Southwark Council (202122806)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122806

Southwark Council

29 January 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of repair works following burst pipes and flooding.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy which started on 3 September 2012. The property is a two-bed flat. The landlord did not indicate that it had any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident or her daughter in the property. However, correspondence throughout the complaint makes reference to the resident’s daughter having “severe asthma”.
The resident reported a loss of heating and hot water at the property in October 2021 and then reported that a radiator pipe had burst, this led to flooding and the fire brigade had to isolate the water. The landlord attended to carry out a full repair to the radiator but during this repair, another pipe burst which flooded the property again. The landlord attended and corrected the pipework and radiator, it also carried out an inspection of the required works following the flood.
The landlord did not complete these works despite the resident having an ongoing complaint. Both the resident’s complaint and the required repairs remained outstanding for some time with confusion around whether the resident had started legal proceedings. The works remained outstanding when the complaint process was exhausted in September 2022 and the resident remained unhappy with the outcome.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord operates a two-stage complaint policy as below:
1. Stage one – This is the “complaint phase” and should be acknowledged within 3 working days and a full response provided within 15 working days.
2. Stage two – This is the “review phase” which should be acknowledged within 3 working days and a full response provided within 25 working days.
The landlord’s complaint policy says that certain types of complaint would not be managed using its policy. This includes “complaints where legal proceedings, court or tribunal action is being taken”. It also says that its “responses will include a clear escalation phrase”.
The landlord’s repair policy operates three different repair timeframes as below:
1. Emergency – These should be attended within 24 hours. Examples are total or partial loss of hot water and burst pipes causing flooding.
2. Urgent – These should be attended within 3 working days. Examples are heating won’t turn off and broken taps.
3. Non Urgent – These should be attended within 20 working days. Examples are minor leaks when not causing serious damage and damp.

Summary of events

The resident emailed the landlord on 22 October 2021 and said that a toilet in her property had been leaking since March 2020. She explained that the landlord had attended on several occasions and agreed to change the toilet. However, this had not happened and whenever anybody was sent out, they agreed it needed replacing and raised a works order for the replacement. The resident also said she had been without heating and hot water since 16 October 2021 and despite her reporting it, nobody had contacted her to arrange a repair. She said that the hot water started working intermittently on 18 October 2021 but was either “ice cold or scalding hot” and despite contacting the landlord again, nobody had contacted her about it.
On the same day, a works order was raised for “no heating or hot water from communal boiler”. This is marked as completed on the same day but a separate note from the same day said the contractor “confirmed that they won’t be attending tonight and it will be picked up tomorrow”.
On 24 October 2021, a works order was raised for “burst pipe from the radiator” the order said that the fire brigade had isolated the leak but the resident had no hot water. The resident had said that the fire brigade said the leak was caused by “pressure to the pipes”. Another works order is raised that day, it was noted “water has leaked onto electrics – please make safe”. Neither works order had a completion date on the records provided by the landlord.
The landlord raised another works order on 25 October 2021 for “no heating or hot water from communal boiler – rad has also burst in bedroom please remedy and make safe”. This works order was recorded as being completed on 16 November 2021.
A works order was raised on 26 October 2021 to supply a dehumidifier to dry out the property. This was marked as complete on 27 October 2021.
The resident raised a complaint using an online form on 28 October 2021. She said that at the time of the complaint, she was still experiencing issues with the heating and hot water and the toilet still required replacing.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day and said it would aim to provide a response by 18 November 2021.
On 11 November 2021, the landlord raised a works order to replace the toilet. It said “temp repair to leaking pipe on toilet raised March 2020, full repair never carried out, temp holding but water starting to be visible”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 16 November 2021 regarding recent issues with leaks and the damage caused by them. The first instance was when a pipe burst in her daughter’s bedroom. She said “this was due to pressure building up in the radiator as the heating and hot water had been off for 10 days”. The resident said she had been left in a damp flat and was only provided with a dehumidifier to dry out the property, after several days, due to her making a request for one on a number of occasions.
Within the same email, the resident said that the landlord had attended that day to replace the radiator in her daughter’s bedroom. During the repair, she said that a pipe burst just outside her front door which led to “a significant amount of boiling hot black water shooting, out causing major damage”. The resident said the fire service had to attend to shut off the water and she had been left with “water and black gunk in every room of my home”.
A works order was raised on 17 November 2021 for “radiator or heating pipe is leaking – leaking bedroom radiator contained with a rag”. The works order said this followed the visit from the works order that was raised on 25 October 2021.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 November 2021 and provided its stage one response. It said it was following on from a telephone call on 11 November 2021, as the contractor had informed it that works to the toilet area had been completed. It said it had tried to contact the resident by telephone and email but it had not been successful. It said it could confirm that “the work is indeed done and that no further issues remain”.
On the same day, the resident emailed the landlord and said that following the landlord attending to repair a leak on 16 November 2021, she found the carpet was wet and it had been burned. She said she believed this was due to the pipe being “cut and welded”. Within the email the resident said that on 17 November 2021, the day after the repair, she identified that scalding water was leaking from the radiator. She said that when she reported it, she was told it was a non-essential job and it would attend on 19 November 2021. The resident explained that she was currently having to stay elsewhere as she considered the property unsafe.
A works order was raised on 20 November 2021 which was described as “uncontainable leak coming from radiator – missed previous appointment”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 21 November 2021 about her experience with temporary accommodation that weekend. She explained that it had arranged temporary accommodation on 19 November 2021 but had not called her until 4:25pm. The resident said that she contacted the manager of the temporary property and was told they closed at 4:30pm and were closed at weekends. She said the manager agreed to meet her at midday the next day with the keys and said her landlord was aware of their availability and it had offered the room around midday on 19 November 2021. The resident said that after attending the temporary accommodation, she refused it, due to a number of problems including hygiene and health and safety concerns she had identified. She included a video of her findings but this Service has not had sight of it. Within the email, the resident asked for further information on her being rehoused due to the disrepair in her property.
After leaving the temporary accommodation, the resident sent a text message to the Resident Services Officer on 22 November 2021, explaining her decision to do so. She said light switches in two of the rooms were broken, the front door was difficult to open, the bedroom was a single room with a double bed and there were tripping hazards and damp stains throughout it. The text message stated “I wish to be rehoused”.
Later that day, the Resident Services Officer emailed a cancellation form for the temporary accommodation and said “she does not want shared accommodation”.
Following the works completed on 22 November 2021, a works order was then raised to “rehang radiator to wall and reinstate heating”. This works order was noted as completed on 13 December 2021. A further works order for an inspection was booked on 22 November 2021.
On 30 November 2021, following the inspection, a works order was raised for the following works:
1. Renew floor tiles to:
  1. Bathroom
  2. Toilet
  3. Kitchen
2. Renew doors to:
  1. Bathroom
  2. Living room
3. Renew leg of frame to hinge side of living room door, if required.
The resident consulted a disrepair claim solicitor and received an email from them on 3 December 2021. The resident responded the same day and refused its offer of assistance.
On 13 December 2021, the works order raised on 30 November 2021 was marked as completed.
The resident contacted this Service on 14 January 2022 and said she had not received a response to her complaint. We contacted the landlord on the same day and asked that it provide a response to the complaint by 28 January 2022.
The landlord responded to this Service on 20 January 2022 and explained that it would only be addressing the complaint handling element of her complaint. It said this was due to the resident raising a disrepair case.
The landlord emailed the resident on 26 February 2022 and said that it had been informed by its contractor that the works raised on 30 November 2021 had been completed.
The resident responded to the landlord on 28 February 2022 and explained that this was not correct, as several jobs remained outstanding and some required works had not been scheduled. The resident explained that she was not currently living in the property, due to the outstanding works. The resident also said that she had not had a response to her insurance claim or a response to her complaint, despite assurances from the landlord. Within this email, the resident explained that despite the landlord’s view that she had raised a legal claim, she had not instructed a legal representative to contact it on her behalf.
Internal landlord emails between 1 March 2022 and 2 March 2022 show that the complaint handler and the legal disrepair team communicated around the scope of the complaint. Within those emails, it acknowledged that previous repairs had not been completed but the contractor would rearrange them. It said there was a backlog of inspections but it could be arranged as a priority.
An internal landlord email on 4 March 2022 advised the complaint handler to arrange an inspection with the legal disrepair surveyor. The same email advised the surveyor that the resident had logged a complaint and a disrepair claim at the same time. It said “logging a legal claim has stalled the repairs and complaint process” it also said “can we make it a priority to carry out an inspection”.
The landlord provided a stage two complaint response on 4 March 2022. Within its response it partially upheld the complaint and said the following:
1. It maintained that it could not comment on the outstanding repairs, as they were subject to legal proceedings.
2. It said the stage one response, issued on 18 November 2021, was within its target timeframe but it did not include information on how to escalate the complaint.
3. It acknowledged that further complaint correspondence sent after its response on 18 November 2021 was added to the complaint but as it was about new issues, rather than the toilet area, the emails were forwarded to “contractors and insurance teams to consider the additional repair issues raised”.
4. It acknowledged that the resident had declined the temporary accommodation due to health and safety concerns around the property.
5. It offered a compensation payment of £50 due to the delay in its stage two response.
The landlord’s legal disrepair surveyor attended the property on 8 March 2022. An inspection of the property was carried out to identify the required works.
The legal disrepair surveyor completed the inspection report on 10 April 2022.
The schedule of works proposed following the inspection was sent to the resident by email on 30 May 2022.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 June 2022 and thanked it for sending over the schedule of works. Within the email, the resident explained that she had not instructed a solicitor to represent her or contact the landlord on her behalf. She indicated that some previously agreed works had been omitted from the schedule of works provided by the landlord.
Internal landlord emails from the same date show that it questioned whether it would “agree to her requests so we can close the file, despite it not being a legal case”. The surveyor commented on some of the questions the resident had raised about the schedule of works. Within those comments it said it would carry out works to some floors as “good will” as “the flooring is not in disrepair”. When addressing the resident’s request to view samples prior to the flooring being installed, it said “if the samples cannot be agreed upon, the alternative is to have that we have the contractor leave the hallway sheet flooring in place and attempt to clean the carpets”.
Undated landlord notes from around this period show that following these emails, the legal disrepair team asked the Resident Services Officer to assist with arranging access to the residents property. The notes said that it had “struggled to gain access due to a lack of engagement from the tenant”.
The resident emailed the Resident Services Officer on 1 July 2022 and said it was “highly insulting to be accused of causing delays or not engaging”. The resident expressed disappointment that the Resident Services Officer had asked her that day “whether or not I have been decanted whilst I await repairs” as he would have had to arrange it. She said that a contractor had attended that day to measure up the flooring removal and scheduled this work for 11 July 2022.
Internal landlord emails on 18 July 2022 show that the complaint team asked whether there was a “live” disrepair claim and it asked for an update on insurance claims made by the resident. A response explained that one claim with an incident date of 24 October 2021 had been settled for £2,500 but there was an outstanding claim with an incident date of 16 November 2021.
A contractor emailed the landlord on 2 August 2022 and said that the resident had asked for works to be ceased temporarily. It said this was to allow for decoration prior to the installation of carpets.
The resident spoke with the legal disrepair team on 25 August 2022 and emailed them to confirm what was discussed. The email said that the resident had told the contractors on 1 August 2022 that she had decorators attending that evening to complete works but said these would be completed prior to the next day. She said the contractor agreed it would attend the next day but it failed to do so. The resident said she had continued to chase the contractor for it to attend and continue those works but despite assurances, it had failed to provide any answers or complete the work. The resident also said “I have already highlighted in a number of separate emails that at no time have I instructed a solicitor to represent me”.
Following the request from this Service, the landlord provided a further stage two response, relating to the repairs issues, on 5 September 2022. It upheld the complaint and said the following:
1. It said issues with leaks and heating were raised prior to “your legal disrepair case being opened on 7 December 2021”.
2. It said works had been scheduled to renew flooring in several rooms in the property, along with other works linked to the toilet being replaced.
3. It acknowledged that these works were raised on 30 November 2021 but at that time only emergency repairs were being carried out due to “the loss of staff as a result of COVID-19”.
4. It said that works had been commenced at the end of July 2022 but these were delayed further due to a miscommunication.
5. The landlord said that it had allocated the works to a new contractor “who has assured us they will complete the remaining works quickly and efficiently at your earliest convenience”.
6. It said the request for compensation was being assessed by the Legal Disrepair team and the Insurance Manager had said that an offer of settlement in relation to her claim should be made that week.

Post Complaint Process

The landlord provided its offer following the disrepair investigation and proposed a payment of £934.
The resident continued to chase the outstanding repairs with at least three emails to the landlord and she reported making further calls to the contractors between 21 September 2022 and 10 October 2022.
The landlord provided photographs of completed repairs that were taken on 16 November 2022. The resident emailed the legal disrepair team the same day and said “the majority of works have now been completed”. She said “the only repairs that remain outstanding are to overhaul the kitchen sliding door and redecorate the area above the lounge door”.
The landlord attended the resident’s property around December 2022 and identified that the kitchen door may need to be changed entirely as it was not a fire door.
The landlord has confirmed that the works to repair the kitchen door are still outstanding as of 20 December 2023. It says it has been unable to arrange access with the resident to complete this repair.
Following the leaks on 24 October 2021 and 16 November 2021, the resident raised insurance claims through the landlord and these have both been settled.
The first was settled for £2,500 for the leak on 24 October 2021 and the claim was made for damages to the following:
1. Carpet, underlay and fitting.
2. Wallpaper, paint and decorator.
3. Towels and bedding.
4. Clothing.
5. Curtains.
6. Keyboard.
7. Chest of drawers.
8. Personal and sentimental items.
The second was settled for £4,800 for the leak on 16 November 2021 and the claim was made for damages to the following:
1. Carpet, vinyl flooring, underlay, uplift and fitting.
2. Wallpaper, paint and decorator.
3. Double bed frame.
4. Curtains.
5. Shoes, trainers and clothing.
6. DVD Player.
7. Books and DVD’s.
8. Bath and door mats.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repair works following burst pipes and flooding

It is evident that the landlord incorrectly recorded a works order as being closed prior to the completion of the works for a loss of heating and hot water on 22 October 2021. Although this work was completed the next day, this would not have shown as being outstanding work, if it had not been followed up on the next day. Two further works orders, raised on 24 October 2021, were then not recorded as having been completed, despite other notes showing that they had been. Although the works were completed, this shows a pattern of poor record keeping.
When the landlord inspected the property on 30 November 2021, following the second leak on 16 November 2021, it identified required works to the flooring and two of the doors. A works order was raised that day, showing that the landlord was aware of the need for these works to be completed. These works were not completed but they were recorded as being completed on 13 December 2021. This demonstrates a further record keeping failure and in its oversight of the work. Its failings meant that the resident’s home was left with the damage caused by the leaks, which could only have been distressing and inconvenient for the resident and her daughter.
It is evident that one of the key contributing factors to the overall delays in the landlord carrying out the required repairs, was its belief that there was a legal disrepair claim. The landlord acknowledged this in an internal email on 4 March 2022. Although it is evident that a letter was issued by a solicitor on 3 December 2021, no further action, in particular the commencement of legal proceedings, was ever taken.
Even if the landlord believed that a disrepair claim was underway and the repairs were to be managed by its disrepair team, it should not have led to the repairs timeframes being any different from those in its standard repair policy. The landlord’s view that a disrepair claim caused works to be “stalled” shows that the resident was disadvantaged by the landlord’s incorrect belief that there was an active legal claim. This was despite the resident having previously informed the landlord that she had not instructed a solicitor to proceed with a legal claim. This is a significant failing on the part of the landlord, as it is evident that the involvement of the legal disrepair team caused significant and unnecessary delays in the repairs being completed.
The landlord failed to take any steps towards addressing the outstanding repairs at the property for over three months between its inspection on 30 November 2021 and a further inspection on 8 March 2022. During this time, the resident had chased a response to her concerns with the landlord and through this Service. The landlord acknowledged in January 2022 to this Service that it was aware of repair issues, due to it thinking there was a legal claim. The resident then chased the landlord in February 2022, at which time it said the previous works order had been completed. These conflicting accounts demonstrate a lack of understanding of the situation by the landlord at that time. The resident had said that she was not living in the property at this time, due to the damage and outstanding repairs from the leaks. This lack of any action by the landlord could only have left her feeling forgotten about and added to the distress she had already experienced following the leaks.
Although a more detailed inspection was carried out in March 2022, the key repairs and required remedies to the damage caused by the leaks remained the same. However, this still did not prompt any action by the landlord to address its findings quickly. The surveyors report was not produced until 10 April 2022, meaning that for a further month the required repairs remained outstanding, with no works orders raised to address the damage or carry out repairs. This could only have added to the resident’s feelings that nothing was being done to help her.
Despite the schedule of works then being agreed and issued to the resident by 30 May 2022, over one month after the report, no works are carried out until around 1 August 2022. A further delay of two months. Although the landlord indicated that the resident contributed to the delays, this Service has not had sight of any evidence to show a lack of engagement by the resident. It is understandable that the resident expressed frustration with this suggestion, given that she chased these outstanding works for several months.
There was then a further delay in August 2022, after the resident had asked the contractor to allow her to have some decorative works completed before the flooring was installed. The resident had to chase this with the contractor and then with the landlord when this did not work. Although this may have been a misunderstanding between the resident and contractor, the lack of oversight by the landlord is another failing in its overall management of these works. Again, the resident was left chasing works that the landlord should have been managing, adding to the distress and inconvenience she had already experienced.
Despite confirming that a new contractor had been assigned the works and assuring the resident that these would be completed “quickly” within the stage two response, it still took over one month for those works to be started. This is another failing by the landlord to ensure required works are completed in a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord said within its stage two response that some of the delays in the completion of the required works were due to staff shortages caused by COVID-19. Although staff shortages and certain types of work being prioritised by landlords did happen during the COVID-19 period, this was not consistent with its actions in November 2021. The landlord inspected the property and booked a works order on 30 November 2021 for the flooring work to be completed. This suggests that the landlord was still undertaking this kind of work at that time. The works order being incorrectly recorded as completed and the lack of oversight of the works contributed to its failing to carry out these required works, rather than COVID-19 related delays. After this, if the restrictions around COVID-19 were going to delay anything else, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to make the resident aware of this in some form of correspondence. This Service has not had sight of any correspondence from the landlord that mentioned delays due to COVID-19, until the stage two letter in September 2022.
When considering the overall delays, the landlord has not shown any consideration of the position that the resident was in during this time. She explained on more than one occasion that she felt unable to live in the property due to the damage but the landlord showed no urgency to get the repairs completed. It would have been reasonable, given the damage, for the landlord to have organised for cleaning of the property that would have made the resident feel more comfortable living there while awaiting the bulk of the repairs. Instead, the resident has been refused the quiet enjoyment of her home during this time while awaiting the organising and completion of the required works.
Ultimately, it is the view of this Service that the landlord failed to take reasonable steps to address the damage caused by the leaks. The landlord first identified the required works during its inspection on 30 November 2021. Had it followed its standard repair policy, this should have been completed within 20 working days. However, it failed to carry out the required works until 16 November 2022, one year later, with some works left outstanding as recently as October 2023. The landlord’s belief that an active disrepair claim had been raised seemingly delayed the process of carrying out the required repairs. This was despite the resident making it clear that she had not raised such a claim and that she did not consider that she could live in the property. Although the landlord started the process of the legal disrepair investigation in March 2022, it then took around five months for it to start those works. This meant that overall, it took around eight months for the landlord to start the required works it had first identified two weeks after the leak. This is a serious failing on the part of the landlord, which the resident said left her and her daughter staying elsewhere during this time. Given the time period involved, this caused significant detriment due to the distress and inconvenience, along with the unnecessary time and trouble involved for the resident. When considering the failings in the management of this process, cumulatively this amounts to severe maladministration.

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

The landlord investigated the initial complaint around the incomplete works to the toilet and confirmed within its response that it understood that these works had since been completed. The stage one response did not comment on the second leak at the property, however, at this stage the resident was yet to raise this as part of the complaint. Within its response, the landlord failed to include details on how the resident could escalate the complaint. This is a failing by the landlord, as these details should have been included, as per its complaint policy.
The landlord received further correspondence from the resident following both the second leak and then her refusal of the temporary accommodation. Whether or not these would be considered part of the initial complaint, the landlord took no action to either escalate the previous complaint, or start a new one. Both of these communications were complaints, as the resident had made an expression of dissatisfaction around the service provided by the landlord. This is another service failing, as the first complaint remained closed and no new complaint was raised. This meant that the resident’s complaint had not been recognised and therefore no action was taken to respond to it. Although an inspection took place shortly after her correspondence was issued, there is no evidence to suggest that this was linked to an ongoing complaint. This could only have led to the resident feeling ignored and that her situation was not being considered by the landlord.
Following a request for a complaint response from this Service on 14 January 2022, the landlord indicated that it would provide a response but that this would only address its complaint handling. It said that as there was a disrepair claim, it would not address the repair element of the complaint. Despite an assurance that it would provide a response by 28 January 2022, the landlord failed to provide a response until 5 March 2022, some 36 working days after the request from this Service. This is significantly outside of the timeframe set out in its policy and that it offered to this Service. This is another failing by the landlord to meet its own policy timeframes.
The landlord took the position that there was a live disrepair claim, based on a letter from a solicitor in December 2021. It was reasonable that the landlord took this position initially, given the letter it received. However, in their email of 28 February 2022, the resident made it clear that she had not instructed a solicitor to proceed with a disrepair claim. The landlord failed to acknowledge this information, meaning it proceeded with only addressing the complaint handling element of the complaint in the stage two response it provided on 4 March 2022. This is another failing on the part of the landlord, as it ignored vital information provided by the resident which had a significant effect on how the repairs and her complaint were dealt with. Had it questioned this with the resident at the time, it could have established that there were no legal proceedings underway and both the complaint and potentially the repairs issues, could have been dealt with sooner. This lack of thorough investigation had a detrimental effect on the resident’s experience following that email, delaying her access to independent review around the delays in the outstanding repairs.
When providing its response in March 2022, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had declined the temporary accommodation due to health and safety concerns. However, rather than acknowledge its failings and provide a response to her concerns, it ignored her claims around the suitability and safety of the property. The landlord should have investigated those concerns and provided a suitable and comprehensive review of them, in line with the principles of dispute resolution. The landlord missed an opportunity to ensure that the temporary accommodation it was offering, to potentially more residents, was suitable for future use.
Within her complaint, the resident requested a rent rebate due to the delays in carrying out the repairs. She claimed that given the condition that the property was in following the leaks, she did not consider it habitable for her and her daughter due to the conditions. Within her correspondence, she expressed concerns around her daughters asthma in a damp property and claimed that it had caused her “social embarrassment” as she felt uncomfortable having guests over. The landlord did not comment on these claims within its complaint responses. However, it is evident given the condition of the flooring and the other repairs highlighted within the surveyor report that the resident did not have full enjoyment of her home during this time. Within its stage two response, the landlord said that it would make an offer of compensation within the response from the disrepair team. Within that response it offered a payment of £934 with the majority of those works still outstanding at the property.
The landlord did not provide any explanation or breakdown of how it calculated the amount of £934 that it offered. It is the view of this service that the landlord’s offer of compensation does not provide proportionate redress for the significant detriment suffered by the resident for a prolonged period of time. The Ombudsman has therefore made an award of compensation taking into account the circumstances of the resident’s complaint, the resident’s rental liability, and this Service’s Remedies Guidance.
1. The resident’s rent between 16 November 2021 and 4 April 2022 was £122.91 per week. Between 4 April 2022 and 16 November 2022 it was £128.17 per week.
2. The property consisted of two bedrooms, bathroom, living room and kitchen – plus a hallway. Whilst these rooms may not have been uninhabitable, the resident’s enjoyment of these rooms was severely curtailed.
It is evident that the resident experienced a loss of full enjoyment of each room during the period between 16 November 2021 and 16 November 2022. However, given the assessment of the property carried out in March 2022 and as the resident had resided in the property during this time, it is reasonable to consider that despite the damage, the property was not uninhabitable. However, given the condition of the property following the flooding and the damage to the flooring, it is the view of this Service that the pay the resident 50% of the rental amount for the period during which the flooring remained damaged:
1. Between 16 November 2021 and 4 April 2022, a period of 19 weeks and 6 days, this equates to £1,220.32.
2. Between 4 April 2022 and 16 November 2022, a period of 32 weeks and 2 days, this equates to £2,069.03.
3. Therefore, the compensation for the delayed repairs stands at £3,289.35.
Ultimately, the landlord failed to manage the resident’s complaint in line with the timeframes set out in its complaint policy and those it offered this Service. It failed to identify an escalation of the initial complaint or log a new one following the second leak. The landlord maintained that it could not investigate the complaint in full due to legal proceedings, despite the resident having informed it otherwise prior to its response. Its initial stage two response only addressed the complaint handling element of the complaint meaning it obstructed the resident from seeking an independent review from this Service. When it did acknowledge its requirement to provide full stage two response, this was delayed and failed to provide a thorough investigation of the residents complaint. When considering the failings in the management of this process, cumulatively this amounts to maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repair works following burst pipes and flooding.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord’s handling of repair works following burst pipes and flooding.

The landlord failed to carry out any works to address the damage caused by a burst pipe from its visit in November 2021, until July 2022. It had identified the required works shortly after the leak but then failed to provide adequate oversight of the initially planned works. It then incorrectly dealt with the repairs as a disrepair issue, which delayed the completion of the works further as they were not worked in line with the repair policy. The works to the damaged flooring were not completed until one year after the leaks happened. During this time, the resident reported that she did not consider the property habitable and said that she had stayed elsewhere during this time due to the damage. The resident had to continue chasing completion of these works throughout with significant delays at each stage. The landlord showed no urgency to complete the works and a lack of empathy towards the resident’s unenviable position.

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

The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident raising an escalation of her initial complaint, or that a new complaint had been raised. It then failed to meet the timeframes set out in its policy following a request from this Service. The landlord then provided a limited response to the complaint due to its incorrect belief around legal proceedings. This was despite the resident having made it aware that they had not begun legal proceedings. This Service had to make a further request for a full stage two response several months later, as the issues remained outstanding. The response was provided outside of its proposed timeframe and the landlord failed to investigate all of the resident’s concerns, again relying on the legal disrepair process that was not required. The overall delays in addressing the complaint in full delayed the resident’s access to an independent review and not all elements of the complaint were addressed.

Orders

The Chief Executive of the landlord to apologise to the resident in person within 28 days of the date of this report.
The landlord to pay the resident £4,889.35 comprising of:
1. £3,289.35 as a rent rebate for the loss of full enjoyment of the property due to the landlord’s handling of the repair works following burst pipes and flooding.
2. £1,200 for the distress and inconvenience caused during the twelve months delay in carrying out required repairs following the burst pipes and flooding of the property.
3. £400 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused due to the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
4. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £934. If the landlord has already paid the resident £934, this should be deducted from the £4,889.35 ordered. The landlord should provided evidence of this payment being made to the resident within 28 days of the date of this report.
In accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of its practice in relation to requests for repairs due to leaks, damp and mould. The review must be carried out within 12 weeks and is to be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation. This review must consider at minimum (but is not limited to):
1. Ensuring it have adequate oversight measures in place to meet timeframes set out in its repair policy when disrepair cases are reported.
2. Ensure adequacy of records when repairs and inspections are taking place and detailing the outcomes in line with this Service’s KIM report from May 2023.
3. Ensure adequate checks are undertaken with residents to ensure that reports of disrepair claims are accurate.
4. Put in place a framework of systematic review of repair works, identified in this report, that remained outstanding for more than six months.
5. Knowledge refresh for relevant staff re complaint handling timeframes and managing complaints in line with its complaint policy.
6. Ensure that thorough complaint investigations are undertaken and responses are only issued once it is entirely satisfied with the completeness of its responses, utilising resident agreed time extensions where required and justified.