Southwark Council (202309597)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309597

Southwark Council

30 April 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 concerns the landlord’s response following a fire to the property’s fuse box.
This report has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secured tenant and her tenancy started on 30 July 2007. The property is a one-bedroom flat which is situated on the third floor. The resident moved out of the property following the fire on 31 May 2022.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure. This is defined as the complaint phase and the review phase by the landlord. Its policy states it will acknowledge a complaint within three working days and will provide its stage 1 response within 15 working days. At stage 2 the landlord will respond within 25 working days. The landlord has added that, at the review stage, if it deems it is not at fault or that our “response would be the same after a review of the complaint” it would not provide a stage 2 response.
The landlord’s compensation policy explains that compensation for delay and distress is based on the degree of impact. It defines these as follows:
1. Low impact – the resident has not suffered significant inconvenience or distress as a result of events.
2. Medium impact – the events are an injustice to the resident and the service failed to meet the required standards.
3. Major impact – a serious failure in service standards. This could be either be the severity of the event or a persistent failure over time.
In terms of delay as well as distress the value ranges from £250 per annum for low impact up to £1,000 for major impact.
The landlord’s compensation policy explains that payments for time and trouble would normally fall within the range of £50 to £250 and that it was dependent on a number of factors including:
1. The length of time, including response times by the landlord, to deal with the problem and the complaint.
2. The time and effort required by the resident.
3. Any specific difficulty experienced by the resident in dealing with the landlord.
4. The degree of inadequacy by the landlord in response to communication.

Summary

The resident contacted the landlord on 31 May 2022. The landlord’s contemporaneous notes stated that there had been a fire in the consumer unit of the property which required a total replacement. Someone was needed urgently to attend and pull the main fuse. The landlord’s notes recorded that the resident was without any form of electricity and that she asked to be contacted on her mobile in terms of any form of temporary accommodation. It was noted the resident was moving to a different property at the end of the week.
The landlord’s notes from 2 June 2022 explained that having attended the property, its operative had been unable to complete the job as the existing fuse box had been fire damaged so it had not been possible to reinstate this. Instead a new fuse box was required.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 June 2022. She explained:
1. The fuse box had been on fire on 31 May 2022. The fire brigade who had attended had informed the resident to contact the landlord which she did. The resident added that whilst someone from the landlord had attended they were unable to do anything. The resident said that the electrics at the property had been switched off in the evening and so she was unable to stay in the property.
2. She had attempted to call the repairs team on numerous occasions over a three-day period.
3. As a result of the electrics being turned off she had been unable to get a meter reading. Despite her meter being in credit by £111.50, without proof of this, she stated she was unable to get the credit back.
4. She had been unable to return her keys on 3 June 2022 since it had been a bank holiday. She added as she was not staying close to the area she had been unable to return the keys back by 10am on 6 June 2022. However she did not think it was appropriate for her to be charged an extra week’s rent for the property through no fault of her own.
5. She had attempted to contact her housing officer on 1 June 2022 but had been unable to get through. She had then called her housing officer’s manager who had explained that it was “nothing to do with her and to call no one else”. Instead she had been told to email a specific individual.
6. She simply wanted to contact the landlord so that the electricity could be turned on “for 2 minutes so I can get my reading”. As an alternative she wanted the fuse box repaired.
The landlord and the resident then exchanged emails on 6 June 2022. The landlord explained that it had informed the resident on 1 June 2022 to contact the voids team with regards to her request it defer the new tenancy by one week. It added that it would speak to voids as well as lettings regarding the resident handing back the keys by 7 June 2022 to avoid being charged an extra week’s rent. The resident replied to say that she would be handing the keys back but wanted a meter reading done so she could get a full refund of the credit which she explained was £111.50.
The landlord’s internal correspondence from 6 June 2022 noted that prior to any work at the property commencing, a meter reading needed to be taken.
The landlord’s internal communication from 20 June 2022 noted that the resident had telephoned in on that day asking for her meter readings. A note from the next day enquired as to who had access to the key for the meter cupboards for the building.
The resident contacted a councillor who emailed the landlord on 5 July 2022 asking for an update. The councillor noted that it had been a month since the issue had occurred.
The landlord’s internal correspondence from 5 July 2022 noted that it would chase up the matter with the void team and then contact the resident. The landlord contacted the void team about the matter. The response the landlord received on 6 July 2022 was that there was no meter reading available as the main fuse box had been pulled out and that it needed to be replaced by the landlord’s contractor.
The resident made an online complaint on 28 July 2022. She explained:
1. The electrics had been switched off at the electrical cupboard by the attending electrician who had informed her that someone else would need to attend. However no timeframe had been provided to her. She added she had made multiple calls to the landlord about this during the day. She added she had been contacted by the landlord in the evening about temporary accommodation however this had been “too late when you have young children in a home with no electric which means no food”.
2. She had waited at the property on 1 June 2022 for someone to attend for the fuse box who did not turn up. She had attempted to call the repairs team and was told someone would call her back in an hour but no one had done so. She also attempted to call her housing officer on 1 June 2022 but the call had gone straight to voicemail. She had then contacted the housing officer’s manager who had not been helpful and had instead provided an email address for her to use. She had not received a response back from the housing officer since being informed on 5 July 2022 that the housing officer would be in touch.
3. She had tried calling the landlord’s repairs team on 2 June 2022. When she had finally got through she was informed that as it was a bank holiday on the following day nothing could be done until Monday (6 June). She added she received a call from the landlord offering herself and her two children temporary accommodation. By this time it was the third day after the fire and so the resident considered this was too late.
4. When she did get through on one occasion to the repairs team she was informed “but you’re moving to a new property”.
5. As a result of the delay and the lack of electricity at her property this impacted her ability to move her belongings to her new property. She added she had had to leave behind a wardrobe and her light.
6. The treatment given to her and her young children “was appalling”. She explained she worked part time, was unable to afford eating out regularly and she had had to wait for non existing appointments.
7. When it had become apparent that the landlord was not going to fix the fuse box the resident had contacted her electricity provider who had informed her that without a meter reading it would not return the credit on the account. The resident stated her credit had been £111.50 on the day the electricity had been switched off. She wanted a meter reading before the credit was used by the landlord in fixing up the property. She also added that the electricity provider was sending bills as it did not have a meter reading from her.
8. There had been missed appointments from the repair team.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 28 July 2022. It explained that it would aim to provide the resident a response by 18 August 2022. It added if there were any delays in providing the response it would let her know.
The resident contacted the landlord on 3 August 2022. The notes from her phone call noted that she had requested an insurance claim form for her wardrobe which she had not taken from the old property as well as the contents of her fridge and freezer which had got spoilt as a result of the lack of power. The resident added she was still receiving demands from her electricity provider as she had been unable to provide a meter reading to it. The resident followed this call up with an email on the following day and a further phone call on 5 August 2022. She explained in her email that, as she had yet to receive the meter reading, she wanted the landlord to refund her the outstanding credit and for it to then settle the bill directly with the utility provider. The resident’s telephone call on 5 August 2022 followed on from a visit from bailiffs in terms of the outstanding bills. The resident added she had been given 24 hours to get the meter reading.
The landlord emailed the resident on 5 August 2022 apologising for the matter. It explained that the issue of obtaining a meter reading was not under the remit of the area housing management team. It added that it had been chasing the relevant areas and had been informed that the fuse box had now been rectified and it was awaiting an operative to attend for a meter reading.
The landlord emailed the resident on 7 August 2022. It explained that it had obtained a meter reading on 26 July 2022 which showed a balance of £107.46. It sent the resident a picture. It explained the resident could forward this to her electricity provider in order to receive the refund.
The landlord’s internal correspondence from 18 August 2022 concerned the issue of temporary accommodation and whether this had been offered to the resident. The landlord noted the resident’s housing officer had been on leave at the time of the fire. As a result no one had asked the housing team about arranging temporary accommodation. A further note confirmed that the resident had not gone into temporary accommodation but had stayed with relatives until she was ready to move to her new property.
The landlord contacted the resident on 25 August 2022. Whilst the resident had confirmed that the issue of the meter reading had now been resolved, she still wanted the landlord to look at the issue of the delay in the electricity being dealt with.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 22 September 2022. It made the resident an offer of £50 compensation. The landlord explained:
1. There had not been a missed appointment by its operative, but it did accept that the resident had suffered time and trouble in having to attend the property in the days following the incident.
2. The fuse box could only be fixed following the resident having moved out.
3. No temporary accommodation had been offered to the resident as it had been made aware that she had stayed with relatives and her children had stayed with her mother.
The resident emailed the landlord on 31 December 2022 requested the complaint was escalated to stage 2. She explained the reasons for requesting a review was:
1. The point of her complaint had been completely overlooked.
2. The landlord had a duty of care for its tenants and there had been a lack of communication and compassion.
3. The resident had lost one day’s annual leave.
4. Her trouble had only been worth £50 according to the landlord.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 January 2023 to enquire about her request to escalate the complaint. The landlord replied on the same day acknowledging the resident’s request. It explained that there was a delay in the stage 2 process due to the volume of contact from residents.
The resident emailed the landlord on 16 February 2023 as she explained the response from the landlord was overdue. The resident sent a further chaser to the landlord on 7 March 2023.
The landlord emailed the resident on 7 March 2023 acknowledging the request to escalate the complaint to stage 2 and confirmed that it would provide its response by 13 April 2023.
The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 13 April 2023. It stated the complaint from the resident had been received on 7 March 2023 and it understood the resident’s complaint to be about the level of compensation as well as poor communication from the repairs service. The stage 2 response set out that the level of compensation offered at stage 1 was insufficient and that it was offering a further £150 for the time and trouble. This was on top of the amount of £50 offered at stage 1. It explained this payment would be made within four weeks.
The resident replied to the landlord on 13 April 2023 to explain that the original cheque she had received at stage 1 was now over six months old. The landlord confirmed that it would cancel this and send a new cheque for £200.
Following the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process, the landlord’s internal correspondence show it attempted to contact the resident on several occasions between 27 July 2023 and 3 August 2023 to talk about the complaint. As it was unable to speak to her it emailed on 3 August 2023 to state that following a review of the complaint “there are aspects that were not handled correctly and so I wanted to put this right”. It offered her the option for it to resolve the matter or the resident had the option to continue with the Ombudsman, whom the resident had already contacted. The resident did not reply to the landlord.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response following a fire at the property.

The landlord’s contemporaneous records show that it had attended the property on 31 May 2022 after being informed by the resident of the fire at the property. Its operative had switched off the electrical supply to the property which was a reasonable approach to take. The photo of the resident’s fuse box showed that it had been damaged. The resident had in her initial call to the landlord explained that the fuse box would need to be replaced, based on the information provided to her by the fire service. However the landlord’s operative would have still needed to have attended to make its own independent recommendation on whether the existing fuse board could continue to be used or whether it was beyond salvageable.
Whilst the resident has explained that she required a meter reading and she explained this required the electricity at the property to be reconnected for a few minutes it would not have been either safe or appropriate for the landlord to have done this. Its operative had confirmed that the property’s fuse box had been fire damaged and needed to be fully replaced. Only once this had occurred would it have been possible to reconnect the electricity supply for the property which would have included the electricity meter.
In terms of the time taken for the fuse box to be replaced, it took the landlord from 31 May 2022 to at some point in late July for this to be completed. Whilst the landlord has not confirmed exactly when the fuse box was replaced, its operative had obtained a meter reading on 26 July 2022 and it is likely that the electrical supply had been connected around that time. The landlord has provided its internal correspondence from its repairs team which confirmed that, as the property had been empty because the resident had been due to move shortly after the fire, this had contributed in part to the time taken for the fuse box to be replaced. This was not appropriate. Whilst the resident was due to move out the following week, as a result of the landlord’s inactions in trying to replace the fuse box the resident was given no alternative but to move out of the property early. This was not reasonable and would have caused the resident a level of distress and inconvenience at a time when the fire would already have caused her distress.
In addition to dealing with the fuse box and reconnecting the electricity to allow a meter reading to be taken, the landlord should have also considered alternative temporary accommodation for the resident. The landlord was made aware when the resident had initially reported the fire that she had provided her mobile number in case the landlord wished to discuss temporary accommodation. At that time the resident would not have known whether the fuse box could be replaced or fixed and therefore whether she was able to return to the property on that day. It would only have been in the evening when no operative from the landlord had arrived for the fuse box when she would finally have known that she could not stay in the property and had to look elsewhere for that time.
The landlord was aware that the resident was single and had two young children. As a result it would not have been ideal for the family unit to have split up. However the landlord has not provided evidence that it provided her with any support or enquired about temporary accommodation until late in the evening on 31 May 2022 by which time the resident had already made alternative plans. The landlord stated that the resident had not needed temporary accommodation as she and her children had been staying with relatives. The landlord has confirmed that the resident’s housing officer, who would have been her primary contact in the circumstances was on leave. The landlord has not provided details of what alternative arrangements it had in place if the housing officer was unavailable.
The landlord had also mentioned temporary accommodation to the resident on 2 June 2022 which she had turned down as she felt it was a little late for the landlord to be considering it. Whilst there was no evidence the landlord had considered the issue on the previous day, which was a missed opportunity by it, it was nonetheless still appropriate for it to be checking with the resident about the issue on the third day.
The landlord’s stage 2 response offered a total of £200 compensation for time and trouble to the resident. This was reasonable and proportionate given the circumstances in respect of that aspect. However the landlord did not make any award in relation to distress and delay in line with its compensation policy. The impact on the resident in relation to both these aspects would have been in keeping with low impact as there had been a delay in the landlord resolving the resident’s main complaint of not being able to get a meter reading. This meant that she had been chased by her electricity company and had letters and bailiffs being sent to her new property. Given this an award of £50 each for both aspects is proportionate with the delay and distress the resident experienced.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it would provide its stage 1 response within 15 working days of the complaint being made. When it had acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 28 July 2022 it had provided a response time of 18 August 2022, in keeping with its policy. However it did not provide the stage 1 response until 22 September 2022, some 40 days after the complaint had been made. The landlord did not provide regular updates to the resident nor did it provide any explanation for the delay in it response. This was a failing by the landlord and the impact would have been that it caused the resident a degree of distress and inconvenience.
The resident requested an escalation to stage 2, just over three months after receiving the landlord’s stage 1 response. However the landlord’s complaints policy did not specify that there was any time limit by which the resident needed to request an escalation. Following the request the landlord explained that there would be a delay in the review of the complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that the landlord could decide at its review stage not to provide a stage 2 response if it felt the matter was not its fault or if the outcome was not going to change from stage 1. However the landlord’s complaints policy did not specify whether, in the event that a complaint would be investigated initially before passing it to review, that the response deadline of 25 working days would not be extended.
The landlord’s internal correspondence shows that on 31 January 2023 it had made the decision that the complaint would proceed for a review. In other words the landlord had accepted that it was either at fault or that the outcome was likely to change. However despite it passing the complaint to the review stage at that time it did not provide the resident with any update on the matter until 7 March 2023 after she had chased it on the matter on several occasions and informed the landlord that its response was actually overdue.
Whilst the landlord did provide its stage 2 response in keeping with the 25 working days from its email of 7 March 2023, this had not been the date that the resident had requested the escalation to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. Whilst there may have been a delay in the landlord’s response time due to the volume of enquiries with residents which it received, it did not provide its stage 2 response until 67 working days after it had acknowledged the resident’s request for escalation on 6 January 2023, and 50 days after it had confirmed that the case would be passed to review. This was considerably outside of the time limits as set out in its complaints policy. This was a failing on the part of the landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response following a fire at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

Although the landlord did act reasonably initially in attending to the property following the fire and switching off the electric supply, it did not consider at that time whether the resident should have been offered temporary accommodation. Whilst it stated the resident had been staying with relatives and her children staying with the resident’s mother and so she would not need temporary accommodation, the resident’s initial contact with the landlord had made it clear that she was asking for temporary accommodation. The landlord also failed to respond to the resident’s request for a meter reading in a responsibly prompt manner. Whilst it did eventually obtain the meter reading from its operatives on 26 July 2022, the landlord did not provide this to the resident until 12 days later, after the resident had raised a complaint over the issue. Whilst the landlord did offer compensation it was not adequate to reflect the failings in this case.
There was a delay from the landlord in the acknowledgment at stage 2 as well as its response at both stage 1 and 2. The landlord had informed the resident when it had initially responded to her stage 2 request on 6 January 2023 to say that there was a delay in her “stage 2 complaint investigation”. No timescale had been provided but the landlord failed to update the resident on the nature of the review. Following acceptance that the complaint could progress to stage 2 the landlord did not send any acknowledgment to the resident for over a month. It had then used that acknowledgment date as the basis for its starting point to provide its response within 25 working days.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within the next four weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Arrange for a member of the landlord’s staff to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a further amount of £200, which is in addition to the £200 which it offered in its stage 1 together with its stage two response. This further amount comprises:
  1. £100 in relation to the landlord’s response following a fire at the property.
  2. £100 in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling.
3. The landlord should also pay the £50 offered at stage 1 for time and trouble, if it has not already done so.
4. The landlord should also pay the £150 offered at stage 2 for time and trouble, if it has not already done so.

Recommendation

The landlord should undertake a review of its approach for residents with regards to contacting alternative housing officers in the event their usual housing officer is on leave.