It apologised for the delay in responding to her complaint, explaining that it had closed the complaint by mistake. It would give a response by 2 August 2023.
On 15 August 2023, the landlord emailed the resident. It apologised that it had not yet given its response to her complaint. It said it would respond by 18 August 2023 but then did not do so.
The Ombudsman issued a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO) to the landlord on 18 August 2023. We ordered the landlord to give its complaint response by 25 August 2023.
The landlord gave its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 24 August 2023 which said:
1. The TMO had inspected her front door and, on 28 March 2023, had raised an order for it to be replaced but no work had been done. The TMO had now ordered the door with a different contractor and expected it to be replaced within 16 weeks.
2. A new shower had been fitted in May 2022 and it could find no records of her reporting low water pressure since. It had arranged for an inspection to be done on 21 August 2023 but did not uphold this part of her complaint.
3. It understood that most of the issues with the toilet had now been resolved. It had arranged for the gaps around it to be inspected on 21 August 2023. It was sorry it had taken so long to resolve the issues and upheld this part of her complaint.
4. The TMO had given incorrect advice about raising her complaint with the arbitration service. There had also been delays in its own handling of her complaint.
5. It was sorry for the distress and inconvenience caused and offered £665 compensation.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaint process

The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint on 30 August 2023. She said the landlord’s complaint process had not resolved the repair issues and she was dissatisfied with the compensation offered.
We spoke to the resident on 3 July 2024 and she told us that:
1. She had continued to have problems with low water pressure to the shower causing the water to go cold and the fuse to trip when it was used. She explained that she had to reset the trip switch in the kitchen each time this happened to get the shower to work again.
2. A new shower had been fitted the previous week but it had leaked immediately and the contractor had not been able to fix it. She could not use the new shower at all.
3. The toilet was still blocking daily and she believed this was also being caused by low water pressure.
4. Her front door had not been replaced. Another contractor had measured up for a new door in December 2023 but she had heard nothing since.

Assessment and findings

Landlords remain responsible for their legal and contractual obligations when they employ managing agents, including TMOs, to manage homes on their behalf. Landlords must have effective management and oversight of their agent’s activities to make sure they are fulfilling the landlord’s obligations.
Landlords should also ensure there is effective collaboration and coordination between its agents and its own teams.
The evidence we have seen in this case suggests that the landlord’s oversight of its agent (the TMO) was not sufficient to ensure the landlord’s repairing obligations were being fulfilled. The evidence seen also suggests inadequacies in the collaboration between the TMO and landlord which affected the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
We have explained the inadequacies seen in our assessments below. The landlord should consider whether its current management approach gives it sufficient oversight of the TMO’s activities and assurance that the TMO is fulfilling the landlord’s obligations to its residents.
The resident told us that she reports repairs to the TMO by visiting its office. She said that she often needed to report a problem several times before she received confirmation that a repair or inspection had been ordered.
We saw 1 email that the TMO had sent to the resident on 3 November 2021 which referred to a conversation it had with her earlier that day about her repairs. Apart from that 1 email, we have seen no records of the resident’s visits to the TMO’s office or contacts between the resident and TMO about her repairs. As such, the landlord has not demonstrated that its agent responded appropriately when the resident reported repairs.
Similarly, the repair records we have seen do not give adequate information about when repairs were attended or what work was done, if any. In some instances, there were discrepancies between the repair records and other evidence given by the landlord and resident.
The lack of records of the TMO’s contact with the resident and inadequate repair records were significant contributory factors to our determinations in this case.
In May 2023, we published our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management. The evidence seen in this case shows that the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in our spotlight report.
The landlord should consider our findings in this case. It should consider the recommendations in our spotlight report to identify improvements it should make to its approach in knowledge and information management.

Handling of repairs to the shower and toilet

It is not disputed that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the resident’s shower and toilet. This means it should ensure they are kept in proper working order.
The landlord’s tenancy handbook gives the timescales in which the landlord will respond to different types of repairs:
1. Emergency repairs including blocked toilets where it is the only one in the home. The landlord will attend within 24 hours.
2. Urgent repairs including partial loss of water supply. The landlord will attend within 3 days.
3. Non urgent repairs. The landlord will attend within 20 working days.
Due to the inadequate records provided to us, we cannot conclude that the landlord met its policy timescales when responding to the resident’s reports of problems with the shower and toilet.
The evidence seen suggests that the resident had reported issues with the water pressure to the shower soon after her bathroom was initially adapted. The landlord’s repair log shows it had raised 4 orders relating to the shower not heating water sufficiently or low water pressure between 2016 and 2020. It is not clear from the repair log what faults were identified or what work, if any, was done to rectify the problems.
It was reasonable that the initial response to the resident’s reports was to raise repair orders. However, after repair attempts had not resolved the issue, we would have expected the landlord to have investigated further. It should have attempted to identify the cause of the low water pressure and considered solutions to enable the resident to have a properly working shower.
The landlord’s evidence to us included a note which said that the company which supplies water often lowered the pressure in the area. The note said this caused low water pressure which was more noticeable in blocks with shared water supplies. It said that contractors had explained this to the resident.
The note was not dated and did not say who had written it. The Ombudsman does not consider it to demonstrate that the low water pressure has been adequately investigated. Further, the absence of a date and author, is another example of inadequate knowledge and information management by the landlord.
The landlord’s decisions to replace the shower in November 2020, December 2021 and May 2022 did not resolve the problems caused by the low water pressure. This means that despite contractors attending multiple times and replacing the shower 3 times, the issue of low water pressure was ongoing from at least 2016.
The low water pressure to the shower over such a long time caused significant inconvenience to the resident and her family. They have had to get out of the shower and go to another room to reset the trip switch every time low pressure caused it to stop working. The resident was also inconvenienced by having to make repeated reports to the TMO over many years.
The resident told us that the shower was replaced again in June 2024. She explained that this one was mains fed which should have overcome the problem with the water pressure. However, it had leaked from being first installed and she had not been able to use it.
It is not clear from the evidence seen whether the landlord has since repaired the shower leak. Even if it has, the resident was without a properly working shower for at least 8 years (from 2016) which was unreasonable. The landlord should have taken steps to investigate and overcome the problem of the low water pressure sooner.
In its evidence submission, the landlord told us that the specialist toilet had been replaced on 3 December 2021. The landlord’s repair records showed a corresponding order for the toilet to be replaced but did not give details of what work, if any, had been done.
The landlord’s repair records show that another order to replace the toilet was raised on 29 April 2022 and was marked as completed on 18 May 2022. However, emails exchanged between the TMO and its contractor on 23 September 2022 and 28 September 2022 show the TMO chasing the contractor for an installation date. The contractor had said the toilet would be installed on 3 October 2022.
As such it is not clear when the toilet was actually replaced and this is another example of inadequate information management by the landlord. It is evident that the toilet had been replaced by 12 October 2022 as the resident was reporting various issues with its installation from then.
Between 12 October 2022 and 29 November 2022, the TMO communicated with its contractor to commission the washing facility on the new toilet, replace the seat and box in behind it. Later in April 2023, the TMO raised an order for the toilet pedestal to be raised to the same height as the previous toilet. In July 2023 it chased its contractor about raising the height of the toilet pedestal.
From the evidence seen the installation issues were not all finally rectified until 23 August 2023. This was at least 10 months after the new toilet had been installed. It should not have taken such a long time for the installation issues to be rectified.
The resident told us that the new toilet had blocked almost every day from when it was installed. The toilet may have been installed on 2 December 2021 (as the landlord told us in its evidence submission) or 3 October 2022 (as suggested by the contractor’s email to the TMO). Regardless of the exact date, this is an unreasonable timescale for the problem of the toilet blockages to have persisted.
The resident told us that she tried to clear blockages herself and only reported them to the TMO if she was unable to do so. The landlord’s records show that 2 orders to clear blockages were raised in March 2022 but no other orders were raised for blockages after then.
Given the absence of records of contacts with the resident and the inadequate repair records seen, we do not consider the evidence provided to be a reliable account of the resident’s reports of blockages.
The evidence shows that the landlord was aware of the toilet blocking daily from 20 July 2023 when it received a copy of the residents complaint to the council’s arbitration service. It was reasonable that it passed the list of repair issues to the TMO to comment on. This was an opportunity for the landlord and the TMO to check whether the issues complained about in March 2022 had been resolved.
However, we have seen no evidence that either the landlord or the TMO considered the matter of the toilet blocking daily. Although the landlord and TMO communicated about the toilet installation issues in August 2023, there was no reference to the toilet blockages. This meant the landlord missed the opportunity to find out that the problem was ongoing and took no steps to resolve it.
The evidence seen shows that the landlord failed to adequately investigate the issue of the low water pressure within a reasonable timescale. It also took too long to resolve the installation issues after replacing the resident’s toilet and has failed to resolve the issue of it persistently blocking.
The landlord has not demonstrated that it has fulfilled its repairing obligations in resolving the persistent issues of low water pressure and toilet blockages. Its failings amount to severe maladministration.
Following its complaint process, the landlord paid the resident £230 for the delays in resolving the installation issues after replacing the toilet. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint about the shower water pressure and offered no compensation for this. Nor did it offer compensation for the toilet blockages.
The Ombudsman does not consider the landlord’s compensation offer to be sufficient redress. We have ordered it to pay additional compensation.

Handling of replacing the resident’s front door

It is not disputed that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the resident’s front door.
The landlord’s repair records show that it raised 3 orders to repair the front door between 2014 and 2021. The order notes suggest the resident had reported that her door was draughty and difficult to lock.
It was reasonable that the landlord initially sought to repair the door. However, the repair records do not give information about what work was done or when.
The repair records suggest that the front door may have been inspected by the TMO in December 2021. However, we have seen no record of the outcome and the repair records seen do not show any orders being raised around this time.
It is not clear from the evidence seen when the TMO had decided to replace the front door. By the time the resident complained to the council’s arbitration service on 8 May 2022, she believed her door was to be replaced.
Later in March 2022, the TMO’s contractor attended to replace the door lock and handle. We have seen no evidence of what happened next until the landlord spoke to the resident on 20 July 2023 during its investigation of her complaint.
From that point, the landlord knew that the resident believed her door was to be replaced and was having problems in locking it. It was reasonable that the landlord said it would arrange an inspection to see if a temporary repair was needed.
The landlord did ask the TMO to comment on the repair issues that were part of the resident’s complaint including the front door. However, we have seen no evidence that it arranged for an inspection to be done as it had promised. This was a failing.
In its stage 2 complaint response of 24 August 2023, the landlord said that a new door had been ordered on 28 March 2023 but no work had been done. It said that the order had now been given to another contractor and the door should be replaced within 16 weeks.
There were no orders on the repair records seen for the door to be replaced. This means that either the landlord’s repair records or its complaint response were inaccurate. It is another example of inadequate information management.
Having told the resident that her door would be replaced, the landlord should have made sure this happened. We have seen no evidence that the landlord took any steps to check whether the door was replaced after giving its stage 2 response.
Nor have we seen evidence that the front door ever was replaced or that any temporary repairs or further inspections were done. As such, the landlord has not demonstrated that it has fulfilled its repairing obligations. Its failings amount to maladministration.
Following its complaint process, the landlord paid the resident £185 compensation for the delay in replacing the front door. The Ombudsman does not consider this amount to be sufficient redress given the door has still not been replaced. We have ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation.

Handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord has a 2 stage formal complaints process. Its policy at the time said it would acknowledge complaints within 3 working days. It would respond to complaints within 15 working days at stage 1 and within 25 working days at stage 2. Those response times were not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time of this complaint.
The TMO has its own complaints resolution policy which sets out how it will deal with complaints about matters that fall within the scope of its management agreement with the landlord. The TMO is not a member of the Scheme and it would not be appropriate for the Ombudsman to assess its complaints policy specifically.
However, the TMO is managing homes on the landlord’s behalf. We would expect the landlord to ensure that any complaints made about its landlord services are handled in accordance with the Code.
The evidence suggests that the resident had initially complained to the TMO though it is not clear when this happened. We have seen no evidence that the TMO logged the complaint or acknowledged it or gave a stage 1 response on the landlord’s behalf. As such, the landlord has not demonstrated that its agent handled the resident’s complaint as required by the Code at the time.
The TMO had emailed the resident on 1 December 2021, incorrectly advising that she could take her complaint to the council’s arbitration service. This caused a 9 month delay in the resident being able to progress her complaint through the correct process.
The evidence suggests that the landlord was not aware of the resident’s complaint until 9 November 2022 when she approached it directly. The landlord should consider how it can have oversight of complaints made to its agents to make sure that they are handled in accordance with the Code.
Once the landlord became aware of the resident’s complaint on 9 November 2022, it was reasonable that it investigated the background. It was also reasonable that the landlord decided, around 22 November 2022, to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its process.
Given the delays and inadequate complaint handling up to this point, we would have expected the landlord to have made sure that it handled the complaint in accordance with the Code.
However, it did not respond to the resident’s complaint by 30 November 2022 as it had promised in its acknowledgement. The evidence suggests that the landlord had closed the resident’s complaint by mistake but it is not clear why this happened or when.
It should not have taken multiple interventions from the Ombudsman from 24 April 2023 and us having to issue a CHFO before the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s inadequate complaint handling meant that it gave its stage 2 response over 9 months after it became aware of her complaint. This was inappropriate and contrary to the timescales in the Code and the landlord’s policy.
The evidence seen suggests that a small part of the delay was caused by difficulties in getting information from the TMO. The landlord had initially requested information on 19 July 2023 and sent further requests on 20 July 2023 and 31 July 2023.
The TMO responded on 7 August 2023 by which time the response timescale the landlord had given to the resident had passed. This caused the landlord to have to extend the response timescale with the resident. However, this delay would have been avoided if the landlord had not mishandled the complaint from November 2022 to July 2023.
The inadequacy of the TMO’s records may have also caused the landlord’s complaint response, of 24 August 2023, to be inaccurate. For example, the landlord’s response said that an order had been raised for the front door to be replaced but there was no corresponding order on the repairs records seen.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord’s response to have explained why the front door had not been replaced. Given the stage 2 response was sent after the date that the shower was due to be inspected, it would have also been reasonable for the landlord’s response to have confirmed the outcome of the inspection.
The landlord’s stage 2 response failed to address the matter of the resident’s toilet blocking daily. This was despite the response including this matter as part of the resident’s complaint.
Overall, the landlord took far too long to deal with the resident’s complaint. Its complaint process did not put things right for the resident as the matters of the shower water pressure, toilet blocking and front door replacement remain unresolved. The landlord’s failings amount to severe maladministration.
Following its complaint process, the landlord paid the resident £250 compensation for the failings it had identified in its handling of her complaint. We do not consider this to be sufficient redress considering the failings we have identified. We have ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation.
On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This Code sets out the requirements landlords 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. The landlord should consider the findings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the resident’s shower and toilet.
2. The resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of replacing the resident’s front door.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with the following orders:
1. The Chief Executive must write to the resident to apologise. The apology must acknowledge the failings we have identified and the impact they had on the resident. The landlord must send us a copy of its apology.
2. Pay the resident total compensation of £3,965. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. It is comprised of:
  1. £2,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by low water pressure to the resident’s shower from 2020.
  2. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the toilet blockages from March 2022.
  3. £615 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to replace the front door. We have taken account of the £185 compensation that the landlord has already paid the resident. The amount we have ordered is in addition to the sum it has already paid.
  4. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. We have taken account of the £250 compensation that the landlord has already paid the resident. The amount we have ordered is in addition to the sum already paid.
3. Repair the leak to the shower if it has not already done so. The landlord must send us evidence of the work carried out and the date it was done.
4. Arrange for a suitably qualified professional to assess the low water pressure and toilet blockages. The assessment must include:
  1. Considering how water is supplied to the shower and toilet.
  2. Identifying the cause of the low water pressure and toilet blockages.
  3. Recommending solutions to ensure the resident has a properly working shower and a properly flushing toilet.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must write to the resident to explain the outcome of its assessment of the low water pressure and toilet blockages. It must include an explanation of the cause(s) of the problems and further work it intends to carry out to resolve the problems, including timescales. The landlord must send us a copy of its letter.
The landlord must use its best endeavours to complete any repairs within 8 weeks of its assessment of the low water pressure and toilet blockages. It should keep adequate records of how it has done all it could reasonably do in the circumstances to comply with this order.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must have replaced the resident’s front door. The landlord must send us evidence of the work carried out and the date it was done.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
1. Consider the arrangements it has in place to oversee the TMO’s activities. The landlord should consider the failings identified in this report and whether it has sufficient assurance that its agent is fulling the landlord’s obligations to its residents.
2. The landlord should consider the knowledge and information management failings identified in this report and identify improvements it needs to make to its approach. If it has not already done so, it should carry out a self-assessment against the recommendations in our spotlight report.