Southwark Council (202347778)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202347778

Southwark Council

26 March 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 complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of communal door repairs between July 2022 and March 2023.
2. Response to the resident’s enquiries about communal redecoration.
3. Response to the resident’s concerns about window cleaning in 2022.
4. Handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and vandalism.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority, since 2017. The property is a 1–bedroom flat in a block.
In February and October 2022, the resident told the landlord her windows had not been cleaned.
The resident made multiple reports of ASB and vandalism in June 2022. She said non-residents were using drugs and causing damage in communal areas of the block. In response to this, the landlord noted it:
1. Spoke to the resident and told her the Police were aware of this issue.
2. Sent a letter to all residents in the block.
3. Carried out a block inspection.
4. Referred the matter to the local authority warden team.
5. Arranged a meeting with the Police.
In July and October 2022 the resident reported that the communal bin chamber door would not open properly. Between July 2022 and March 2023 the landlord raised at least 11 works orders for communal door repairs and noted it attended these.
On 29 November 2022, the resident made a complaint to the landlord which said:
1. The repair to the communal bin store door handle had not been completed, despite her reporting this twice. There was another internal door that did not close properly, which she had reported numerous times. The main entrance door had been vandalised and the glass in the bottom half of the door was cracked. This had been reported but not repaired.
2. She had reported her windows had not been cleaned twice but received no response. She had chased this up on 10 November 2022 and the landlord told her the windows had been cleaned, but this was incorrect.
3. There were ongoing issues with ASB and vandalism, which she had reported. The landlord had not told her what action it was taking to address these issues.
4. The communal walls were scuffed and marked. She had asked when this would be redecorated but did not receive a response.
The landlord’s first stage 1 response dated 22 December 2022 said it had completed repairs to communal doors on 10 and 19 December 2022, which was within the expected timeframe. It asked her to contact its major works department regarding the internal redecoration of the block.
The same day, the landlord sent a second stage 1 complaint response, which said:
1. It apologised for the length of time taken for communal door repairs to be completed. It had raised this as a priority. The replacement glass for the door had been ordered and would be fitted as soon as it arrived.
2. It was aware the main front door was regularly vandalised and staff were proactive in reporting this. The Police and local authority wardens regularly patrolled the block and surrounding areas.
3. The window cleaning should be done on a quarterly basis. Going forward it had asked the managing agents to confirm that every window had been cleaned and would carry out spot checks to make sure this had been done.
4. No redecoration works were planned for the internal areas of the block. A request had been made for this to be considered but funds were limited. It could not guarantee when this work would be done.
On 17 January 2023 the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said she had received 2 stage 1 responses with different, conflicting information. Communal door repairs were still outstanding and the landlord had not told her what it was doing about the ASB and vandalism issues. She said her windows had been cleaned on 12 December 2022, but she had not been told about this in advance, and the contractor just arrived on her balcony unannounced.
The landlord’s stage 2 response of 17 April 2023 said the complaint was not upheld. It provided the cleaning schedule for the block, which set out the frequency of the cleaning of the communal areas. It said it was satisfied it had acted accordingly in response to reports of faults and vandalism.
In March 2024, the resident asked us to investigate her complaint. She said the landlord had not resolved any of the issues raised and wanted it to complete all repairs, tackle the ASB and vandalism and pay compensation.

Assessment and findings

Communal door repairs between July 2022 and March 2023.

The landlord is responsible for repairs to communal doors in the block in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement. This says it will repair the common parts and communal facilities to the block and estate, which includes communal doors.
The resident said she reported the bin chamber door was not opening properly on 1 July and 24 October 2022. She provided reference numbers for these reports and we can see that these correspond to service requests raised by the landlord on the given dates. However, no works orders were raised, which meant no action was taken. We have seen no evidence that the landlord told the resident why no action was taken and when she raised this as part of her complaint, the landlord did not respond. This was disappointing for her and amounts to maladministration.
It is unclear why no action was taken in respect of these reports. The resident said she reported these repairs online and it is important that when residents make reports, action is taken or follow up contact made to confirm why no action will be taken. This ensures residents are not left feeling ignored and have to re-report issues, as happened in this case.
We have made an order for the landlord to carry out a review and provide a written update to the resident explaining why no action was taken following her reports on 1 July 2022 (service request 9727830) and 24 October 2022 (service request 9873346).
Of the 11 works orders raised for communal door repairs, 2 were for communal doors not closing/locking properly. In both instances, this meant the block was insecure. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord treated these as emergency repairs, which its tenant handbook said it would attend within 24 hours. The first of these jobs was raised on 8 December 2022 and the landlord noted it attended the following day. The second was raised on 27 February 2023 and the landlord noted it attended the same day. Both were in line with its committed timescale for emergency repairs.
The landlord raised 3 works orders to fit a new handle on the bin chamber door in July and December 2022. For all 3 repairs, the landlord noted it had to attend multiple times to complete the repair, as it could not gain access to the building. This meant the repairs were not completed as quickly as they could have been. One of the repairs, raised on 21 July 2022, was not completed until 6 September 2022, 33 working days later. This was not in line with the landlord’s 20 working day target for routine repairs set out in its tenant handbook. This amounts to maladministration.
It is concerning that the landlord noted it had repeated issues accessing communal areas of the building as it should have communal fobs or keys to do so. It is unreasonable that repairs are delayed because of this as the landlord should have a process in place to ensure its operatives/contractors can access the required areas to carry out communal repairs. We have made an order for the landlord to review the arrangements for its repair operatives/contractors to access communal areas to carry out repairs first time.
The landlord raised 4 works orders to repair broken glass in the communal front door in November 2022 and February and March 2023. All of these were completed within the 20 working day target timescale for routine repairs, which was reasonable. On the fourth occasion, the landlord noted it replaced the glass with a metal sheet, on 7 March 2023, which was sensible to prevent further vandalism.
The landlord raised 2 works orders for an internal door that was not closing properly in October and December 2022. One was completed within the 20 working day target timescale for routine repairs. However, the job raised in October 2022 was not completed until 31 working days later, on 10 December 2022. As internal communal doors are important for fire safety, it is vital that landlords take steps to ensure they are operational as quickly as possible. The delay in it doing so on this occasion amounts to maladministration.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of communal door repairs between July 2022 and March 2023. Despite the landlord acknowledging this in the second stage 1 response in December 2022 and apologising, it failed to consider any other redress. Therefore, we have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation, in line with our remedies guidance.
The resident has told us recently that there are communal doors in the building that are still not working. We have therefore made an order for the landlord to inspect the block and identify any/all outstanding communal door repairs. A written update is to be provided to the resident confirming the repairs identified and a timescale for these to be completed.

Communal redecoration

The landlord is responsible for communal redecoration works in line with its tenant handbook. This says it will carry out necessary decoration works to maintain the condition of the building.
The resident said she was told when she moved in to the block in 2017 that the internal areas would be repainted after all residents had moved in, but this did not happen. As this happened more than 12 months before the resident raised her formal complaint, we have not investigated this specific concern.
The resident said in her complaint in November 2022 that she had previously asked when the communal areas would be redecorated but not received a reply. We do not doubt the resident’s comments, but we have seen no evidence of any previous enquiries and so cannot comment further in that regard.
At stage 1, the landlord told the resident that no redecoration works were planned, funds were limited and it could not guarantee when this would be done. While disappointing for the resident, it was sensible of the landlord to provide an honest update on its position so she understood the limitations on it.
However, the landlord also told the resident that a request had been made for the works to be considered. This indicated that it knew works were required and so it should have done more to find out when they were likely to take place. Even if this was not going to be done immediately, it should have provided an estimated timescale for the works to be completed. Its failure to do so left the resident uncertain on what was happening and amounts to maladministration.
At stage 2, the landlord did not address this issue at all and only provided a copy of the block cleaning schedule. This did not include any reference to communal redecoration so the resident’s concerns went unanswered. This left her feeling that the landlord did not know what it was doing and had not properly reviewed her complaint. This amounts to maladministration.
We have seen no evidence that the landlord is obligated to carry out redecoration works in any set timescale, other than when necessary, as set out in its tenant handbook. We understand that landlords, particularly local authorities, have limited budgets and so there will be limitations on works such as this. However, it is important that, where landlords know these types of works are needed, it plans when they will be done and communicates this to residents. The landlord’s failure to do that in this case amounts to maladministration. This has left the resident feeling let down and believing that it does not care about the block.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s enquiries about communal redecoration. In consultation with our remedies guidance, we have made orders for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £150 compensation.
The resident has told us recently that the block has still not been redecorated and remains in a poor condition. We have, therefore, made an order for the landlord to send a written update to the resident, and all other households in the block, regarding communal redecoration works. This must include an estimated timeframe for when they will be completed and what this will include.

Window cleaning in 2022

The landlord has confirmed it is responsible for cleaning the windows of the property on a quarterly basis, and that this is charged for as part of the service charge.
The resident reported her windows had not been cleaned on 24 February 2022. We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to this or took any action, which left the resident feeling ignored. When she reported this again on 24 October 2022 the landlord responded the next day and confirmed it would look in to it. However, it did not provide any further response until more than 2 weeks later, on 10 November 2022, and only after the resident chased this up earlier that day. These were communication failures that amount to maladministration.
The landlord should have records to show when the resident’s windows were cleaned. This is important as it is charging for this service and must be able to justify these charges. We asked the landlord to provide evidence to show when the windows were cleaned between February and December 2022. While the landlord has told us that they were cleaned, it has been unable to provide any evidence to support this. This is a significant concern and highlights poor record keeping practices by the landlord. This amounts to maladministration.
The landlord has told us that the resident’s windows were cleaned in 2022, despite her reporting that they had not been. Regardless of whether the windows were cleaned or not, it was reasonable for the resident to ask for evidence of this; as she was being charged for this service. The landlord’s failure to provide this caused her to lose trust in it, as she believed she was being unfairly charged for a service she had not received. This amounts to maladministration.
It is not within our jurisdiction to determine the reasonableness of a charge, as this is better considered by the First Tier Tribunal. Therefore, we cannot order a landlord to refund charges. In this case, we have made an order for the landlord to review its records and provide evidence to the resident showing that window cleaning took place in 2022, to justify the charges for this. If it is unable to provide this evidence, the landlord must confirm in writing to the resident whether it will refund the charges and, if not, explain why. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, she can raise this matter directly with the First Tier Tribunal for further consideration.
The landlord told the resident on 10 November 2022 that its building management company had confirmed her windows had been cleaned in February, May, July and October of that year. However, it did not provide any evidence to support this, or say what, if any, actions it had taken to verify this. The landlord has subsequently told us that it visited the resident and checked with other residents at the time. However, we have seen no evidence of this and so cannot be satisfied that it did take these actions.
Considering the resident had reported that her windows had not been cleaned, the landlord should have done more to investigate this and verify that they had been. It should also have told the resident what it had done so she felt reassured. It was unreasonable that the landlord simply accepted the word of the management company without obtaining evidence or carrying out checks. This amounts to maladministration and was frustrating for the resident.
As part of its stage 1 response, the landlord made commitments on how it would manage the window cleaning and spot checks going forward. These were sensible proposals. However, we have seen no evidence that this happened. This amounts to maladministration and was disappointing for the resident.
The resident confirmed that window cleaning was carried out in December 2022, but said that this happened with no prior notice. This meant a contractor turned up on her balcony unannounced. We have seen no evidence that prior notice was given to the resident. This was inappropriate, considering it was accessing part of the resident’s property, and should have told her about this in advance. Its failure to do so amounts to maladministration and was unsettling for the resident.
In 2022, we determined a previous complaint (202111944) from the resident about the landlord’s handling of window cleaning. This determination referred to and assessed the landlord’s actions in respect of this issue between 2019 and 2021. As part of this determination, we identified failure by the landlord including that it did not do enough to verify the windows had been cleaned and it was unable to provide evidence to show the window cleaning service was going ahead.
The failures identified in our previous investigation have been identified again in this investigation. This is a significant concern and shows that the landlord has taken no learning from the resident’s previous complaint or our previous investigation. This was despite us making recommendations for the landlord to address this issue.
Therefore, we have made an order for the landlord to carry out a review, at senior manager level, of the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s concerns about window cleaning. The landlord must prepare a report setting out how it has made, or will make, changes to ensure these errors do not reoccur. Specifics of what this should include are set out below. A copy of this report must be provided to the resident and us with estimated timescales for any actions to be completed.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this issue. We have made orders for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £350 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance.

ASB and vandalism

The landlord’s ASB procedure in place at the time gave examples of medium risk ASB cases as misuse of public spaces, vandalism and drug taking in communal areas. Therefore, it was appropriate that the landlord treated the resident’s reports as ASB.
The actions taken by the landlord in response to the resident’s reports in June 2022 were sensible considering the type of ASB reported. However, there is no record that the landlord followed up with the resident after these actions were completed. This was not in line with its ASB procedure, which said it would update residents on a weekly, or as agreed, basis to notify them of progress.
Regular follow up with residents in ASB cases is important so the landlord can identify whether problems are ongoing and determine what, if any, further action is needed. The landlord’s failure to do that in this case meant it did not know whether the actions taken were successful in resolving the problem. This amounts to maladministration and left the resident feeling that the landlord did not want to help resolve the issues.
The landlord’s ASB procedure said it aimed to take a problem-solving approach to ASB cases and would work to find sustainable solutions through a multi-agency approach. There is some evidence that the landlord did that in this case as it was in touch with the Police and the local authority community safety unit, which was sensible. However, there is no record that this contact was ongoing after June/July 2022, which would have been important to ensure it achieved a long term solution to these issues.
The landlord made reference to joint working with the Police in the stage 1 response in December 2022 and told us more recently that it had worked jointly with the Police and local authority, but we have seen no record of this. This suggests the landlord’s records are incomplete. This is concerning as the landlord needs to be able to show what action it has taken and when. We have made an order for the landlord to provide training to all staff involved in ASB case handling on the importance of record keeping in ASB cases.
The landlord said it carried out a block inspection on 4 July 2022 and reported a broken door as a result of this. While positive that it did this, there is no evidence that it assessed the overall condition of the block, or whether any other repairs or security improvements were identified.
We have reviewed repair records as part of this complaint, which show there was a high level of vandalism in the block and repeated repairs were needed. Therefore, it would have been sensible for the landlord to consider any security improvements it could make to prevent and deter this behaviour. This was particularly important as the people involved were believed to be non-residents. As their identities were unknown to the landlord, it was limited in what action it could take against them.
We note the landlord made some improvements to the block, including installing a new type of door handle and replacing a pane of glass for metal, in order to prevent vandalism in 2023. However, this was done after multiple repairs had been completed. Had the landlord considered this sooner, it could have done more at an earlier stage to prevent this behaviour. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord and amounts to maladministration.
As the resident has told us the ASB and vandalism is ongoing, we have made an order for the landlord to inspect the block to identify any security improvements it can make to prevent and deter ASB and vandalism. A written update must be sent to the resident with the outcome of this inspection, including a timescale for any actions to be completed.
There were 3 ASB cases opened in June 2022 and all were closed that month, or the following month. There is no record the landlord contacted the resident before it closed these cases, as was committed in its ASB procedure. This amounts to maladministration.
After these 3 cases were closed, there is no record of any further ASB cases being opened for the resident at any time during the period of our investigation. This is a concern as the resident reported ongoing ASB and vandalism in the block as part of her complaints in November 2022 and January 2023. While these concerns were raised as part of a formal complaint, this should have prompted the landlord to open and progress a new ASB case so it could investigate and address this issue. Its failure to do so amounts to maladministration.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and vandalism. It did not do enough to resolve this issue and failed to respond and communicate with the resident in line with its ASB procedure. Even when the resident raised this issue as part of her complaint, the landlord failed to provide a satisfactory response. This has caused her to feel let down and that the landlord did not care about the issues she was facing. We have made orders for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £350 compensation.
The resident has told us that there are ongoing ASB and vandalism issues in the block. Therefore, we have made an order for the landlord to open a new ASB case and respond to the resident in line with its current ASB procedure. The landlord must agree an action plan with her and confirm this in writing, including a timescale for actions to be completed and how regularly it will contact her for updates.

Complaint handling

The landlord told the resident on 3 March 2023 that it could not respond to her complaint about window cleaning as this had already been determined by us as part of a previous complaint. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time said that it was fair and reasonable for a landlord not to consider a complaint that had previously been considered under its complaints policy.
While the resident had a previous complaint considered by the landlord, and us, about window cleaning, this was in relation to the landlord’s handling of this up until 2021. When the resident raised her complaint in November 2022 and asked to escalate this in January 2023, she had raised new concerns about the window cleaning in 2022.
While she made reference to the previous determination, the new concerns about 2022 had not been previously assessed via the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, or us. Therefore, the landlord should have responded to these concerns as a new complaint. Its failure to do so was a complaint handling failure which amounts to maladministration.
The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about window cleaning in 2022 at stage 1 but declined to do so at stage 2. This means that the complaint did not complete its internal procedure. As we have determined that this was due to a complaint handling failure, this matter falls within our jurisdiction for investigation, despite the landlord never providing a final response to it.
Similarly, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint about its handling of the ASB and vandalism at stage 2, despite addressing this at stage 1. The resident included this issue within her escalation request of 17 January 2023, so the landlord should have investigated and responded to it as part of the stage 2 review. The landlord gave no explanation or reasons why it did not respond to this issue and so this was a further complaint handling failure. Therefore, we have investigated this issue, despite it not having completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 1 December 2022. This was 2 working days after the complaint was raised and in line with the 3 working day committed timeframe, set out in its complaints policy at the time. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint in 17 working days. This was slightly over the 15 working day committed response time, set out in its complaints policy at the time. As this was only 2 working days over the committed timescale, this was a minor delay and not a failure.
The landlord sent 2 stage 1 responses on the same date. These had different and, in some instances, conflicting information. This was confusing for the resident. It is not clear why 2 responses were sent and this was not addressed by the landlord in its final response, despite the resident raising this as part of her escalation request. This amounts to maladministration and caused her to lose faith in the landlord’s complaints process.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 25 January 2023. This was 6 working days after the resident asked to escalate the complaint. Within the acknowledgement, the landlord apologised and explained the delay was because of an increase in contact. While frustrating for the resident, this explanation was reasonable as landlords will at times experience increased levels of contact and this can understandably impact its ability to meet target timescales. As this was a minor delay and the landlord took steps to put things right by apologising, this was not a failure.
The landlord sent the stage 2 response in 62 working days. This was significantly over the 25 working day committed response time, set out in its complaints policy at the time. During the period of delay the landlord provided at least 4 written updates to the resident and told her it was extending the response deadline. This was in line with the Code at the time, which said landlords should give residents a clear timeframe for when they would receive a response.
However, the Code also said that extensions should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason and where an extension beyond 10 working days was needed, this should be agreed with the resident. In this case, the deadline was extended multiple times and went significantly over the additional 10 working day limit. Despite this, we have seen no evidence that the landlord agreed further extensions with the resident. This was not in line with the Code and is evidence of poor complaint handling, that amounts to maladministration.
During the period of delay, it was positive that the landlord provided updates to the resident. However, at least 3 of the updates were sent after the extended deadline dates had passed. On 2 occasions, this was by a few days, but the final update sent on 14 April 2023, was 2 weeks over the extended deadline of 31 March 2023. This shows poor management of the complaint and left the resident uncertain on when she would hear from the landlord or receive the final response. This amounts to maladministration.
The landlord apologised for the delay in its stage 2 response, which was positive. However, there is no record it considered any other redress for the resident. Therefore, in consultation with our remedies guidance, we have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation for its complaint handling.
We have also made an order for the landlord to provide training to all complaint handling staff on complaint exclusions and the process for extending complaint deadlines. We will consider this order complied with if the landlord can provide evidence it has delivered training of this nature, within the last 12 months.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Handling of communal door repairs between July 2022 and April 2023.
2. Response to the resident’s enquiries about communal redecoration.
3. Response to the resident’s concerns about window cleaning in 2022.
4. Handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and vandalism.
5. Complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
1. Carried out a review and provided a written update to the resident explaining why no action was taken following her communal door repair reports made on 1 July 2022 (service request 9727830) and 24 October 2022 (9873346).
2. Reviewed the arrangements for its repair operatives/contractors to access communal areas to carry out repairs first time.
3. Inspected the block and identified any/all outstanding communal door repairs. A written update to be provided to the resident confirming the repairs identified and a timescale for these to be completed.
4. Apologised to the resident for its:
  1. Response to her enquiries about communal redecoration.
  2. Response to her concerns about window cleaning in 2022.
  3. Handling of her reports of ASB and vandalism.
5. Paid the resident £1,300 compensation, made up of:
  1. £200 for its handling of communal door repairs between July 2022 and March 2023.
  2. £150 for its response to her enquiries about communal redecoration.
  3. £350 for its response to her concerns about window cleaning in 2022.
  4. £350 for its handling of her reports of ASB and vandalism.
  5. £250 for its complaint handling.
6. Sent a written update to the resident, and all other households in the block, regarding communal redecoration works, including an estimated timeframe for when these will be completed and what this will include.
7. Reviewed its records and provided evidence to the resident showing that window cleaning took place in 2022, to justify the charges for this. If it is unable to provide this evidence, the landlord to confirm in writing to the resident whether it will refund the charges and if not, explain why.
8. Inspected the block to identify any security improvements it can make to prevent and deter ASB and vandalism. A written update to be sent to the resident with the outcome of this inspection, including a timescale for any actions to be completed.
9. Opened a new ASB case and contacted the resident in line with its current ASB procedure. The landlord must agree an action plan with her and confirm this in writing, including a timescale for actions to be completed and how regularly it will contact her for updates.
Within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has given training to:
1. Staff involved in ASB case handling on the importance of record keeping in ASB cases.
2. Complaint handling staff on complaint exclusions and the process for extending complaint deadlines. We will consider this order complied with if the landlord can provide evidence it has delivered training of this nature within the last 12 months.
Within 12 weeks, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review, at senior manager level, of the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s concerns about window cleaning. The landlord must prepare a report setting out how it has made, or will make, changes to ensure these errors do not reoccur. This should include
1. Record keeping arrangements for the completion of window cleaning and how the landlord will respond to requests for evidence of this from residents.
2. A process for spot checking after windows have been cleaned, and how this will be recorded.
3. How and when the landlord will give notice to residents in advance of window cleaning being done.
4. Any staff training required to ensure the successful implementation of changes.
A copy of the report must be provided to the resident and us with estimated timescales for any actions to be completed. Evidence of compliance to be provided within 12 weeks.