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

Southwark Council (202302203)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302203

Southwark Council

13 December 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Boiler repairs and replacement.
    2. Stack pipe repairs.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been a leaseholder of the landlord, a local authority, since 2015. The property is a 2 bedroom, first floor flat in a block.
  2. Between June 2018 and June 2021, there were at least 3 reports made to the landlord of blockages to or leaks from the stack pipe in the resident’s block. On 6 August 2022, the resident made a complaint that there was a further problem with the communal stack pipe, which was causing a severe leak in her property. The landlord noted it attended the following day and completed the job.
  3. Between August and October 2022, the resident made at least 2 reports of leaks from the stack pipe, which the landlord noted it attended to investigate. The resident made a further report on 1 November 2022 that a problem with the stack pipe was causing back surges in her property and the property above. She said this had resulted in her property being flooded and caused damage to her boiler. The landlord noted it attended on 3 November 2022 and cleared a blockage in the stack pipe as well as 4 days later to descale the drains on the ground and first floor levels.
  4. The same month, the resident asked the landlord to attend to repair her boiler. It replied that this was her responsibility as she was a leaseholder. The resident said that the damage was caused by the landlord’s failure to resolve issues with the stack pipe and the landlord provided her with details of how to make a claim on its insurance. The resident made a claim later that month and she has subsequently told this Service that the claim was denied.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 6 December 2022. It said it had attended within the expected timeframes and had addressed all issues to the best of its ability. This was apart from 2 missed inspection appointments in November 2022, which it would compensate her for.
  6. The resident asked to escalate the complaint the same day as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She said the problems with the stack pipe were unresolved as the actions taken had not properly addressed the issue. She had to borrow money to replace her boiler and asked the landlord to compensate her for the financial loss and sufferings.
  7. In December 2022 and May 2023, the resident reported further blockages in the stack pipe, which caused back surges of water into her property. The landlord noted it attended on both occasions and works were completed to resolve the issues. This included descaling the stack pipe from roof level down and a CCTV survey. 
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 25 May 2023. This acknowledged there had been a delay in providing the response, apologised and offered £50 compensation for this. It said there were no failures in its handling of repairs to the stack pipe as it had acted on every report received and made every effort to resolve the issues. Therefore, the complaint was not upheld and it could not consider compensation.
  9. In August 2023, the resident asked this Service to investigate her complaint. She said the landlord had denied any failures and this had caused her stress and mental health issues, as well as damage to her property and financial difficulties. She wanted the landlord to replace the stack pipe to stop it getting blocked and to compensate her for the cost of replacing the boiler and for the distress caused.
  10. In July 2024, the landlord told this Service that on further consideration of the delays in its handling of the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and 2, it had awarded an additional £250 compensation.

 

 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is noted that there have been issues with the stack pipe reported since at least 2018. Complaints should be brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable time of the problem occurring, usually within 12 months. This is so that the landlord has an opportunity to resolve the issues while they are still ‘live’ and the evidence is available to properly investigate them (reflected at paragraph 42.c of the Scheme). In this case, the resident made a formal complaint in August 2022, therefore, the scope of this investigation has included events 12 months prior to this. Anything that happened before August 2021, will be considered for context but not assessed or determined as part of this investigation.
  2. The resident has reported that these issues have negatively affected her mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments; however, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord (reflected at paragraph 42.f of the Scheme). While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.
  3. The resident has told this Service that her claim to the landlord’s insurer was denied. The Ombudsman acknowledges this will be disappointing for the resident. However, paragraph 41.b of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which concern matters which do not relate to the actions or omissions of a member of the Scheme. As the landlord’s insurer is not a member of the Scheme, any dispute about its decision falls outside the scope of this investigation, and would be for the resident to raise directly with them or via a legal claim.

Handling of boiler repairs and replacement

  1. In accordance with the terms of the resident’s lease agreement, the resident is responsible for repairs to the property, which would include the boiler. This says that the resident agrees to keep the property in good and tenantable repair and condition.
  2. It was reasonable that the landlord declined to carry out any repairs to the boiler in November 2022, as the resident is responsible for this. When the resident raised concerns that the boiler had been damaged as a result of the landlord’s failure to repair the stack pipe, it told her how to make an insurance claim. This was sensible, as an insurance claim was the appropriate method to assess liability in respect of this issue. For reasons set out above, the insurer’s decision to decline the claim falls outside the scope of this investigation.
  3. As part of the resident’s complaint, she has asked the landlord to compensate her for the cost of replacing the boiler. In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it declined to pay compensation and said that residents should have their own contents insurance to cover damage caused by leaks; but if she did not have this, she could make a claim on its liability insurance.
  4. While disappointing for the resident, this response was reasonable and in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy at the time. This said that matters subject to insurance claims would not be dealt with under its complaints policy. While the resident’s insurance claim had been denied, the landlord was not obligated to reassess her claim for compensation via its complaints process.
  5. Overall, the landlord’s handling of this issue was reasonable and in line with its contractual and policy obligations. Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of boiler repairs and replacement.

Handling of stack pipe repairs

  1. The landlord is responsible for repairs to the stack pipe in accordance with the resident’s lease agreement. This says that it agrees to keep in repair the common parts of the building.
  2. The landlord’s repairs guide gives an example of an emergency repair as a back surge causing a blocked sink or drain, resulting in an overflow. In these circumstances, the landlord’s repairs guide says that it will attend within 24 hours. In this case, the resident reported a back surge in her property on 4 occasions between August 2022 and May 2023 and on all of these occasions, the records indicate that the landlord attended within the 24 hour committed timescale.
  3. When the resident reported problems with the stack pipe were ongoing on 23 August 2022, including an intermittent leak, the landlord raised a works order 8 days later, on 31 August 2022. While slightly delayed in raising the order, this was a minor failure as the leak was not persistent. Once the works order had been raised, the landlord noted it attended the same day, which was a reasonable timeframe.
  4. In September 2022, the landlord noted it reviewed photos and video of the leak provided by the resident. It concluded that the leak might have been coming from a rain water pipe, as opposed to the stack pipe. It took steps to investigate this by raising an order for a roofing contractor to attend, which was sensible. Considering the leak was ongoing, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to treat this matter as urgent, which its repairs guide said it would attend within 3 days. On this occasion, the landlord attended 9 days later, on 23 September 2023. This was 6 days over the committed timeframe for urgent repairs and so a minor delay.
  5. The landlord noted the outcome of the visit on 23 September 2023 was that a plumber was required, as the leak was occurring even when there was no rainfall. Despite identifying further investigation was required, the landlord did not take action to progress this until more than 3 weeks later; when a works order was raised on 17 October 2022.
  6. The order raised on 17 October 2022 was subsequently cancelled and there is no record any further action was taken until 2 days later, on 19 October 2022. The action taken on this date only happened when the resident reported 2 leaks were ongoing in her property and outside in the communal areas. This delay and lack of action meant the resident was left with intermittent leaks occurring in her property for several weeks and this amounts to maladministration.
  7. After the resident reported multiple leaks both in the property and the communal areas, the landlord arranged to carry out an inspection. This was sensible to enable it to thoroughly investigate the leaks and the possible causes, so it could take the right action to resolve these. Despite 2 inspections being arranged on 1 and 16 November 2022, neither of these went ahead. The landlord acknowledged its failure to attend these appointments as part of its stage 1 complaint response. However, it did not apologise or offer redress for these failings. This was disappointing for the resident and amounts to maladministration.
  8. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that an inspection went ahead on 28 November 2022. Despite the Ombudsman asking for a record of this, none has been provided. This is a concern as landlords should be keeping detailed records of all inspections carried out. In the stage 1 response the landlord told the resident that once it knew the outcome of the inspection it would tell her and confirm what works it would carry out. There is no record that it did this which left the resident feeling let down by the landlord’s failure to keep to its commitment and amounts to maladministration.
  9. When the landlord cleared a blockage from the stack pipe on 2 November 2022, it noted that follow on works were required to clear the external drain, which had a buildup of heavy fat and scale. Considering the contractor noted that this was the likely cause of the back surges, it was sensible of the landlord to treat this as an urgent matter, which its repairs guide says it will attend within 3 days. The landlord raised a works order for this on 3 November 2022 and noted it attended 4 days later, on 7 November 2022. This was 1 day over the committed response time and so only a minor delay.
  10. Between August 2022 and May 2023, the resident reported leaks from or blockages to the stack pipe on at least 6 occasions. In addition to this, the Ombudsman has seen evidence that other residents of the building had reported the same or similar issues within this time period. After the resident’s sixth report in May 2023, the landlord completed works to clear the blockage but also took action to investigate and address the possible underlying cause of this issue. This included a CCTV survey and descaling of the pipe from roof level down, which was sensible.
  11. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord took action to address the leaks/ blockages in the stack pipe and do some investigation in to this issue prior to May 2023. However, considering the number of reports from multiple sources dating back to 2018; and the impact on the resident and her property; it would have been sensible for the landlord to consider further investigation of this issue at an earlier stage. Its failure to do so amounts to maladministration and meant the resident’s property was subject to multiple back surges of water and leaks, which caused damage and distress.
  12. The resident said the landlord should have replaced the stack pipe, rather than repairing it. This would be a big, intrusive job and so understandable that the landlord would want to avoid this, where possible, and carry out repair works to resolve the issue. The landlord has confirmed that there have been no further reported issues with the stack pipe since September 2023. Therefore, the works completed appear to have resolved the issue without the need to replace the pipe and so its decision not to progress this, was reasonable.
  13. In contact with this Service in July 2024, the landlord said that it believed these issues had been caused by food, fat and other items being disposed of down the drains. It could not identify which property or properties were causing the issues, but identified that it should have communicated with residents about the impact of disposing of these items in the sink as a way to prevent this from reoccurring. This would have been a sensible action for the landlord to take and while it is noted that there have been no recent blockages reported, the landlord should progress this action in order to prevent any further issues.
  14. Therefore, an order has been made below for the landlord to write to all households in the block with advice on not disposing of food, fat and other items down the drains, and the possible consequences of doing so.
  15. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of stack pipe repairs. Considering the full circumstances of this matter and in consultation with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £300 compensation.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 8 August 2022, which was 1 working day after the complaint was received, on 6 August 2022. This was in line with its committed timescale of 3 working days for complaint acknowledgements, set out in its complaints policy at the time.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 response was provided in 85 working days, which was significantly over its committed response time of 15 working days, set out in its complaint policy at the time. The response failed to acknowledge the delay or provide any explanation for this, or offer redress. This amounts to maladministration and made the resident feel the landlord was not taking the complaint seriously.
  3. The landlord has subsequently told this Service that at the time of the resident’s complaint, stage 1 responses were consistently delayed and often held until the substantive issue was resolved. In this case, the stage 1 response was not issued until investigations had been done. The landlord said it had since changed its approach and would now respond within the committed timescale and provide subsequent progress updates, which is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It is positive that the landlord has taken steps to correct errors in its complaint handling.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 escalation request on 20 December 2022. This was 11 working days after the request was made, on 6 December 2022. This was over the committed timescale of 3 working days for complaint acknowledgements, set out in its complaints policy at the time.
  5. Within the acknowledgement, the landlord apologised for the delay and informed the resident that the stage 2 investigation had been delayed due to an increase in contact received. While disappointing for the resident, it is understandable that delays can occur. Where this happens, landlords should tell residents about this and include a future date when a further update will be provided. This provides reassurance to the resident that the complaint has not been forgotten. In this case, the landlord did not do that and said it would be in touch in due course. This left the resident uncertain on when she would receive a response.
  6. When the resident chased the stage 2 response in March and April 2023, the landlord provided future dates when it would respond. However, these deadlines were not met and it was only after the resident made further contact that the landlord provided updated deadlines. This was frustrating for the resident and amounts to maladministration.
  7. Between March and May 2023, the resident chased the stage 2 response on at least 8 occasions, before the landlord provided this on 25 May 2023. This was 116 working days after she had requested to escalate the complaint. This amounts to maladministration and caused the resident to lose faith in the landlord and its complaints process.
  8. In contact with this Service in July 2024, the landlord has acknowledged there was a delay in escalating and assigning the stage 2 complaint. It said it had reminded staff about its policies and processes regarding complaint responses and timescales and had additional resources to address backlogs. This is positive and shows that the landlord has taken steps to improve its complaint handling. 
  9. The landlord acknowledged the delay to the stage 2 response and offered £50 compensation. While positive that it considered redress for its failings, this amount was insufficient considering the extent of the delays at stage 1 and 2 and the time and trouble incurred by the resident in chasing these up.
  10. In subsequent contact with this Service in July 2024, the landlord said it had awarded an additional £250 compensation in respect of its complaint handling. This was in consideration of the delays at stage 1 and 2, which meant the complaint journey had lasted for 9 months in total. While positive that the landlord reviewed its position on this matter and identified that an increased offer was required, this was only done in response to the Ombudsman’s notification of formal investigation. As the landlord did not identify the redress required prior to the Ombudsman’s involvement, a finding of reasonable redress cannot be made.
  11. The landlord said in July 2024 that the additional £250 had been awarded, but has subsequently told this Service in December 2024 that this has not been paid to the resident. In addition, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that this was even offered to her. This is concerning and indicates that the landlord was not truly committed to providing reasonable redress to the resident. Therefore, a finding of maladministration is appropriate.
  12. Considering the full circumstances of the case and in consultation with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £350 compensation for its handling of her complaint, which is inclusive of the £300 already offered/ proposed.

 

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of boiler repairs and replacement.
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of
      1. Stack pipe repairs.
      2. The formal complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 6 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to all households in the block with advice on not disposing of food, fat and other items down the drains and the possible consequences of doing so.
    2. Apologise to the resident for its handling of stack pipe repairs.
    3. Pay the resident £650 compensation, made up of £300 for its handling of stack pipe repairs and £350 for its complaint handling (inclusive of the £300 already offered, if not done so already).
  2. The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service, within 6 weeks.