Southwark Council (202234723)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234723

Southwark Council

19 February 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 response to the resident’s concerns about:
   1. The suitability and qualifications of its contractors.
   2. Its handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident has been a secure tenant of a 2-bedroom, third floor flat since June 1998.
3. On 30 September 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and informed it that the contractors carrying out major works in his neighbours flat had drilled several holes into his property. He raised a formal complaint with the contractors on 4 October 2022 but did not receive a response.
4. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 11 October 2022. He said that the landlord’s contractors had drilled several holes through his neighbours wall and into his property. He said that he had contacted the contractors directly on 4 October 2022 but they had not responded. He said that he did not believe the landlord’s contractors were suitably trained or qualified to undertake major works safely. The resident asked the landlord to confirm what due diligence checks it carried out to ensure its contractors are suitably trained and qualified to carry out such works.
5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 2 November 2022. It apologised for the lack of communication from its contractors and said it was aware they had contacted the resident during the week commencing 17 October 2022. It also said that it would rectify the damage to the walls and offered £100 compensation.
6. The resident escalated his complaint on 4 November 2022. He said that the landlord’s stage 1 response had not addressed his main concern regarding the qualifications and suitability of the landlord’s contractors to carry out major works safely. He also said that since first raising his complaint he had documented other instances of what he believed to be unprofessional behaviour by the contractors.
7. The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued on 24 February 2023. It confirmed that it did not vet its contractors’ staff and there were no specific qualifications stipulated within the contract. However, it said the contract did require competent staff and there were legal obligations that the contractor was required to ensure were followed. It acknowledged that the further issues the resident had raised in his escalation request were unacceptable and confirmed steps were being taken to rectify these. The landlord said it was aware the contractors had attended the property following the incident but had not been able to gain access. It apologised that an appointment had not been arranged by email as the resident had requested and said the contractors would be in touch to arrange an appointment to fix any damage. The landlord acknowledged that the resident’s stage 1 complaint had not been dealt with adequately and its stage 2 response had been delayed. In recognition of these complaint handling failings it offered a further £200 compensation. It also confirmed that if the £100 awarded in its stage 1 response had not yet been paid then it would include it when paying the £200 compensation.
8. On 3 July 2023 the resident confirmed to this Service that he wanted us to investigate the complaint. He said that, in his view, the landlord’s admission that it did not confirm that the contractor’s staff were properly trained and qualified to carry out works falls short of the standard that should be expected and amounts to a failure of due diligence. The resident said he wants the landlord to justify why it did not check the training/qualifications of its contractors to carry out works and for it to be held accountable.

Assessment and findings

Suitability of the contractors

9. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it explained that it does not vet the contractors’ staff as its contract is with the contractor company. As such, it has no direct control over the staff that they hire or specific qualifications required. However, it said that the contract does require competent staff and there are legal obligations that the contractor would be required to ensure are followed depending on any works carried out. It was reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to explain its contractual relationship with the contractors in response to the resident’s concerns. Similarly, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the terms of the contract to satisfy itself that its contractor would employ suitably qualified staff to carry out the works.
10. The landlord also said that it had spoken to the contract manager about the resident’s concerns. They told the landlord that the site team responsible had been with the contractor for some time and they were unaware of any previous concerns about their training or qualifications. However, the landlord confirmed that the issues raised by the resident in his escalation request had also been passed on to the contractors. As a result, the landlord said it had instructed the contractor to hold meetings with its sub-contractors to ensure they do not cause a nuisance to residents. Additionally, the landlord said it had instructed the contractor to use a daily checklist to ensure the site was left in an acceptable condition at the end of each day.
11. It was reasonable for the landlord to discuss the resident’s concerns about the suitability of the workers with the contractors and for it to rely on the information it provided. This is because landlords are entitled to rely on information provided to them by their contractors and representatives in the absence of independent third party evidence to the contrary. It was also reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to pass the additional concerns raised by the resident in his escalation request and implement steps to address them.
12. Therefore, based on the above, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the suitability and qualifications of its contractors. It is however clear that the resident remains unclear as to the means the landlord uses to ensure the competence and professionalism of its engaged contractors and a recommendation is made in respect of this below.

Complaint handling

13. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said that it would respond to a stage 1 complaint within 15 working days of it being raised. It also said that stage 2 complaints would be responded to within 25 working days. However, under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) landlord’s are required to issue their stage 1 response within 10 working days and the stage 2 response within 20 working days. As the landlord has since updated its complaints policy, the Ombudsman will not make any orders for a policy review.
14. In this instance, the resident raised his complaint on 2 November 2022 and the landlord issued its response on 4 November 2022. This was within the timescale set out in its complaints policy.
15. The resident then escalated his complaint on 4 November 2022 and the landlord issued its response on 24 February 2022, 77 working days later. While the landlord wrote to the resident twice to apologise for the delay and provide a new deadline, it failed to adhere to these deadlines and this caused a significant delay in it issuing its response. This in turn led to avoidable time and trouble for the resident, as he had to chase the landlord for a response to his complaint.
16. Overall the landlord’s failures, as set out above, can be summarised as a failure to adhere to the complaint handling timescales set out in the Code.
17. In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
18. In its stage 2 response, the landlord recognised there were failings in its complaint handling and offered the resident a total of £200 (£150 for the lack of a full response at stage 1 and £50 for the delayed stage 2 response) compensation. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failings which did not have an impact on the outcome of the complaint nor a lasting impact on the resident. As such, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made an offer of redress which resolves its poor complaint handling satisfactorily.
19. The Ombudsman has also noted that the information seen shows that the compensation was paid on 9 March 2023.

Determination (decision)

20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s concerns about the suitability and qualifications of its contractors.
21. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendation

22. As mentioned above the resident remains unclear as to the means the landlord uses to ensure the competence and professionalism of its engaged contractors. Therefore, the landlord should consider making a further effort to explain to the resident the framework for procurement of contractors associated with such works as involved in this case, any competence specifications e.g. gas safe accreditation set out in those contacts and it ongoing contract monitoring activities it uses to ensure compliance.
23. The landlord should write to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this determination to set out its intentions with regard to the above recommendation.