Southwark Council (202005132)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005132

Southwark Council

22 March 2021

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 the resident’s request to have a television aerial socket installed in her property.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a flat in a communal building. The building is managed by a tenant management organisation (TMO).
3. On June 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident regarding the removal of satellite dishes and television aerials from the building. It notified residents that the building had a communal aerial and asked them to check the aerial outlet socket in their property to ensure that it was working and to inform it if repairs were required. The letter provided the telephone number of the landlord’s repairs team.             
4. On 16 July the resident wrote to both the landlord and TMO and requested to raise a complaint. The resident noted that her property did not have an aerial outlet socket. She had reported this to the landlord and was informed that it would be the responsibility of the TMO to resolve.
5. The resident requested that the TMO arrange an inspection of the property to confirm that there was no aerial outlet socket and then arrange to have one installed. The resident also requested information as to when the aerials and satellite dishes were removed as she planned on cancelling her TV licence for the period when she would not be able to receive a signal.
6. The landlord replied to the resident on 16 July. It informed her that it had opened a formal complaint at stage one of its internal complaints process and aimed to provide a response by 8 August. On 19 July the TMO replied to the resident and informed her that it was investigating the matter and that it would be back in contact when it had an update.
7. On 22 July 2019 the TMO’s rent and repairs officers sent an email to the landlord’s digital strategy team and requested it investigate the aerial outlet socket in the resident’s property.
8. The TMO wrote to the resident on 9 August to apologise for the delay, and to advise that it would be in touch once it had more information. On 13 August the TMO informed the resident that its contractor would be able to attend the property on 21 August. The TMO advised the resident that the appointment would be to inspect the property and a socket would not be installed on that day. The resident replied and advised that she would not be available that day, but would be on 23 August.
9. On 27 September, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. Within her the correspondence, she noted that the issue had been handled as an informal complaint by the TMO, but she asked that the matter be escalated to the landlord’s formal complaint process.
10. The resident described the elements of the complaint as poor customer service from the TMO, delays in resolving the TV aerial outlet socket, and that the TMO did not follow its own complaint procedure. The resident also described the difficulty in rescheduling an appointment after the contractor did not attend the 23 August appointment and that she had received no contact regarding her complaint after being informed it was due to be discussed at a committee meeting held on 4 September. The resident also expressed her unhappiness with the attitude of the TMO staff when she had called requesting updates.
11. The landlord replied to the resident on 28 September. It informed her that it had already logged a complaint relating to the tv aerial socket in July and asked how she would like to proceed. The landlord and resident subsequently discussed elements of the complaint in October, and a stage two response was issued on 13 December.
12. In the stage two response, the landlord said:
    1. it had upheld the complaint on the grounds that the TMO had not followed its own complaint procedure.
    2. it recognised the resident had received a poor level of service from the TMO. 
    3. it apologised for the poor service the resident had received.
    4. it wished to offer her £150 compensation, broken down as £50 for the missed appointment and £100 for time and trouble caused.
    5. it had instructed the TMO to arrange the installation of the tv aerial socket within two weeks of receipt of the response.
13. The landlord confirmed that the resident had exhausted its internal complaints procedure, and provided advice on how to refer her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied with the outcome.
14. On 1 September 2020 the resident completed an online complaint form and requested that the case be considered by this Service. She described the history of the complaint and stated that she had yet to have a tv aerial socket installed in her property. She noted that she had contacted the TMO in June 2020 regarding the matter and was informed that it was the responsibility of the landlord to install the socket.

Assessment and findings

15. The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of the management agreement between it and the TMO. Chapter 2 of the agreement is concerned with repairs, maintenance and services. Clause 1.3 of this chapter states as follows:

“The TMO agrees to make good any damage and to carry out repairs to any dwelling (including redecoration) which may be needed as a result of the TMO carrying out the Responsive and Planned Maintenance Repairs it has agreed to carry out under this clause.”

16. The landlord was therefore correct when it informed the resident that it was the responsibility of the TMO to install the tv aerial socket. In its stage two response the landlord also recognised that the complaint had not been properly handled at stage one by the TMO and offered the resident £150 compensation for poor customer service and a missed appointment.
17. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
18. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistake and apologising to the resident. It put things right by instructing the TMO to contact the resident to arrange an appointment to install a tv aerial outlet socket and offering £150 compensation.
19. The compensation award was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance. The landlord offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings.
20. Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.
21. However, when the complaint was referred to this Service, the installation of the aerial socket remained outstanding. This Service wrote to the landlord and requested clarification on the status. The landlord has not responded.
22. In the stage two response the landlord informed the resident that it had instructed the TMO to contact the resident within two weeks to arrange the installation of the socket. That the issue remained outstanding nine months later, with no evidence provided by the landlord for the reason for the delay or any follow-up correspondence to the resident, is a service failure.
23. Therefore, to fully resolve the complaint a further compensation payment is warranted in recognition in the additional delays in installing the socket after the final response was sent and the lack of communication to the resident.

Determination (decision)

24. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of how it handled the resident’s request to have a television aerial socket installed in her property.

Orders

25. Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident the £150 which was offered during the complaints procedure, if this has not been previously accepted.
    2. Pay the resident a further £150 in recognition of the inconvenience, frustration and distress caused to the resident by the delays in installing a tv aerial socket into her property.

Recommendation

26. If the socket has yet to be installed, the landlord should:
    1. write to the resident and advise her of the current status of the work to install the socket and the reasons for the delay.
    2. consider further compensation once the works have been completed. The landlord should use the date of this determination until the installation is complete as the relevant period when deciding on a sum to award.