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

Southwark Council (202417107)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202417107

Southwark Council

15 May 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 repairs required to an external door.
    2. Response to the resident’s reports of a damaged fence.
    3. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy at the property, which is a bedsit. She has lived there since 2015. The resident has several physical and mental health issues.
  2. The resident had a legal disrepair case in respect of the property. This was settled in court in 9 January 2023.
  3. On 31 October 2023 the resident told the landlord a panel on the rear PVC door was damaged. Following this, she told the landlord in March 2024 the fencing between her and her neighbour’s garden was in need of repair.
  4. The resident made a complaint on 3 May 2024 and outlined the background of the disrepair case since 2019. She said the property had been unfit to live in and until work was completed she would not pay her rent.
  5. On 10 July 2024 the resident told the landlord someone had attempted to smash the lower glass panel of the front door. She had reported the matter to the police but felt unsafe. She asked for it to be repaired urgently.
  6. The landlord inspected the property on 24 July 2024. It raised jobs for the door and double glazing unit. It also noted the fence was damaged but was surrounded by brambles. The landlord arranged works to the door in August and early September 2024. These did not go ahead as the resident was unavailable. It subsequently completed work to the door and glass panel on 17 September 2024.
  7. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 23 September 2024. It said  it had completed the door repairs in line with its repairs timeframe. It would make the fence safe but the area was overgrown. The resident escalated her complaint. She said the landlord had not responded to the complaint and had not considered her vulnerability. She said the property was “uninhabitable”.
  8. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 9 December 2024. It reiterated it had carried out repairs within the appropriate timeframe. It said it had considered her vulnerability in doing so. It signposted her to community services that could help with garden maintenance.
  9. The resident referred her case to us on 16 January 2025. She said as follows:
    1. There was still a draught from the door. 
    2. Due to “cold and trauma” she had not been staying at the property. She was having counselling as a result of the psychological impact on her.
    3. Contractors had left a loft panel open and removed smoke alarms.
    4. She requested for the door and fence to be replaced, increased compensation and to move to another property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Within her communication, the resident said that the situation had harmed her physical and mental health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and the cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of any such injury, testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to seek a remedy to this through the courts. While we cannot consider the effect of the landlord’s actions or inactions on health, if we identify a failing by the landlord, we can consider any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result.
  2. During her correspondence with us and the landlord, the resident raised other issues of concern. As these issues were not part of the formal complaint to the landlord, these cannot be investigated at this stage. This is because the landlord must have the opportunity to investigate complaints and be given the opportunity to put things right if failings have occurred. The resident should raise these matters as a formal complaint with the landlord if she remains dissatisfied with its handling of the issues. For clarity, the matters, which do not form part of this assessment are as follows:
    1. Contractors reported to have left a loft panel open and removed smoke alarms.
    2. The resident’s liability to pay rent and council tax.

Response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to an external door

  1. It is not disputed that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the external door. The resident reported a panel on the external PVC door was damaged on 31 October 2023. The landlord raised a job to fix this the next day. The resident chased this on 27 November 2023. She subsequently made a complaint on 3 May 2024. The resident clarified on 16 May 2024 the need for the repair was a because of a draught from the PVC door. She said it caused her “pain” due to her health issues.
  2. On 10 July 2024 the resident told the landlord that someone attempted to smash the lower glass pane of the external door. She had reported this to the police, but felt unsafe in the property. She asked for it to be repaired urgently.
  3. The landlord’s repairs guide says, if a property is damaged by criminal activity, a resident must report this to the police. They must provide the crime number to the landlord for it to arrange any repairs needed.
  4. The repairs guidance also sets out response times for categories of repairs. It gives an example of a broken window as an emergency repair. The guidance states it will attend such a repair within 24 hours to make safe.
  5. Despite the resident following the landlord’s guidance, there is no evidence the landlord asked about the extent of the damage and whether the damage to the glass pane caused the door to be insecure. As such, it failed to show it had appropriately risk assessed the repair and whether it was required to make safe the window as an emergency appointment.
  6. The landlord inspected the property on 24 July 2024. This was around 9 months after the resident had reported a draught from the door. This inspection was also around 2 weeks after the resident’s report of the damaged glass in the door. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerability and that she felt unsafe.
  7. Following the inspection, the landlord raised a job to fix the door gasket and door glass. There is no evidence it raised either of these jobs as an urgent priority, despite being aware that the draught had been an issue for around 9 months. The resident told us that the glass panel of the door had been shattered but was still in place. We have not seen any evidence the landlord carried out a temporary repair to make this safe prior to completing a permanent repair.
  8. The landlord booked the work for the door and glass for 30 August 2024. This did not go ahead as the resident was not available. It re-arranged this for 6 September 2024. This did not go ahead at the resident’s request.
  9. Work to the door and double glazing unit were completed on 17 September 2024. This was around 11 months after the resident had reported a draught from the door and around 2 months after the resident had reported the glass pane being broken. The landlord’s repairs guidance says that it will carry out non-urgent repairs within 20 working days. These repairs were significantly outside of this stated timeframe.
  10. Following the work, the contractor told the landlord the “frames are slightly twisted but the adjustments made have reduced them significantly. There is a hairline gap to the bottom right internally which we cannot reduce anymore.”
  11. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its process on 23 September 2024. It said that it had completed works to the door within its repair timeframe. It is not clear which information the landlord had relied on to say it had responded appropriately. The resident escalated the matter as she did not feel the landlord had considered her vulnerability or her belief the property was “uninhabitable”.
  12. At stage 2, the landlord reiterated it assessed there had been no delays in it carrying out the door repairs. It said it had considered her vulnerability and had tried to expedite the repairs. However, it had been unable to carry out repairs in August and September 2024 due to the resident’s unavailability.
  13. The evidence shows the landlord’s first attempts to carry out the work to the door was in August 2024, but that these appointments did not go ahead. This was around 10 months after the resident had first reported the draught. This was significantly outside of the landlord’s repairs timeframe. The landlord failed to offer a reason why it took so long to effectively respond to the resident’s initial reports. The work carried out was to the gaskets. In accordance with the landlord’s repairs guidance, such a repair would fall under the non-urgent category, to be completed within 20 working days. This did not happen and the landlord did not acknowledge this failure. It also went further, to say that its timeframe for the repair was in line with its policy without further explanation. The length of time taken to respond to the reports of a draught was unreasonable.
  14. In addition, the evidence shows the required work to fix the glass unit was also delayed. The landlord failed to carry out either repair within its stated repair timeframes. The landlord was aware that the resident had reported damage to the glass, but we have not seen evidence it inspected the glass promptly in line with its emergency response timescales e to assess if it needed to act to make the property was safe and secure. The landlord’s conclusion that it carried out the works to the door in line with its repairs timeframe is not supported by the evidence.
  15. Although it said it had considered the resident’s vulnerabilities, we have not been provided with the evidence that substantiates its claim. The landlord was aware that the resident’s medical conditions were made worse by the cold and as such she felt she could not live in the property whilst there was a draught. As such, she had been staying elsewhere for the time period of this complaint.
  16. Despite knowing this, there is no evidence the landlord was proactive in prioritising the repair. Being aware of the effect the situation was having on the resident, the timeframe of around 11 months for the door works to be completed was unreasonable. Even when the work was completed the landlord was aware that there was still a hairline gap. We have not been provided with any evidence which demonstrates whether the landlord risk assessed whether the hairline crack posed any further risk of draft into the property or whether any subsequent action to address the gap was required in light of the resident’s health conditions.
  17. These failures in the landlord’s response lead to a determination of maladministration. To acknowledge the effect of the failures on the resident we have ordered compensation of £600. This is in line with our remedies guidance where failures had a significant physical and emotional impact on a resident.

Response to the resident’s reports of a damaged fence

  1. We have not been provided with the resident’s initial report, however, on 2 March 2024 the landlord noted the fence between the resident and the neighbour’s garden was in need of repair. It raised a job on 5 March 2024 to make this safe.
  2. The landlord’s repairs guide says residents are responsible for fences and gardens. Although the fence was the resident’s responsibility, it was appropriate for the landlord to ensure it was in a safe condition.
  3. Despite saying it would make the fence safe, there is no evidence the landlord attended until 24 July 2024, over 4 months later. It noted the fence was lying flat and there were brambles. The time taken for the landlord to inspect the issue was not in line with its 20 working day timeframe for a non-urgent repair.
  4. The landlord could not make the fence safe due to the area being overgrown in both gardens. However, there is no evidence it told the resident at the time that she would need to clear the garden before it could make the fence safe.
  5. There was a gap in the case correspondence until the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 23 September 2024. It said the fence was the resident’s responsibility and it would only make it safe. As both gardens were “extremely overgrown”, this impacted its ability to do so. It noted the neighbouring property was vacant, so it said it would clear the neighbour’s garden and make the fence safe. 
  6. Although this went some way to try to resolve the issue, the landlord did not explain the lack of apparent action it had taken between March and September 2024. It also failed to acknowledge that it had not responded to this repair issue in line with its repair timeframe.
  7. In its stage 2 response from 9 December 2024, the landlord told the resident she may need to use a professional garden service to clear her garden. It had asked an internal department to give the resident information about community services that could help with garden maintenance.
  8. The landlord has a ‘supporting people programme’. This is a programme it can refer vulnerable residents to, with a view for the programme to contribute financially to housing-related support. Although its signposting to community services was appropriate, there is no evidence the landlord had been proactive in offering the resident such support in the previous 8 months. This was a missed opportunity to engage earlier with the resident and potentially taken a course of action which could have avoided the resident feeling the need to make a complaint.
  9. In summary, the landlord missed an opportunity to consider the support it could offer the resident following her report in March 2024 and it did not respond to the issue in line with its stated timeframe in its policies. Given the delay in responding to this repair issue, the landlord’s lack of acknowledgment of this there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a damaged fence.
  10. To acknowledge the effect of the failures on the resident we have ordered compensation of £200. This is in line with our remedies guidance where a failure adversely affected a resident.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. It says it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. At stage 1, it will respond within 10 working days. At stage 2 it will respond within 20 working days. If additional time is needed, it will keep the resident informed.
  2. The resident made a complaint on 3 May 2024. She outlined the disrepair case and background since 2019. It took the landlord until 13 May 2024 for it to ask the resident to clarify what repairs were outstanding and what her complaint was about. This was outside of its acknowledgement timeframe. On 16 May 2024 the resident said there was a draught from the PVC door panel and the fence had been “destroyed”. She confirmed on 21 May 2024 she wanted to raise these matters as a complaint.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 24 May 2024. It responded at stage 1 on 23 September 2024. This was 85 working days after the acknowledgement. This was significantly outside of its stated response timeframe. Within its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged it had been delayed and offered £50 compensation. However, it failed to explain why the response was delayed and how it would prevent such a reoccurrence in the future. In addition, we have not seen any evidence the landlord kept the resident updated about the progress of her complaint during this time.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 30 September 2024. She said the compensation was too low and was an “insult”. The landlord did not acknowledge this until 21 October 2024. This was around 3 weeks after the escalation request. This was outside of its acknowledgment timeframe.
  5. The landlord sent the stage 2 response on 9 December 2024. This was 50 working days from the resident’s escalation request and 35 working days from the landlord’s acknowledgement. As such, the stage 2 response was not provided in line with its stated timeframe.
  6. Within the stage 2 response, the landlord explained the delay at stage 1. It said this had been due to a high number of complaints being received. It apologised for the frustration caused. It said it was reviewing its processes to avoid this happening again. It concluded that the £50 compensation offered for the delay at stage 1 was appropriate. However, it failed to acknowledge that the stage 2 response had also been delayed.
  7. The evidence shows the landlord’s complaint responses were delayed at both stages. In total it took from 16 May 2024, when the resident clarified her complaint, to 9 December 2024 for the landlord to complete its internal complaints procedure. This was a period of almost 7 months. The delays at both stages of the complaints procedure caused frustration and lengthened the time taken to enable the resident to refer her case to us for investigation.
  8. When considered together, the landlord’s complaints handling was significantly delayed. As such, its offer of £50 compensation was not sufficient. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and the effect the matters were having on her. However, it failed to demonstrate it had considered the effect of its poor complaint handing on her. The complaint handling failures amount to maladministration.
  9. To acknowledge the impact of these failures on the resident we have ordered additional compensation of £150 in addition to the landlord’s previous offer of £50. This brings the total compensation for complaint handling to £200. This is in line with our remedies guidance where failures adversely affected a resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to an external door.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a damaged fence.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in this case.
    2. Pay a total of £1,000 compensation to the resident. This includes the landlord’s previous offer of £50 compensation. The landlord can deduct this amount if it provides evidence it has already been paid. The compensation is made up as follows:
      1. £600 to acknowledge the effect on the resident of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to an external door.
      2. £200 to acknowledge the effect on the resident of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a damaged fence.
      3. £200 to acknowledge the effect on the resident of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
    3. Inspect the external door to identify if it is in good working order and free from gaps and draughts. Provide a report to the resident and us outlining the finding of the inspection and an action plan for any works identified. Any works required must commence within 4 weeks from the date of the inspection.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended the landlord contact the resident to discuss her current housing situation and advise of options open to her for a possible move as was requested by her during the complaints process.