Southwark Council (202125220)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202125220
Southwark Council
27 September 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 response to the resident’s reports of leaks.
- This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
Background
- The resident was a joint secure tenant of the landlord with his wife. The property was a 2-bedroom flat which was shared with his wife and son. The landlord held no record of vulnerabilities for the household.
- On 24 December 2020, the resident reported a leak into the property. On 29 December 2020 the resident reported that the leak was affecting the electrics. The landlord attended on the same day to make the electrics safe. Its repair notes stated ‘only stain marks on ceiling. The landlord surveyed the property on 13 January 2021 and recommended follow-on works. On 2 February 2021, the landlord cancelled the repair and sent a referral to its technical team for further investigation.
- On 13 July 2021, a roof surveyor inspected the roof of the building and made recommendations to repair the roof. On 19 August 2021, the landlord received copy of the survey and an order raised to carry out repairs on 13 September 2021. On 5 October 2021, the landlord’s records note a further report of a leak into the resident’s property. It inspected the property on 12 October 2021 and noted a leak into a bedroom in the property.
- On 30 October 2021, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. He said that he had been reporting the leak for 6 years and that he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the case. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident wanted the landlord to either repair the leak or rehouse him.
- On 8 November 2021, the landlord attended the property and found that the leak was coming from a walkway above the resident’s flat. It raised an order for a roofing contractor to repair the issue. The landlord completed the repair on 14 December 2021. It called the resident on 6 January 2022 and confirmed that no leaks had reoccurred since the repair.
- On 11 January 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint, saying that wanted to ensure the leak affecting his home had been repaired. It confirmed that it had completed the repair and had booked an appointment for 12 January 2022 to carry out remedial repairs. The landlord apologised for time and frustration caused by the emails between its different departments and that it had not kept the resident updated with the progress of repairs.
- On 2 February 2022, the landlord renewed damaged plastering to the resident’s ceiling because of the leak. On 17 February 2022, the landlord responded to a further report of a leak affecting the kitchen light. It made the light safe and raised an order to carry out a leak detection survey.
- On 18 February 2022, the resident escalated his complaint. He attached images of the leak and said the issue had been ongoing for 7 years. He said that the leak was affecting his 10-year-old son’s mental health and caused stress. As a resolution to the complaint, he wanted the landlord to repair the leak or rehouse him.
- On 1 March 2022, the landlord completed a leak detection survey and noted no evidence of water ingress. It concluded that a gas test would be required because the leak was periodic. On 19 March 2022, the landlord responded to another report of a leak and repaired a washing machine leak in the flat above. On 21 March 2022, the resident reported a further leak from above.
- On 29 March 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. The landlord accepted that there had been a delay in resolving the leak. It acknowledged that following the report of a leak in December 2020, it surveyed the property in January 2021 but did its technical referral team did not follow up with any inspections. After the resident reported the leak in October 2021, it surveyed the property and completed repairs on 16 December 2021.
- It acknowledged that the leak had reoccurred, and it intended to inspect the property that day, but its contractors missed the appointment. It apologised and advised it would inspect the property on 12 April 2022. When it completed the works, it would determine the appropriate compensation. It said that the leaks appeared to be from a variety of sources, and it could not guarantee that leaks would not reoccur. It said it could not grant rehousing as a result of the leak but signposted the resident to reach out to its Resident Service’s Officer to discuss his moving options.
Events after landlord’s internal complaints process
- On 20 April 2022, the landlord surveyed the property for leaks. It completed a gas test and noted that gas was escaping through an internal downpipe and along a mastic seal and recommended repairs. On 4 May 2022, the landlord carried out recommended repairs and a CCTV survey was ordered for the downpipe. On 22 June 2022, the landlord carried out a CCTV survey of the downpipe and no faults were found.
- On 4 July 2022, the landlord offered compensation to the resident. It noted that because specialist works were required it could not complete the required works within its 20-working day timeframe. It said a further 4 weeks would have been fair to undertake the survey and calculated that it was responsible for 11 weeks delay in repairing the leak. It offered £55 for this delay. It offered a further £75 to compensate for time and trouble caused by the delays in its complaint handling and it apologised for this failing.
- On 3 January 2023, the resident complained to the landlord because the leak had reoccurred. The landlord raised a further work order on 10 January 2023. On 17 February 2023, the resident brought his complaint to this Service to investigate. He was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the repair to the leak. As a resolution, he wanted the landlord to repair the leak or rehouse him.
- Since the complaint was brought to this Service for investigation, the landlord carried out further surveys and repairs. The resident brought a claim for disrepair. The landlord advised this Service that it agreed a resolution with the resident and recategorised the resident’s housing banding. The resident advised this Service that he did not accept that this complaint was resolved and requested an investigation.
Assessment and findings
Scope of investigation.
- The resident said that the leak had been ongoing for 6 years prior to him raising a complaint about the issue. This Service encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from 24 December 2020 onwards. This is because the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of this leak gave rise to the complaint.
- It is acknowledged that the return of a leak is frustrating. The resident reported that the leak reoccurred 8 months later on 3 January 2023. However, based on the evidence, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that it had repaired the leak at the point that it offered compensation to the resident on 4 July 2022. This investigation has assessed the landlord’s actions up until this point.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks.
- The landlord’s repair guidance categorises repairs by priority. It aims to complete emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 3 working days and non-urgent repairs within 20 working days. Non urgent repairs include minor leaks not causing serious damage or safety risk.
- It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as leaks as it can be difficult to identify the cause of issue at the outset and in some cases different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily result in a service failure by the landlord. This Service cannot comment on what repairs would be appropriate and the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors when deciding what work to undertake.
- The landlord failed to appropriately follow up with a technical specialist referral after a survey in January 2021. This Service acknowledges that the resident had not reported further leaks until 5 October 2021, however the landlord’s failure caused distress to the resident which he expressed in his initial complaint. This represents a service failure.
- When the landlord received the report of a leak on 5 October 2021, it carried out 2 surveys to identify the source of the leak and organised a roofing contractor to carry out repairs. While the landlord did not meet its aim to complete non urgent repairs within 20 days, the evidence shows it was actively investigating the leak and carried out the repair approximately 2 months after it received the report of a leak. This was a reasonable timeframe for the landlord to identify the source of the leak and carry out repairs in the circumstances.
- The resident reported a reoccurrence of the leak on 16 February 2022, the landlord instructed a specialist contractor to identify the source of the leak. It assessed the property on 1 March 2022 and carried out a specialist survey on 20 April 2022. The landlord completed follow up works identified in the survey on 4 May 2022 and a follow up CCTV survey on 25 June 2022. The landlord accepted that it was responsible for a repair delay of 11 weeks and offered £55 redress because the delay was low impact. Based on the evidence, this was a reasonable offer for the delay within the landlord’s compensation policy.
- This Service finds that there was service failure with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks. This is because it failed to follow up with a referral after its initial investigations into the leak.
Complaint handling.
- The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint handling policy allowed 15 working days for the stage 1 complaint response, and 25 working days for the stage 2 complaint response.
- Failure to adhere to complaint timeframes is a service failure. At stage 1, it is evident that the landlord was attempting to address the leak for the resident before it issued the stage 1 complaint response. It is not realistic for a landlord to address every substantive issue before providing a complaint response. At stage 1, the landlord should put right the issues identified up until that point and commit to resolving the outstanding issues within a reasonable timescale and set out clearly to the resident how it planned to do so.
- The delay in providing a stage 1 complaint response was 30 working days beyond its timescales. The landlord apologised for the delay and offered £75 redress for the delay. On balance, this was a reasonable offer to put things right for the resident. It is further acknowledged that the landlord has since updated its complaint timescales in line with the Code.
- The complaints procedure is an opportunity for the landlord to identify failings and put things right for the resident. In its complaint investigation, the landlord identified that it failed to follow up with a referral after a survey in January 2021 which caused delay. However, it did not apologise to the resident for this specific failing or offer redress for the distress caused by the delay.
- This Service finds that there was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because it failed to apologise and put things right for the resident when it identified a failing in its handling of its repairs.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.
Orders
- It is ordered that the landlord apologise to the resident, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, for the repair failing identified in this report.
- It is ordered for the landlord to pay the resident £100, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, for distress caused by its delay in following up a work order.