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

Southwark Council (202315999)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315999

Southwark Council

28 November 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 response to:
    1. the resident’s reports of repairs in the property.
    2. the resident’s request for adaptations to be made to the property.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant. She has lived at the property since January 2016. The property is a ground floor, 2 bedroom flat. The resident lives with her husband. She suffers from chronic illness, including lung, bowel and genitourinary conditions. She has mental health issues including anxiety and obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD).
  2. On 16 October 2023 the Ombudsman contacted the landlord in relation to a complaint that the resident had raised. She complained that the landlord had not attended to repairs in her property. She said she wanted it to carry out the repairs and move her to temporary accommodation while the work was ongoing.
  3. The landlord inspected the property on 23 October 2023. Following this, it raised a work order on 26 October 2023 for repairs to the bathroom, hallway, kitchen, living room and toilet. The works included plastering, painting and re-grouting. It also agreed to install an extractor fan in the kitchen.
  4. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 1 November 2023. It said:
    1. the resident had not reported any repair issues since 2019. The first report it received of the current repair issues was when it received her complaint in October 2023.
    2. it raised a work order following its inspection of the property on 23 October 2023. It listed the various works it intended to carry out in each room.
    3. its contractor would contact the resident to arrange an appointment. If it did not, she could contact the complaint handler who would chase it up for her.
  5. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 13 December 2023. When doing so, she complained that:
    1. the bathroom and toilet was not “safe or fit” for her needs.
    2. the property needed “many other adaptations” due to her medical conditions.
    3. in 2016 she was forced into the property, and it was not fit for her condition.
    4. she had made “numerous phone calls and chased numerous officers” about her housing situation and the renovation works required.
  6. The landlord approved the resident’s request to be moved temporarily on 28 December 2023. It spoke to her on 9 January 2024 and advised her of this. During the phone call and in follow up emails, the resident explained her medical needs. She said that due to these needs, the accommodation would only be suitable if it met a number of requirements relating to location and property specification.
  7. The landlord asked the resident if she would consider moving into sheltered accommodation given her specific needs. She said that would not be suitable. The landlord therefore decided it would await a void property becoming available. However, by mid February 2024 it had not identified a suitable void.
  8. The landlord discussed the resident’s case internally. It agreed that to avoid further delay, it would pay for the resident and her husband to stay in a hotel for 14 days while the work was ongoing. It emailed the resident to ask if she would be agreeable to this. It said it would provide a food allowance. The resident declined the offer. She said a hotel would not meet her medical needs. She also suggested the landlord would take more than 2 weeks to complete the work.
  9. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 14 February 2024. It said:
    1. it did not normally consider complaints about issues that arose more than 12 months previously. It therefore would not investigate the resident’s complaint about the manner in which she was allocated her property in 2016.
    2. it checked its records and received no previous reports from the resident about the repair issues prior to her complaint in October 2023.
    3. it inspected the property once it received the resident’s complaint. It had explained to her in its stage 1 response the scope of the works it would carry out.
    4. it approved the temporary accommodation request due to the resident’s medical conditions. It had discussed this with her.
    5. it initially planned to start the works on 8 January 2024. However, it was unable to secure temporary accommodation as anything that was available did not meet the resident’s requirements.
    6. the resident did not wish to consider sheltered accommodation or a hotel stay. The landlord was therefore awaiting a suitable void property becoming available.
    7. it had maintained regular contact with the resident to update her on progress in sourcing accommodation.
    8. it was likely there would be a long waiting time before a suitable property became available. This was due to the location requested and the resident’s additional property requirements.
    9. it urged the resident to reconsider whether a hotel could be a suitable compromise.
    10. its repairs service had confirmed the works would be unlikely to take more than 2 weeks.
    11. it had made a referral on her behalf for an occupational therapy assessment to be carried out. This would determine if any adaptations were required to her property.
    12. it was sorry it did not respond to her complaint by the target date of 18 January 2023. It offered her £50 compensation for this.
  10. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She referred her complaint to the Ombudsman.

 

 

 

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of repairs in the property

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will attend to repairs within 24 hours if an emergency, 3 working days if urgent, and 20 working days if non urgent. Residents should report repair issues to the landlord where they arise. They may do this in a range of ways, including by ringing a freephone service, by email or through the landlord’s website.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 16 October 2023 about cracks and dents in walls, leaks and the condition of the bathroom. It told the resident in its complaint responses that it had no record of her having reported these issues to it previously. Its records indicated the last time she reported a repair issue was in 2019.
  3. The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with its repair records. They are comprehensive. They show that between 2019 and 2023, the landlord appropriately carried out annual gas safety checks. It installed a carbon monoxide alarm in the property in October 2022. The records do not reflect that the resident raised any other repair issues with the landlord during these visits.
  4. The landlord therefore treated the complaint made on 16 October 2023 as a first report of the repair issues. It attended the property 5 working days later on 23 October 2023. This was a reasonable response timeframe given the repairs were of a non urgent nature. There was no suggestion by the resident that the leak was an active leak at that time.
  5. The landlord considered the complaint during its inspection of the property. It found no repair issues arising in relation to leaks. It identified a range of decorative repairs which included plastering, painting and re-grouting. It also agreed it would install an extractor fan in the kitchen.
  6. The landlord raised a works order for the repairs 3 days later on 26 October 2023. Its internal correspondence indicates that the repairs team were able to carry out the work in early November 2023. However, the resident advised the landlord that she wanted it to move her into temporary accommodation while the work was ongoing. The landlord therefore held off on starting the work while it considered the resident’s request. This was reasonable as the works were non urgent and it was a decision made in the resident’s interests.
  7. The landlord considered the works to be of a nature that could usually take place while a resident remained in the property. However, the resident’s medical conditions meant she needed access to a bathroom and toilet throughout the day. The landlord therefore reasonably agreed to her temporary accommodation request.
  8. The landlord approved the resident’s request in line with its ‘Emergency Temporary Accommodation Approval Procedure’. Its internal correspondence evidences that the officer completing the approval form consulted the repairs team. The repairs team advised the officer to book temporary accommodation for 2 weeks. It said that while the works were unlikely to take this long, 2 weeks would allow time for dust due to the plastering to settle. This demonstrated that the landlord was taking the resident’s medical needs, which included chest conditions, into account when processing the temporary accommodation request.
  9. The landlord further demonstrated it was taking the resident’s medical needs into account when it agreed to include her list of requirements in its search for temporary accommodation. She said that the property must have the following features due to her medical needs:
    1. ground floor.
    2. 2 bedrooms.
    3. balcony or a door that opens onto a garden.
    4. walk in shower.
    5. toilet with shower hose pipe fitting.
    6. near 2 hospitals where the resident regularly attended appointments.
    7. thoroughly cleansed.
  10. The landlord advised the resident during phone calls, in emails and in its complaint responses that this would likely mean a longer wait for a suitable property to become available. It said that only a void property could meet all of the criteria. It explained that void stock did not often arise in the chosen locations and the added requirements meant it could be a long time before a suitable property became available. It proactively considered and offered the resident alternative options. This included sheltered accommodation and a hotel stay. However, the resident advised the landlord these would not be suitable. She did not further discuss these options with the landlord to explore if there could be a compromise. This meant that the only action the landlord could reasonably take was to await a suitable void property becoming available.
  11. The landlord provided fair and reasonable complaint responses to the resident. The evidence provided to the Ombudsman demonstrates that it carried out thorough complaint investigations. For example, it reviewed repair records to determine whether the resident had made any previous reports of repairs. It also inspected the property prior to issuing the stage 1 response. This meant that it was able to list the repairs jobs it intended to carry out in the stage 1 response.
  12. In its stage 2 response the landlord addressed the resident’s request for temporary accommodation. It explained why it might take some time to find a suitable property. It said, “such delay is beyond the control of the landlord.” This was a fair and accurate statement. If the resident was not able to compromise on any of her requirements, the only option the landlord had was to await a suitable void becoming available. It could not offer the resident a property that it did not have vacant possession of. It could not control when voids would arise. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord urged the resident in its stage 2 response to reconsider the offer of a hotel stay for 2 weeks. It advised her it would provide her with a food allowance. It addressed her concerns that the works would take longer than 2 weeks. This was a reasonable response.
  13. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to issue stage 2 responses within 20 working days of logging an escalation request. The landlord may delay the response by a further 20 working days provided it agrees this with the resident in advance of the original deadline.
  14. The landlord logged the resident’s escalation request on 18 December 2023. It responded 39 working days later on 14 February 2024. It therefore provided a response within the 40 working day longstop date set out in the Code. However, it did not advise the resident that it required the additional time until after the original deadline of 18 January 2024 had passed. It appropriately acknowledged and apologised for this delay in its stage 2 response. It offered her £50 compensation for her time and trouble in pursuing her complaint. In line with its compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, this was a reasonable amount of compensation for the delay.
  15. Overall, the Ombudsman is satisfied that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs in the property. It appropriately inspected the property and identified the repair works it would carry out. At the date of this report, it has not yet carried out the work. However, we recognise that this is because the landlord is trying to accommodate the resident’s request that the temporary accommodation meets all of her requirements.
  16. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord continues to seek suitable temporary accommodation for the resident in order that it may complete the repair works. It should ensure it keeps a record of all efforts made and its communications with the resident. In particular:
    1. if a void property becomes available that meets a number but not all of the resident’s requirements, the landlord should advise her of this.
    2. it should provide the resident with details of the hotel accommodation it is willing to offer her. It should explain which of her requirements the accommodation would and would not meet.
    3. it should periodically keep the repairs under review while awaiting suitable temporary accommodation becoming available.
  17. If the landlord provides the resident with this information, it will enable her to make an informed decision as to whether she can compromise on the missing requirements. We are sympathetic to the fact that she may be unable to given her medical needs. This will mean, however, that the landlord remains limited to awaiting a suitable void becoming available. It is unable to predict or control when that might be.

The resident’s request for adaptations to be made to the property

  1. The landlord’s tenancy handbook states that it “can help disabled people with equipment and adaptations to their homes to make them more suited to their needs.” The handbook advises residents to contact its Adult Social Care team directly if they require an occupational therapy assessment.
  2. The resident emailed the landlord on 13 December 2023 and asked to escalate her complaint. Within the email she complained that the property was not fit for her medical needs and required adaptations. She also complained about the manner in which she was allocated the property in 2016.
  3. The resident did not raise these issues when originally making her complaint. The landlord responded to them within its stage 2 response. It said it would not investigate the complaint about the allocation of the property due to the amount of time that had passed. This was in keeping with the Code which does not require landlords to investigate complaints about issues that arose more than 12 months previously.
  4. The landlord explained in the stage 2 response that it could make an exception to the 12 month rule if the delay in bringing the matter to its attention was reasonable. It said this exception was not applicable to the resident’s complaint given over 8 years had passed since it allocated her the property. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s explanation and decision not to include this aspect of the complaint was reasonable.
  5. In relation to property adaptations, the landlord said that it had made a referral to its Occupational Therapy Team (OTT) on the resident’s behalf. It said the OTT would complete an assessment and determine whether the landlord should make any adaptations to the property.
  6. The referral to the OTT was made by the landlord on 14 February 2024. This was an appropriate action for it to take once it had received the complaint about adaptations. In line with the tenancy handbook, it could reasonably have signposted the resident and suggested she make the referral herself. That it made the referral for her demonstrated good complaint handling practice. Given this, we find that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request that it make adaptations to the property.
  7. The resident advised the Ombudsman that an OTT appointment took place in late September or early October 2024. She indicated she was unhappy with the findings made by the occupational therapist. She advised she has not received any follow up information in writing from the OTT.
  8. To ensure there is clear communication with the resident in relation to adaptations, we recommend that the landlord writes to her once it receives the OTT findings. It should clearly explain what adaptations, if any, it intends to make further to the assessment.
  9. The OTT may have a separate complaints process to the landlord where residents are unhappy with the service it has provided. This is because the assessment is carried out by the OTT in the capacity of a local authority, rather than as a landlord. If the landlord writes to the resident as recommended above, we recommend that it also advises her whether the OTT has an appeals or complaints process should she be unhappy with the assessment carried out.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for adaptations to be made to the property.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should continue to seek suitable temporary accommodation for the resident in order that it may complete the repair works. It should ensure it keeps a record of all efforts made and its communications with the resident. In particular:
    1. if a void property becomes available that meets a number but not all of the resident’s requirements, the landlord should advise her of this.
    2. it should provide the resident with details of the hotel accommodation it is willing to offer her. It should explain which of her requirements the accommodation would and would not meet.
    3. it should periodically keep the repairs under review while awaiting suitable temporary accommodation becoming available.
  2. The landlord should write to the resident once it receives the findings of the occupational therapy assessment. It should clearly explain what adaptations, if any, it intends to make further to the assessment. It should advise her whether the Occupational Therapy Team have an appeals or complaints process should she be unhappy with the assessment carried out.