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

Southwark Council (202327171)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327171

Southwark Council

17 February 2025


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports of contaminated water at the property.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a studio flat in a block. The landlord is a local authority and freeholder of the property. The landlord has no known health vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. On 2 March 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that her bathroom hot water was orange and contained bits of metal. She had arranged her own plumbing inspection at the end of February 2022. The plumber identified the cause as coming from outside of the resident’s home. She sent the landlord a copy of the plumbers report on 7 March 2022. Having chased the landlord on 11, 15, and 18 March 2022, she resent the report two more times as it said it had no record of it.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 29 March 2022. She said it continued not to respond to her repair concerns.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 29 March 2022. It wrote to her again 3 times between January to March 2023. Its letters said it was unable to meet its response times and extended its new response date.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 5 April 2023. It said it:
    1. acknowledged her concerns about contaminated water
    2. raised a repair on 12 April 2022
    3. had experienced delays accessing the loft space and communal water tank via a neighbour’s property
    4. had faced similar delays in September, November, and December 2022
    5. needed to improve the loft boarding and lighting before starting the repair
    6. had attempted further appointments between January and April 2023 but had not resolved the repair
    7. offered to reimburse the resident £90 for the cost of her plumbing inspection in February 2022
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 14 April 2023. The issues with her bathroom hot water supply remained. She expressed concern for her health showering in the water and described it as “an unpleasant experience”. She asked the landlord to prioritise her repair as it had been over a year. She was unhappy with its lack of progress and poor communication.
  7. The landlord wrote to extend its stage 2 final response date on 22 December 2023. It provided its final response on 29 February 2024. It summarised the delays to complete her repair. It said work remained in progress and reoffered to pay the resident’s plumbing invoice of £90 and £650 compensation for the 2-year delay.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied and brought her complaint to us. She said, the landlord confirmed it had known for 3 years that the communal water tank had rusted. After 2 years of discoloured water, she paid more than £3,000 to install a new combination boiler and resolve the issue herself. She said it should reimburse her for its delays and failures.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident had concerns that washing in the affected water was bad for her health.
  2. Although we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to prove legal liability. Nor award damages. Whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health requires a decision by an insurance claim or through the courts. Our role is to investigate if the landlord acted fairly, reasonably, and in line with its policies and procedures. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue a claim for damages.
  3. In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint, we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine the complaint by reference to what is, in our findings, fair in all the circumstances of the case. Where we identify a failure by a landlord, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Response to the resident’s reports of contaminated water at the property

  1. Although asked for, the landlord has been unable to send us a full copy of the resident’s lease agreement. This has prevented us from assessing its terms. Or the landlord’s responsibilities. It instead sent us its general guide for leaseholders.
  2. In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985), the landlord is responsible for repairs to the installations for the supply of water to the property. Both the landlord’s repairs and leaseholder guides accept this responsibility.
  3. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to assess hazards and risks within its properties. Hazards include the supply of water for drinking, cooking, washing, cleaning, and sanitation.
  4. The landlord’s repairs guide says it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 3 working days, and non-urgent repairs within 20 working days. Its repairs guide states it will repair or renew a tank or pipes as a non-urgent repair and within 20 working days.
  5. Its policies are silent on timescales for major works and its role to inspect water tanks. But it does not dispute that it expected annual inspections for the resident’s block.
  6. The landlord’s compensation policy provides guidance on offering compensation in circumstances of repair delays, distress, and time and trouble. It considers awards between £250 to £1,000 for delays and distress based on low, medium, or high impact. It considers awards of £50 to £250 for a resident’s time and trouble.
  7. On 2 March 2022 the resident reported paying for a plumber. As the leaseholder, the resident accepted it was her initial responsibility to identify any issues with the pipework within the flat. The plumber judged the cause the landlord’s responsibility to investigate and repair. It was not reasonable that she needed to chase the landlord on 3 occasions to progress this.
  8. The landlord states its own plumber attended on 12 April 2022. This was 29 working days after the resident’s report. This was not appropriate and demonstrated the landlord’s failure to respond within its responsive repair times.
  9. The landlord does not dispute that it confirmed the effects on the resident’s water supply in April 2022. It also accepts that it could not complete the repair as it needed to arrange major works to replace a communal tank. By 19 May 2022 the landlord had 3 properties in the block reporting identical issues. It recorded unsuccessful attempts to secure access via the neighbour’s flat to inspect the water tank. The repair therefore remained outstanding.
  10. Between June 2022 to July 2023 the landlord confirmed the resident’s water remained affected. There is also evidence that:
    1. it identified the neighbour’s loft first required additional boarding, handrails, and lighting before installing a new communal cold water tank
    2. it asked its contractor to clean and disinfect the tank, but this did not happen due to access issues and the absence of sufficient boarding
    3. that it required an asbestos survey before starting the loft work
    4. there was a second tank believed to be a feed and expansion tank in another neighbour’s home managed under a separate contract
    5. that the total viable count (TVC) water sample test on 17 July 2023 found her water within acceptable levels
  11. The evidence supplied during this time demonstrates gaps in the landlord’s record keeping and communication. Given the landlord’s responsibility to inspect water tanks at the block annually, it is unclear why it did not initially have the knowledge of the separate tanks or locations, nor asbestos records. While it is reasonable to check such matters, these gaps in the property’s records further delayed its ability to progress the required repairs.
  12. It is unclear why it did not test the resident’s water supply until 17 July 2023, 16 months after her repair request. Nor did it offer her support for alternative washing facilities while it arranged the required work. This demonstrates the landlord’s failure to consider the distress washing in discoloured water caused her.
  13. The landlord sent us a summary of its cold water tank annual inspections for the block. Its records do not show a completion date in 2018. There is no record for 2019 or 2020. There were also incomplete inspections in 2022 and 2024.
  14. On 8 August 2023 the landlord updated the resident by email. It reassured her it had inspected the communal pipes and found them “perfectly OK”. But it said the communal tank was “rusting badly”. It also disclosed its contractor had reported the issue 3 years ago. This was not appropriate and further demonstrates the landlord’s failure to monitor its records and complete recommended work.
  15. It said it could only access the loft via neighbour’s properties and would require the removal of a section of pitched roof. These comments are not sufficient mitigation for its failure to plan, monitor, and communicate the required work sooner. Had it done so, the resident may not of experienced the issues she reported. Nor the delay for a period of more than 2 years.
  16. The evidence shows repeat communication failures. As examples, on 13 December 2022 records show a carpenter attended site but the appropriate contractor did not. Access arrangements therefore failed. During 2022 and 2023 the landlord continued to claim access to the neighbour’s property’s caused delays. While the resident accepts it had challenges, she disputes this as the main cause. She describes the landlord failing to communicate with the owners and occupiers at the same time. There by agreeing dates with parties that did not actually live in the flats.
  17. In June 2023 the landlord’s complaints investigator also disputed access issues being the fault of the resident’s neighbours. Instead considered its own teams communication at fault.
  18. This repeated in July 2023 when the investigator disagreed with its own colleague’s describing neighbour’s homes as “notoriously difficult” to gain access. The investigator’s assessment being it was unreasonable for people to be home without notice. And that the neighbours had confirmed having no knowledge of appointments. This demonstrates a record keeping failure and the landlord failing to co-ordinate with everyone concerned.
  19. On 11 October 2023 the resident continued to chase the landlord for updates. The landlord had finished work to board the neighbour’s loft but had not communicated when it would replace the tank. This shows the landlord’s failure to learn from outcomes and its communication remained poor.
  20. At this stage, the resident proposed installing a combination boiler to bypass whichever tank was feeding her property. She considered it a cheaper option for the landlord and asked it to consider paying for this to resolve the issue. The landlord declined after she chased it for a response on 14 November 2023. Given the time already passed, it was unreasonable that she had to chase the landlord again to make progress. This did not show the landlord giving due regard to her situation.
  21. The resident does not dispute that as a leaseholder she was responsible for any boiler in the flat. While her suggestion was reasonable the landlord was under no obligation to meet her request while arranging its own repairs. It was therefore her decision to proceed with the work herself in early 2024.
  22. The resident says by replacing the boiler herself she removed herself from the communal supply, which immediately resolved her water supply problem. The evidence shows the landlord did not complete the tank replacement until June 2024. It is therefore likely she would have continued to experience the effects of rust particles in her water had she not taken this action.
  23. In summary, the landlord’s failures amount to severe maladministration. It failed to show a clear grasp of the cause of her water issues. Failed to demonstrate an effective action plan throughout her repair request. And no learning during its complaint responses. We have witnessed poor record keeping and repair monitoring. And poor communication that caused her time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience pursuing the matter. It failed to respond to her repair in a reasonable amount of time. Nor did it demonstrate that it successfully resolved it for her.
  24. When there has been a series of significant failures which have had a serious detrimental effect on a resident, our remedies guidance suggests significant redress. Considering the circumstances, the landlord’s offer of £740 is not sufficient to reflect the severity of the failures or the impact on the resident.
  25. Based on our findings we order the landlord to pay £1,200 compensation, which is £600 for each year that the repair was outstanding. This is for the resident’s time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience. Caused by the landlord’s handling of this matter over more than 2 years.

Complaint handling

  1. At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord would acknowledge a complaint within 3 working days. It would respond within 15 working days at stage 1 and 25 working days at stage 2.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2022 required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
  3. While the landlord’s response timescales at the time did not align with the Code, the Ombudsman accepted corporate complaint timescales for local authority landlord’s at that time. That said, it would have been aware of the other requirements of the Code and expected to have met them. For clarity, all further reference to the Code within this assessment will be the version dated 1 April 2022.
  4. The Code says landlords must respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the complaint. There are exceptions when landlords may provide an explanation to the resident having a clear timeframe for when they will receive a response. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
  5. The Code says if the landlord needs an extension beyond 20 working days to enable it to respond to the complaint fully, both parties should agree this.
  6. The resident made a complaint on 28 March 2022. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the next day. This was appropriate and in line with its complaints policy.
  7. The landlord started to send the resident letters to extend its response date. But these did not start until January 2023, 10 months after her complaint. Also, we have seen no evidence the landlord discussed or agreed any extended response dates directly with her. This was not appropriate and demonstrated a training need. The landlord’s actions were not consistent with the Code.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 5 April 2023, which was 259 working days later.
  9. The landlord’s stage 1 response did not say sorry for the time taken to send a response. The letter only summarised a timeline of events. It said access to the loft via a neighbour’s property had caused delays for it to inspect the communal water tank and additional work identified. While the landlord arranged another appointment for 17 April 2023, this was more than 13 months since the resident’s repair request. Its response failed to demonstrate any learning or identify steps it would take to prevent similar complaint handling delays happening again. Its response was not appropriate and not consistent with the Code.
  10. The resident escalated the complaint on 14 April 2023. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 16 May 2023, which was 20 working days later. This was not appropriate as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy.
  11. On 22 December 2023 the landlord told the resident there would be a delay sending its stage 2 response. This was 8 months after the resident had escalated the complaint. This was not appropriate and demonstrated disregard for the resident’s situation. It is reasonable that she describes experiencing distress and inconvenience as the landlord was no closer to resolving her discoloured hot water.
  12. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 29 February 2024, which was 223 working days after the resident escalated the complaint. This was not appropriate, as it was far outside of the landlord’s policy and the expectations of the Code.
  13. The letter contained no apology to recognise the complaint handling delays. Nor did it identify any learning which it would use to improve its services. The landlord had an opportunity to offer a sincere apology and show how it intended to learn from her complaint. Its response did not achieve this.
  14. When there are failings by the landlord, as there is in this case, it is our role to consider an appropriate level of redress to put things right. The resident experienced a total of 488 working days for the landlord to complete its ICP. The delays to complete its ICP delayed her ability to bring her complaint to us sooner which was avoidable.
  15. The landlord offered to reimburse £90 for the resident’s plumbing report in February 2022. It also offered £650 compensation. However, it made no offer of redress to specifically recognise the distress caused by its complaint handling failures.
  16. Based on our findings, we find that there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The lack of progress and delayed communication worsened the situation. This did nothing to improve the landlord and resident relationship.
  17. We have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation for the complaint handling failures identified in this report. This is consistent with our guidance on remedies where there has been an adverse impact on the resident, the landlord has not acknowledged the failures, and the landlord has made no attempt to put things right.
  18. Complaint handling issues identified in this case are similar to cases we have already determined. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with our previous training orders. Therefore, we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case. The landlord should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this case that require further action.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of contaminated water at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. We order the landlord to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
    1. The landlord’s Chief Executive to write to the resident and apologise for the findings of this report, including the:
      1. delays in progressing the repairs
      2. landlord’s lack of communication
      3. complaint handling failures identified in this report
    2. Pay the resident £1,590 compensation. The compensation is made up of:
      1. £1,200 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of contaminated water at the property. The landlord can deduct the sum of £740 offered at stage 2, if already paid.
      2. £300 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
    3. The landlord must confirm its annual water tank inspection process and dates with the resident and us.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord considers how it will minimise loft and water tank repair delays for this block in the future. This may include ensuring its property records are accurate, with the contact information for the owners and the occupiers of the homes with loft access.