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

Southwark Council (202003378)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003378

Southwark Council

23 June 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 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 reports of the repairs required to her bathroom.

Background and summary of events

Policies and procedures

  1. In respect to the effects of condensation and mould, the landlord’s website offers a number of solutions which the resident should try, including adjusting heating to keep all rooms and walls warm, reducing air moisture, increasing ventilation and cleaning away any signs of mould immediately. If an issue remained after these had been attempted for three months, the resident could request an inspection of the property.
  2. As per the landlord’s tenants’ handbook, residents are required to report repairs needed to the property as soon as possible. It also confirms that, if it fails to carry out its repairing responsibilities, the resident would “be entitled to fair and reasonable compensation”.
  3. The same document confirms that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the property, including the roof, gutters, external pipes, and internal water pipes.
  4. The landlord’s tenants’ handbook also confirms its service standards, with non-urgent repairs being carried out within 20 working days.
  5. As per the landlord’s compensation policy, it can award the following compensation for “medium impact” complaints, these being where there has been a “repeated failure by [it] to address the shortcoming”:
    1. £500 per annum, or £10 per week, for delays in delivering a service.
    2. £500 per annum, or £10 per week, for distress, frustration, uncertainty, inconvenience, and worry.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a three-bedroom house. The landlord has been unable to provide a copy of the tenancy agreement between it and the resident.

Summary of events

  1. The landlord’s records confirm that, on 3 September 2019, it raised a work order to “hack off [and] renew [the] mastic sealant to the [resident’s] bath”. This was marked by it as having been completed on 14 November 2019.
  2. On 14 November 2019, the resident submitted her stage one complaint to the landlord, stating the following:
    1. Its contractor had visited her property to carry out the above mastic sealant work on 16 September 2019. On inspection of the bathroom, they were unable to carry out the work as her bathroom tiles had “blown”.
    2. She had been advised by the contractor that she would receive a call back regarding the tiles; however, the next contact that she received from the landlord was on 4 November 2019, confirming that a contractor would be attending her property on 14 November 2019. During this appointment, the contractor explained that they would only be carrying out the mastic sealant renewal work to the bath.
    3. She asked why the original contractor did not carry out the work when they previously visited her on 16 September 2019.
  3. On 11 December 2019, the landlord provided its stage one complaint response to the resident, which is summarised as follows:
    1. It apologised for not delivering its expected standard of customer service. The landlord expected to “minimise disruption to residents”, complete repairs “fully and as quickly as possible”, and maintain “professional standards at all time[s].”
    2. It confirmed that an appointment had been made for 23 December 2019 for a post–work inspection by its technical quality officer. The landlord would assess whether the repairs to the resident’s bathroom met the required standard during the inspection, and if more works were required then its officer would arrange further appointments if necessary.
  4. The landlord’s records confirm that, following the above post–work inspection it had scheduled for 23 December 2019, it had reported that all work had been completed as it had requested; however, a “small amount of additional repairs [were] required to the [resident’s] bathroom.”
  5. On 15 January 2020, the landlord recorded that a work order was raised to carry out these repairs to the bathroom for ongoing condensation/mould growth affecting this. This was marked by it as having been completed on 20 July 2020.
  6. No other supporting evidence has been provided to this Service in respect to the complaint, between January and July 2020.
  7. On 20 July 2020, the resident referred her complaint to this Service, which is summarised as follows:
    1. She had raised concerns with the landlord over the standard of the repair work that it had completed to the “damp and tiling in the bathroom” at her property. Furthermore, it had not responded to her earlier complaint about this, despite her “chasing” it for this.
    2. Since her above complaint had been raised, the landlord had sent different people to inspect the bathroom. All had agreed that the work to this was required; however, the work remained outstanding.
    3. To put the matter right, she wanted the landlord to complete the work and pay compensation for the impact on her and her household, which had been “appalling”.
  8. On 23 November 2020, this Service contacted the landlord to request that it contact the resident to discuss her complaint further, and that it seek to resolve the complaint using its internal complaints procedure.
  9. On 1 December 2020, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to the final stage of its complaints procedure. It aimed to provide her with its final stage complaint response by 7 January 2021.
  10. On 7 January 2021, the landlord provided its final stage response to the resident, which is summarised as follows:
    1. In response to her concern regarding its lack of response to her complaint of 14 November “2020”, it attached a copy of its stage one complaint response letter dated 11 December “2020”. It is noted by this Service that it appears from the above correspondence that these dates should reflect the year 2019, and not “2020” as detailed by the landlord.
    2. Its technical quality officer had post-inspected the work previously carried out by its contractor to her bath on 23 December “2020”, and it provided her with the same information as detailed in paragraph 11 above, in respect to the post–work inspection that it had completed in 2019, for which the officer would raise a new work order to address the matter. It requested that she contact them if she did not receive an appointment for this by 14 January 2021.
    3. It apologised for the inconvenience experienced by the resident, regarding its repair service.
    4. It upheld the resident’s complaint, acknowledging that further work was required to address the resident’s concerns about its repairs to her bathroom, as its post-inspection had determined that a small amount of additional works to this were required.
  11. On 4 March 2021, the resident spoke to this Service, which is summarised as follows:
    1. In addition to the delays in repairing the tiling in her bathroom and the standard of the completed work, she had raised concerns over damp, which the landlord had not rectified. Furthermore, she considered it suitable to replace her bath with a shower tray, as the water pressure was so poor that water “[did] not really come out of the taps”.
    2. She also raised concerns over the accuracy of the dates provided by the landlord in its final stage complaint response to her.
    3. In settlement of her complaint, she wanted £1,200 compensation for the landlord’s repair delays, for a shower tray to replace the existing bath, for the damp at her property to be treated, and for the bathroom tiles to be removed and replaced.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident has highlighted concerns to this Service over the water pressure in her bathroom. This is not something that we can consider at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect of her complaint, and there is no evidence that this has completed its complaints procedure yet. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about her water pressure is therefore outside of the scope of this investigation, as this Service cannot investigate complaints that are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.
  2. The resident’s initial stage one complaint of 14 November 2019 raised concerns over the landlord having not completed the required work to her bathroom during its visit on 16 September 2019, as detailed in paragraph 9 above. It was not reasonable for her to have waited for two months, from at least 3 September to 14 November 2019, for the work to be carried out by it, and so a failure has been found on its part for this delay in accordance with its tenants’ handbook, as detailed in paragraph 5 above.
  3. This is because the landlord was required by the tenants’ handbook to have carried out the above non-urgent repairs to within 20 working days of at least its work order for these of 3 September 2019, but it recorded that it did not do until 32 working days later than this timescale on 14 November 2019, which was inappropriate. This was recognised by it in its stage one complaint response to the resident on 11 December 2019, as detailed in paragraph 10 above. The landlord apologised to her for this, and it arranged for a post–work inspection of its repairs on 23 December 2019.
  4. This was a reasonable action for the landlord to take to address the resident’s concerns. Although it is of concern that it did not also follow its tenants’ handbook’s suggestion above at paragraph 3 for it to consider offering her “fair and reasonable compensation” for this at the time, in accordance with its compensation policy’s recommendations above at paragraph 6, to recognise its repair delay and her resulting distress and inconvenience.
  5. Following the above post-work inspection, the landlord identified further repairs to the resident’s bathroom, as detailed in paragraph 11 above, although the detail of its record of this inspection was limited. Its repairs log shows that the work order for this was then raised on 15 January 2020, but that this had not been completed until 20 July 2020; however, no further information is detailed. Therefore, it cannot be determined whether the reasons for the significant delay in the completion of the work was justified, as none were recorded. The resident nevertheless felt that work remained still remained outstanding, and contacted this Service on 20 July 2020, as detailed in paragraph 15 above.
  6. The landlord subsequently provided its final stage complaint response to the resident on 7 January 2021, as requested by this Service on 23 November 2020, as detailed in paragraph 17 above. The resident has raised concerns over the accuracy of this complaint response, particularly in relation to its apparent substitution of “2019” in the above dates with “2020”. No information has been provided by the landlord regarding such complaints from 2020, however, as mentioned above in paragraphs 13 and 17.
  7. Notwithstanding the distress, frustration and uncertainty that this may have caused the resident, the repairs had not been completed by the landlord to address her concerns until at least 20 July 2020, when she reported to this Service that they were still outstanding, and she did so again on 4 March 2021, over 15 months since her stage one complaint of 14 November 2019.
  8. As per the landlord’s tenants’ handbook’s above 20-working-day service standards for non-urgent repairs, this further delay to the resident’s bathroom repairs from 23 December 2019 until at least 20 July 2020 and possibly from 23 November 2020 onwards was excessive, and so a further failure on its part has been found for this. It is unclear whether it had understood the length of time that this matter had been ongoing. However, in view of the resident’s circumstances as detailed above in this report, compensation should also have been offered to her by the landlord, in line its tenants’ handbook and compensation policy, for its further repair delays and her resulting distress and inconvenience.
  9. The landlord’s compensation policy has therefore been used to calculate the appropriate compensation for its above failings, which it has been ordered to pay to the resident below, and this is consistent with this Service’s remedies guidance. It has also been ordered below to contact her to arrange to re-inspect her bathroom and carry out any repairs found to be required to this, if it has not done so already. The landlord has additionally been recommended below to review its record-keeping processes, and its staff’s training needs with regard to their application of its policies and procedures in relation to complaints and compensation, in order to seek to prevent a recurrence of its above failures in the resident’s case.
  10. Although this Service was still able to determine this case using the information that was available, it is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of their actions. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records, this includes the tenancy agreement between the resident and the landlord. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord had followed its own policies and procedures.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of the repairs required to her bathroom.

Reasons

  1. The resident had waited between at least 3 September and 14 November 2019, from 23 December 2019 until at least 20 July 2020, and possibly from 23 November 2020 onwards, for suitable repairs to be completed to her bathroom by the landlord.
  2. The landlord also failed to offer compensation to the resident for the considerable delay in the completion of the repair, and her resulting distress and inconvenience, as well as failing to keep suitably accurate records of either her tenancy agreement or of its actions in her case in 2020.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Pay the resident total compensation of £700 within four weeks, comprising of:
      1. £350 for its delay in delivering the service of the repair to the resident’s bathroom.
      2. £350 for the resident’s resulting distress and inconvenience.
    2. If it has not done so already, contact the resident within four weeks to arrange to re-inspect her bathroom, and carry out any repairs found to be required to this.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Review its record–keeping processes, including for the retention of tenancy agreements, ensuring that there is a clear audit trail for complaints, which provides details of specifically when contact was made, what was said, what the agreed next steps and expectations were, and what actions subsequently took place.
    2. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its policies and procedures with regard to complaints and compensation, to seek to prevent a recurrence of its above failures in the resident’s case. This should include consideration of this Service’s guidance on remedies, at https://hos.dev.civiccomputing.com/about-us/corporate-information/policies/dispute-resolution/policy-on-remedies/, and the completion of our free online dispute resolution training for landlords, if this has not been done recently, at https://hos.dev.civiccomputing.com/landlords/e-learning/.
  3. The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks of this determination to confirm that it has complied with the above orders and whether it will follow the above recommendations.
  4. The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.