Southwark Council (202306282)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306282

Southwark Council

6 June 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

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. His liability insurance claim.
2. A roof leak, damp and mould.
3. Heating and hot water repairs.
4. Loose cables.
5. His complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. He was assigned the tenancy at the property in 2017. The property is a 4 bedroom maisonette split across 2 levels. At the time of complaint, the resident and his wife were the sole occupants.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 25 May 2023. He said that:
1. He had experienced “ongoing major disrepairs” at the property over the last 12 years.
2. There were current repair issues including radiators which had been removed from the walls, damp and mould and loose cables.
3. During the last 18 months the landlord’s repair operatives had missed appointments, damaged his belongings and left him without hot water, lighting and heating at various points.
4. He had made a liability insurance claim to the landlord in January 2023 for damage to his belongings. It had still not settled this.
5. He wanted the landlord to complete all outstanding repairs, reimburse the costs of any damage and offer him compensation for the stress caused.
On 30 August 2023, we contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf. We asked it to provide its stage 1 response to his complaint by 6 September 2023.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 6 September 2023. It said that:
1. The resident had raised a disrepair case against it, which included the repairs raised in his complaint.
2. It had asked the resident’s solicitors to arrange an inspection of the property and identify a schedule of works. Once it had received this it would arrange the necessary repairs and assess any compensation due.
3. The loose cables belonged to a media service provider, which meant it was for them to resolve. It had made “continued efforts” to get them to do so. The issue had eventually been resolved on 12 July 2023.
4. It had reviewed its records and found it had missed 3 repairs appointments since May 2022. The resident had received compensation payments for all of these.
5. Its insurers had made a £1,000 settlement offer for the resident’s liability claim on 6 June 2023. They had not received a response to this offer.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 2 October 2023. He said that it had not addressed all matters raised in his complaint. He told the landlord he wanted compensation for the disrepair and poor service he had experienced over the last 12 years. He also expressed dissatisfaction that the liability insurance claim had only considered damage caused to one bedroom in the property.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 31 October 2023. It said that:
1. Its complaints policy only allowed it to review events over the previous 12 months.
2. As there was a legal disrepair claim ongoing, it was unable to review the repair aspect of the resident’s complaint. It said this may conflict with the legal process.
3. The resident’s solicitors had declined to arrange an inspection of the property as it had requested. Therefore, it would be arranging its own inspection.
4. It was offering the resident £50 compensation for its failure to acknowledge his stage 1 complaint, which its policy requires.

Events since landlord’s stage 2 complaint response

The resident asked us to investigate his complaint on 31 October 2023. He remained dissatisfied that the landlord had not fully considered events over the previous 12 years and had not provided a timeframe to inspect the property and arrange repairs.
The landlord sent a further stage 2 response to the resident on 13 August 2024. This reviewed its handling of repairs to the property since May 2022. It offered the resident a total of £1,014 compensation composed of:
1. £320 for its handling of window and door repairs.
2. £460 for its handling of leaks, damp and mould.
3. £50 for a missed appointment in July 2024.
4. £184 for its handling of heating/hot water repairs.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why we will not investigate a complaint.
On 26 October 2022, we determined a previous complaint referred to us by the resident. As part of our resolution of this complaint, we recommended that the landlord provide the resident with details of its liability insurance to enable him to submit a claim. The landlord’s records indicate that it provided the resident with the appropriate form to make a ‘property and injury liability report’ in November 2022.
The resident completed this form and sent it to the council’s ‘central insurance services’ email inbox on 23 January 2023. The council’s insurance team forwarded the form to its liability insurers the same day.
The resident has expressed dissatisfaction with the council’s communication about his insurance claim, and the settlement offer made by its insurers. Paragraph 41 of the Scheme outlines complaints which we cannot consider. Paragraph 41.d. says that we cannot consider complaints about local authorities which do not relate to “their provision or management of social housing”. The landlord’s insurance team, and its insurers, fall outside of this scope.
Having carefully considered all the evidence, we find that the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s liability claim is outside of our jurisdiction.

Scope of the investigation

In his original complaint, the resident said he had experienced “ongoing major disrepair” at the property for the previous 12 years. He asked the landlord to compensate him for this. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord told the resident that its complaints policy only allowed it to review events in the 12 months preceding a complaint. This reflects our complaint handling code (the Code). It would not be reasonable to expect landlord’s to be able to conduct a thorough investigation of historical matters dating back several years.
Additionally, as mentioned above, the resident referred a previous complaint to us which we determined on 26 October 2022. This complaint completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 27 April 2022 and also concerned its handling of mould in the property. It therefore seems appropriate that this investigation examine only matters arising from May 2022 onwards to avoid any overlap.
The resident has expressed his continued dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of damp and mould since its stage 2 response of 31 October 2023. The Scheme requires that a landlord is given the opportunity to investigate and respond to complaints through its own internal complaints procedure before we will investigate. We will consider the content of the landlord’s further stage 2 response of 13 August 2024 as this was part of its complaint process – albeit after the complaint had been referred to us. However, we will not consider any matters arising after the landlord’s original stage 2 response.
Within its further stage 2 response, the landlord assessed and offered compensation for its handling of window and door repairs. This was not a matter which featured in the resident’s original complaint. Nor did the landlord include it when defining the complaint in its stage 1 and 2 responses. As a result, it does not form part of the complaint which we accepted for investigation and will not be assessed here.
The landlord also offered compensation of £50 for a missed repairs appointment on 11 July 2024. As this was significantly after its stage 2 complaint response, we will also not consider it as part of this investigation.
The resident has said that his and his family’s health has been affected by the conditions in the property. Whilst we do not dispute this claim, we are unable to determine the cause of, or liability for, ill health. These are matters best considered by the courts or a personal injury claim. We will, however, consider general distress and inconvenience the resident may have been caused.

Roof leak, damp and mould

On 17 August 2022, the landlord raised a repair for a roof leak into the resident’s property. Its records show that its contractor attended on 22 August 2022. This was in keeping with the landlord’s repairs guide which lists ‘minor leaks not causing serious damage’ as a non-urgent repair which it will attend within 20 working days.
The contractor told the landlord it would need to erect scaffolding. After internal discussions, the landlord decided its major works team would deal with the roof repairs. The contractor closed the repair on 16 September 2022 after the landlord informed it of this.
On 8 September 2022, the resident reported that the roof leak had affected the electrics, and the property had lost power. The landlord attended the same day. This was in keeping with its repairs handbook which says it will attend ‘emergency repairs’ within 24 hours – including total loss of power.
The landlord’s records indicate that it restored power, apart from to some of the lights where it found a fault. It left the resident temporary lighting in place of these. The landlord’s repairs handbook says that its initial emergency attendance “will be to make the situation safe” and it “may have to come back another day to do the full repair”. The landlord returned the following day, repaired the fault and fully restored power.
On 9 September 2022, the resident reported that the bedroom ceiling, where the roof leak was, looked as though it may “cave in”. The landlord attended the same day, in keeping with its emergency repair timescale. It carried out a temporary repair to make the ceiling safe.
Emails between the resident and the landlord indicate that the landlord returned on 24 September 2022 and took down the bedroom ceiling. The resident emailed the landlord on 27 September 2022. He expressed concern that the lack of ceiling left the bedroom “exposed to the elements”. He explained his wife had a health condition which was aggravated by the cold.
The landlord’s further stage 2 response said that it reinstated the bedroom ceiling on 31 October 2022, which it described as a “reasonable timeframe”. The landlord’s repairs handbook lists collapsed plaster as a non-urgent repair which it will complete within 20 working days. 31 October 2022 was 35 working days from when the resident reported an issue with the ceiling and 25 working days from when the landlord took the ceiling down. This was therefore not a reasonable timeframe based on its own policy.
The resident has expressed concerns that the new bedroom ceiling may not have been appropriately insulated due to the ongoing roof repairs. Whilst this was not included as part of his complaint, we have made a recommendation below that the landlord investigates and responds to him on this matter.
On 27 September 2022, the landlord told the resident that its major works team would be renewing the roof to the block. The landlord’s repairs handbook says that “Sometimes we will have planned major work that will include the repairs that you have identified. In these cases, there may be a reasonable delay before we start work as long as there will be no serious risk to your health and safety.”
However, the landlord said it would also arrange an urgent temporary repair to the section of roof above the resident’s property. This was appropriate given the damage the leak had already caused, which had represented a health and safety risk.
The landlord has not provided any records of if and when it completed the temporary repairs. However, we have not seen any evidence that the resident reported further issues with water ingress to the bedroom ceiling or electrics. Therefore, on balance, it is reasonable to assume the landlord followed through on its commitment.
The landlord’s records indicate that it completed and signed off the roof renewal on 20 March 2023. This was a reasonable timeframe considering the extensive nature of the works, including potential consultation of leaseholders, and likely adverse weather conditions during that period.
However, in its further stage 2 response, the landlord offered the resident compensation of £360 for the delay in resolving the leak. This represented £5 per week from 20 working days after the resident first reported the leak until the date it completed the roof renewal. This was a reasonable offer considering the distress and inconvenience the resident had experienced, even though we do not consider the length of time taken to renew the roof unreasonable.
It is unclear whether the damp and mould in the property was directly related to the roof leak. However, as the landlord paired its handling of these matters together in its further stage 2 complaint response, we have done so here too.
The landlord’s records show that it raised an order for a damp and mould inspection of the property on 16 January 2023. It is unclear what prompted this. The landlord’s records indicate it completed the inspection on 21 January 2023. This was an appropriate timescale. The landlord’s repairs guide says it will inspect damp to “determine the most appropriate course of action” within 20 working days. The landlord has not provided us with any record of the inspection itself.
The landlord raised repairs to treat mould and install thermal boarding to the external walls of one bedroom on 15 February 2023. It has not provided any explanation for this unreasonable delay of over 3 weeks to raise the repairs following its inspection.
The landlord’s records show that it sent an operative to treat the mould and install the boarding on 28 March 2023. This was already outside of the landlord’s 20 working day target for non-urgent repairs.
In its further stage 2 response, the landlord said that it was “unable to finalise damp and mould works whilst there is an existing leak”. However, there is no evidence that the mould was related to the roof leak. In fact, the landlord’s decision to install thermal boarding following inspection would indicate that it was not. The roof renewal being ongoing therefore does not provide a reasonable explanation for this delay.
On 28 March 2023, the operative was only able to treat the mould as the bedroom radiator obstructed them from boarding the wall. They asked the landlord to arrange removal of the radiator and booked to reattend on 2 May 2023.
In its further stage 2 response, the landlord incorrectly referred to the repairs being “initially reported complete” on 28 March 2023 when this was not the case. We note however, that in its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said it had recorded the appointment on this date as a “missed appointment” and paid the resident compensation of £50 for this. This was reasonable considering it was unable to complete the works due to its failure to remove the radiator in advance.
Correspondence between the landlord and the resident indicates that the landlord raised the request to remove the radiator against the wrong address on its system. Therefore, when the operatives reattended on 2 May 2023, the radiator was still in situ. The operatives removed the radiator to avoid further postponing the works. The landlord told the resident that they should not have done this, however had they not this would have been a wasted appointment, and the works would have needed to be rebooked again.
The landlord’s operatives completed the thermal boarding on 2 May 2023. The landlord booked a follow on appointment to carry out decorative works for 13 June 2023. It told the resident that this was the soonest appointment available “due to the amount of works required and the availability”. However, it was later able to bring this forward to 9 May 2023.
On 9 May 2023, the landlord sent a single operative to complete the works. They advised it was a 2 man job, so they were unable to do it alone. However, the landlord sent 2 operatives back later the same day to complete the works. Therefore, the detriment of this oversight was limited.
Even discounting the decorative works, this represented a delay of over 3 months between the landlord inspecting the property and completing the repairs identified to address the mould. This was unreasonable and not in keeping with its repair timescales.
The landlord also failed to arrange for its gas contractor to reinstate the bedroom radiator in a timely manner. Despite it completing damp and mould works on 9 May 2023, the radiator was still off the wall when the resident made his complaint on 25 May 2023.
The landlord’s records indicate its gas contractor did not reinstate the radiator until 1 June 2023 – over 3 weeks after the works were completed. We acknowledge that some of this delay may have been due to ongoing issues with a burst heating pipe (which features in the heating and hot water section below) however there is no evidence that the landlord communicated this to the resident.
In its further stage 2 response, the landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for his ‘time and trouble’ pursuing the damp and mould and roof repairs. It is our view that £100 does not represent reasonable redress for the landlord’s unreasonable delay in completing the damp and mould repairs and reinstating the bedroom ceiling and radiator.
This offer was also not made until after the resident had completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and referred his complaint to us. This means that, even had we considered the compensation appropriate, we would have been unable to make a finding of reasonable redress. Our Outcomes Guidance is clear that offers made late in a protracted complaints process cannot result in such a finding.
In summary, the landlord made a reasonable offer of £360 compensation to the resident for the time it took to renew the roof to the block and fully resolve the leak. However, it failed to acknowledge its unreasonable delay in reinstating his bedroom ceiling. The landlord also failed to raise and complete damp and mould repairs in a reasonable time following its initial inspection. Its offer of £100 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble was not sufficient and was made over a year after its stage 2 complaint response.
Due to this we make a finding of maladministration and order the landlord to pay the resident a further £275. This has been calculated as:
1. £75 for the delay in it reinstating his bedroom ceiling (representing £5 per day for the 15 days beyond its non-urgent repair timescale).
2. £50 for the delay in it reinstating the bedroom radiator after completing damp and mould works.
3. £150 for the delay in it logging and completing damp and mould works following its inspection of 21 January 2023.

Heating and hot water repairs

The landlord’s records show that the resident reported a loss of heating on 6 December 2022. Its gas contractor attended on 8 December 2022. This was outside of its 24 hour emergency timescale for losses of heating and hot water during the winter. However, we note that the gas contractor found the heating was working as it should be. Therefore, there was limited detriment from its delayed attendance.
The resident reported that he had lost heating again later that day. The landlord asked its gas contractor to attend on 12 December 2022 between 10am and 3pm. This was again outside of its emergency repair timescale. In its further stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged this and offered the resident £3 per day for this delay. This is the amount set by its compensation policy for delays beyond 24 hours in attending a loss of heating and hot water.
However, the landlord’s repair records indicate that its gas contractor did not attend until after 4pm on 12 December 2022. By this time, the resident had left the property and said he would rebook the appointment when he returned. Therefore, the repair was not actually resolved on this date.
The resident contacted the landlord to reraise the repair on 17 December 2022. Its gas contractor attended the same day. As it appears the resident was away from the property between 12 December and 17 December 2022 there was no apparent detriment due to the lack of heating over that period.
The landlord’s gas contractor found that the radiators were not heating up as they should and needed flushing. The landlord raised a repair for this on 22 December 2022 and completed it on 9 January 2023. It appears the heating was functioning, albeit not fully, prior to the radiators being flushed. However, in its further stage 2 response, the landlord reasonably offered the resident the £3 per day compensation for loss of heating from 17 December 2022 to 9 January 2023 as well.
On 10 May 2023, the resident reported that a heating pipe in the bedroom had burst and was leaking uncontrollably. The landlord later discovered that its operatives completing the damp and mould repairs had drilled into this during works. The landlord appropriately raised an emergency repair which its gas contractor attended the same day.
The landlord’s gas contractor found that it was unable to access the pipe and needed the landlord to remove a section of wall. The landlord’s records indicate that its gas contractor returned and repaired the heating pipe on 24 May 2023. The resident has said that he was left without heating or hot water for the 2 week period prior to the contractor repairing the pipe. The landlord did not acknowledge or offer compensation for this in its further stage 2 complaint response.
In its further stage 2 response, the landlord offered the resident £50 compensation (calculated at £10 per week) for its delay in resolving heating issues. It also offered £50 for his time and trouble in pursuing the repairs. As it made this offer after he had referred his complaint to us, and it failed to acknowledge the loss of heating and hot water between 10 and 24 May 2023, we make a finding of maladministration.
We order further compensation of £242. This has been calculated as:
1. £42 for loss of heating between 10 May 2023 and 24 May 2023 (£3 per day)
2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the loss of heating and hot water between 10 May 2024 and 24 May 2023.

Loose cables

The first record, provided for this investigation, of the resident raising the loose cables is on 25 October 2022. On this date, the resident’s local councillor emailed the landlord on his behalf. They raised concerns about cables, belonging to a media service provider, hanging “over the front of the building”. In later correspondence the resident described the cables as “blocking windows and entry to the property”.
In an email 2 days later, the resident told the landlord that an operative from the media service provider had already visited the block and inspected the cables. Therefore, it is evident that they were already aware of the issue.
In its complaint responses, the landlord explained that, as the cables belonged to the media service provider, it was unable to control when the issue was remedied. Whilst a repair of this nature is not the landlord’s responsibility, it was appropriate for it to pursue the matter with the media service provider and ensure it resolved it. Particularly given the potential health and safety implications of the wires obstructing access.
Although the landlord said in its stage 2 complaint response that “continued efforts were made with [the media service provider] in order to ensure that they attended to remedy the wires”, it has not provided any evidence of these efforts to us.
The only record of the landlord contacting the media service provider is after the resident chased the matter up on 5 May 2023 – over 6 months later. On 16 May 2023, the landlord advised it had spoken to the media service provider, which had detailed the works it planned to undertake. The resident responded asking the landlord if it was able to provide details of when the media service provider planned to complete works. The landlord has not provided any evidence it replied to this.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said the loose cables had been resolved on 12 July 2023. It has advised us that it completed this work itself due to a lack of progress from the media service provider. It was reasonable of the landlord to do this, having allowed the media service provider several months to resolve it.
However, the landlord has not provided evidence that it appropriately pursued the repair with the media service provider in the months between the resident first raising the matter and it completing the required works. Nor has it shown that it appropriately communicated with and updated the resident about the actions it was taking. Due to this we make a finding of service failure and order compensation of £100.

Complaint handling

The resident made a complaint to the landlord by email on 25 May 2023. This was sent to the landlord’s complaints email inbox as listed on its website. The resident said he received an automated response acknowledging receipt of the complaint.
On 24 July 2023, the resident told us that the landlord had not responded to his complaint. On 30 August 2023, we contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf. We provided it with a copy of the resident’s complaint and asked it to respond at stage 1 by 6 September 2023.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord failed to acknowledge that it had not appropriately logged the resident’s original complaint in May 2023. In its stage 2 complaint response, it said that “After reviewing the original [stage 1] response, I can see we responded to you within time”. This again, did not acknowledge its failure to log the resident’s original complaint.
The landlord’s stage 2 response did identify that it had failed to send an acknowledgement of the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It said this was not in keeping with its policy, which says it will acknowledge complaints within 3 working days. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for this, which was a reasonable offer in keeping with our remedies guidance for an instance of service failure.
When bringing his complaint to us, the resident expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord’s had not provided its stage 2 complaint response within the 20 working days the Code allows. However, the landlord’s response was provided 21 working days from the resident’s request to escalate his complaint, and 20 working days from its acknowledgement of this. We do not consider this to be significant enough a delay to have caused detriment to the resident or affected the outcome of the complaint.
In both its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses, the landlord said that the repair issues raised in the resident’s complaint were being addressed as a disrepair claim. In its stage 2 response it said that it was “unable to review the repair aspect of the complaint as it would potentially cause a conflict with the legal process”.
Paragraph 1.8 of the 2022 version of the Code concerns the circumstances under which landlords may exclude matters from their complaints process. This includes where “Legal proceedings have started. This means that details of the claim, such as the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim, have been filed at court.” It explicitly clarifies that “Instructing a legal representative does not mean legal proceedings have started.”
On 7 June 2023, solicitors instructed by the resident sent a letter of claim to the landlord for disrepair. The resident subsequently decided not to progress his claim to legal proceedings.
It was therefore inappropriate for the landlord to exclude the repairs element of the resident’s complaint. Alternative dispute resolution, including the landlord’s internal complaints process, should be part of its process for resolving complaints of disrepair – rather than being seen to conflict with it. In failing to address the matter within its complaint responses the landlord missed an early opportunity to try and resolve the dispute.
This also meant that the resident completed the landlord’s complaint process, and referred his complaint to us, without it providing its position on the repair issues raised. Whilst the landlord did eventually provide this position, this was in its further stage 2 response which it did not supply until over a year after its original stage 2 response.
In summary, the landlord’s failure to log the resident’s complaint of 25 May 2025 delayed the resident’s complaints process by over 3 months. The landlord failed to acknowledge or offer redress for this, despite us making it aware. The landlord also inappropriately excluded repair issues from the resident’s complaint, which was not in keeping with the code. Due to this, we make a finding of maladministration and order the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 41.d. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s liability insurance claim is outside of our jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a roof leak, damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of heating and hot water repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of loose cables.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, we order the landlord to:
1. Pay the resident £1,511 compensation composed of
  1. The £460 offered in its further stage 2 complaint response, if not already paid, for its handling of leaks, damp and mould.
  2. A further £275 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of a roof leak, damp and mould.
  3. The £184 offered in its further stage 2 complaint response, if not already paid, for heating and hot water repairs.
  4. A further £242 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its handling of heating and hot water repairs.
  5. A further £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure in its handling of loose cables.
  6. A further £250 for the maladministration in its complaint handling.
2. Write to the resident apologising for its maladministration as identified by this investigation.

Recommendations

We recommend that, if it has not done so already, the landlord pays the resident compensation of £370 composed of:
1. The £320 for window and door repairs offered in its further stage 2 complaint response.
2. The £50 for a missed appointment on 11 July 2024 offered in its further stage 2 complaint response.
We recommend that the landlord writes to the resident providing details of the insulation installed when it reinstated the bedroom ceiling in October 2022. If the landlord is unable to do this, it should arrange to inspect the insulation to ensure it is adequate.