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

Southwark Council (202118305)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118305

Southwark Council

31 January 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 complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a flat. The landlord is the freeholder of the building.
  2. The resident has informed the Service that she raised a complaint with the landlord on 24 November 2020. The resident stated that the complaint was only partially responded to and that she escalated the complaint on 24 February 2021.
  3. The landlord responded to a local ward member’s enquiry on 9 April 2021 and said that it would be responding to the resident’s stage 2 complaint.
  4. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 7 May 2021 about works the landlord was carrying out, and the associated costs of these works being charged to the resident. The landlord responded on 1 June 2021.
  5. On 7 September 2021 a stage 2 complaint was submitted to the landlord by an agency on behalf of the resident. The landlord sent its final response to the resident on 24 September 2021. It said the major works were rechargeable to the resident and it did not uphold her complaint.
  6. In referring the matter to the Service in November 2021 the resident said she wanted a full response from the landlord and said it had not followed guidelines in its complaints policy.

 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. On 28 February 2022 the Service determined that the resident’s complaint about the level of service charges for additional works was outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under Paragraph 39.i. of the Scheme applicable at the time. Paragraph 39.i. stated that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”.
  2. Disputes about liability for service charges are matters for the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). Therefore, this was not a complaint that the Ombudsman could investigate. Therefore, this investigation will only consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint

  1. The landlord defines a complaint as “any expression of dissatisfaction about any of its services requiring a response,” under its complaints policy. It operates a 2 stage policy and says it will acknowledge receipt of a complaint by phone or in writing within 3 working days. It will provide a full response to its stage 1 complaints within 15 working days and 25 working days for its stage 2 complaints.
  2. The resident informed the Service that she raised a complaint with the landlord on 24 November 2020 about additional service charge costs for major works. She said the complaint was only partially responded to. The Service has been provided with no evidence of this complaint, the complaint escalation the resident said she submitted on 24 February 2021 or the landlord’s response.
  3. The landlord noted in an email to the local ward member on 9 April 2021 that it would be responding to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. Although the Service has not seen evidence of this complaint, this was 32 working days after the resident said she raised the complaint and therefore would be a failing under its policy. The resident said that the local ward member’s enquiry prevented her from escalating her complaint. The landlord informed her it deals with enquiries from local ward members separately to complaints made under its complaints process. Although there is no specific mention of local ward member enquiries within its complaints policy, this response was appropriate. This is because the policy defines complaints as expressions of dissatisfaction and not as enquiries.
  4. The resident raised another stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 7 May 2021 about it charging her for major works. The resident said that she understood the complaint to be a stage 2 complaint but was asked to make a stage 1 complaint by the landlord. The landlord responded on 1 June 2021, 17 working days later and this delay was therefore a minor failing under its policy.
  5. The resident raised a stage 2 complaint on 7 September 2021 and the landlord sent its final response on 24 September 2021, 14 working days later and in accordance with its policy.
  6. There were delays in the landlord’s responses to the resident’s complaint. There was some confusion with the way the landlord dealt with the resident’s complaint. It said it needed to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 9 April 2021, however the resident raised a complaint on 7 May 2021 which the landlord treated as a stage 1 complaint. It is not clear from the landlord’s records if it was referring to the same complaint or 2 separate complaints. In not responding to the stage 2 complaint raised by the resident on 24 February 2021, after advising the local ward member that it would do so, the landlord showed poor communication.
  7. The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging delays in its complaints process and apologising. However, this did not fully recognise the confusion caused to the resident during the complaints process and the time and trouble taken. Therefore, we have found service failure and made an order that the landlord pay the resident £100 compensation. This amount is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases such as this where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, that it did not fully put right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Order

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £100 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of its complaint handling failings. This amount should be paid direct to the resident and not used to offset any monies she may owe the landlord.