Our Business Plan 2026-27 consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Southern Housing (202301178)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301178

Southern Housing Group Limited

27 November 2024

 

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. Handling of the repairs following a leak into the property.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. At the time of the complaint the resident was an assured tenant of the landlord. The property was a 2 bedroom flat in a block of similar properties.
  2. On 10 December 2021 the resident arrived home from a week’s holiday to find that there had been a leak into her property from the toilet of the flat above. The electrics blew as the resident switched on the light. The landlord attended the same day and confirmed that the leak had been contained and made safe the electrics. The areas of the property affected by the leak were the bathroom, hallway and living room.
  3. On 13 December 2021 the landlord provided dehumidifiers to dry out the property. On 21 December 2021 the landlord inspected the property and agreed to carry out remedial repairs to the areas that had been affected by the leak, including replastering and repainting. It also agreed to replace the carpet that had been damaged by the leak. On 18 January 2022 the landlord’s operative arrived to repair the light socket in the bathroom, which had been damaged during the leak. However, the operative did not have the required socket and said they would return at a later date but failed to do so.
  4. On 26 April 2022  the resident raised a complaint as the bathroom light had still not been repaired, and the carpet had not been replaced. As the bathroom had no window this resulted in the resident and her daughter having to use the hallway light to avoid bathing in darkness and having to walk on an uncarpeted concrete floor to get to the bath. She said the repairs contractor advised her they were still awaiting authorisation from the landlord to fit the carpet. The painting had also not been completed. She said there was mould present on the bathroom walls which she worried was exacerbating her daughters asthma. Using the dehumidifiers to dry out the property had also resulted in higher electricity bills.
  5. The carpet was fitted on 24 May 2022. In its stage 1 response on 25 May 2022 the landlord said the contractor had applied one mist coat of paint to the bathroom ceiling and treated the water stains in February 2022. It said they would be returning to complete the painting of the bathroom, hallway, and lounge. It said it had identified no service failure and that it had attended the leak the same day the resident had reported it. However, it said it would like to apologise for any inconvenience and for the increase in energy bills . It also awarded £100 to cover the period she had used dehumidifiers, which it said was “In recognition of our service failure and as a goodwill gesture”. The resident has confirmed that the light socket was repaired some time in May 2022
  6. The landlord’s surveyor visited the property on 7 June 2022 to confirm what work was outstanding and noted that although the landlord had authorised redecoration of the bathroom, hall, and lounge no appointment was showing on the system. The surveyor also noted that the resident was unhappy with the carpet as it had a fault line in it and was coming away from the gripper rods and that she would chase both issues with the contractor.
  7. On 11 June 2022 the resident escalated her complaint as she had received no update regarding the carpet or the painting. She said the bathroom walls were damp and mouldy. She said the £100 compensation offer would not cover the extra electricity costs. She said the landlord had not taken into account that she had been waiting 6 months for work to be completed, or the period of time where she had no bathroom light or carpet and the stress this had caused.
  8. On 24 June 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to request an update on her escalation request and was advised that the landlord had until close of business that day to respond within 10 working days. However, no response was received. The resident continued to contact the landlord to chase both the escalation request and the outstanding works. Records show that this included contact on 28 June, 8 July, 21 July, 2 August, 9 August, and 15 August 2022. The notes show that the resident repeatedly requested call backs, including several times where she requested that a manager call her back. There is no record of her receiving a manager call back.
  9. On 17 August 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm it had escalated her complaint. On 21 August 2022 the resident responded to make sure the complaints handler was aware that
    1. She was still awaiting the painting work to be carried out.
    2. Due to her concerns about the mould in the bathroom she had resorted to buying anti mould paint and painting the bathroom walls herself and asked to be reimbursed for the cost of the paint.
    3. The carpet had been initially incorrectly fitted without underlay and then when it was refitted with underlay underneath this resulted in the carpet coming away from the gripper boards. It also had a fault line in. She had advised the contractor of this and they had agreed to return and replace the carpet but had not done so.
  10. After initially telling the resident she would need to raise a new complaint about those issues, the landlord agreed to address them in its stage 2 response, which was issued on 16 September 2022. In which it apologised for the delay in carrying out the remedial work and accepted that the delay was unacceptable. It also accepted that its delays and poor communication had led to the resident carrying out some of the paintwork herself. The landlord said it would ensure that the carpet was either repaired or replaced and that the rest of the painting was carried out. It said it would monitor progress of the works on a 4 week basis and would calculate compensation for the delays once the work had been completed. In the meantime, it agreed to reimburse the resident £206.47 for the cost of using the dehumidifiers and the cost of the painting materials.

Events after the end of the internal complaints process.

  1. On 5 April 2024 the landlord acknowledged the carpet had still not been addressed but confirmed that the painting had been completed and made its final compensation offer of £605. It said this was based on an 8 Month delay from when the resident reported the outstanding repairs in April 2024 and comprised:
    1. £450 for stress, distress, and inconvenience.
    2. £50 for repair delays
    3. £45 for service failures including poor communication/ failure to update the resident, repeat visits and the resident having to chase for updates.
    4. £60 for 3 missed appointments
  2. Although the resident accepted the £206.47 reimbursement, she declined the £605 compensation as she did not think it was fair or proportionate and referred her complaint to the Ombudsman for those reasons. She confirmed that she moved out of the property in August 2024 and that the carpet had still not been repaired or replaced at that point.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

  1. The resident has referred to the impact of the damp bathroom on her daughter’s health. Although we would give consideration to any distress and inconvenience the resident or her daughter experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord, it is outside the Ombudsman’s role to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is because we cannot establish whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and/or inaction and the resident’s daughter’s health. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer. This is in line with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme which states:
  2. ‘The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.’

Handling of the repairs following a leak into the property.

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy in place at the time states that in the case of emergency repairs, (where there is a serious risk to safety, security, or health) it will send a contractor out as soon as possible and always within 24 hours. If it cannot complete the repair on the spot, it will ‘make safe’ and come back as soon as possible to complete the job. Although it does not give a timeframe for completing non-emergency repairs, it states that it will complete them as quickly as possible.
  2. When the resident reported the leak and the blown electrics on 10 December 2021, the landlord acted appropriately, and in line with its repairs policy by attending the same day. Although it is not clear when, it appears that the neighbour upstairs had already reported the leak at some point and it had been contained. However, the operatives checked to confirm that this was the case and also made safe the electrics. The landlord also took appropriate steps to provide dehumidifiers on 13 December 2021 and to inspect the property on 21 December 2021 to confirm what remedial work was needed.
  3. Its decision to replaster and paint the bathroom, hall and lounge was appropriate. It also treated the resident fairly by agreeing to replace the damaged carpet. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord responded appropriately up to this point. However, once it had agreed to the remedial repairs and carpet replacement it would have been appropriate for it to have completed them within a reasonable timeframe and to have communicated with the resident so that she was aware of the expected timeframe and it failed to do so.
  4. It is noted that a period of time was needed for the property to dry out before it could be painted and that the dehumidifiers were in situ until February 2022. However, in the meantime the landlord could have taken appropriate steps to start the process of replacing the carpet and repairing the bathroom light socket so that the resident and her daughter were not having to walk on concrete and bathe in a dark bathroom. However, it failed to do so, and although its contractor  started the painting in February 2022, they failed to complete it. Additionally, the contractor started to repair the light socket in January 2022 but then failed to return to complete it. This was incredibly frustrating for the resident and resulted in her raising a complaint on 26 April 2022. The landlord’s complaint handling will be addressed separately.
  5. At the point that the resident raised her complaint she was still awaiting completion of the repainting, repair of the light socket and replacement of the carpet. This was almost 4 months after the leak and although the landlord’s repairs policy does not give a timeframe for carrying out non-emergency repairs, the industry standard is around 20 working days so this delay was not acceptable. Although the Ombudsman has not received full records of the resident’s contact with the contractor, the landlord confirmed her assertion that they were awaiting authorisation from the landlord to replace the carpet. Although we do not have a repair record confirming the date the light socket was repaired, the resident has confirmed that it was in May 2022. As the socket had been awaiting repair since 10 December 2021, this was an unacceptable timeframe to complete the repair. The carpet was also replaced on 24 May 2022. Although issues with its fitting and the quality of the carpet led to the resident having to chase the landlord and the contractor to address the outstanding issues.
  6. The landlord’s records show that the landlord failed to provide the resident with regular updates on the progress of the outstanding work. This resulted in the resident having to call the landlord on a regular basis for updates on the works between May and August 2022, as well as updates on the progress of her complaint. The resident became increasingly distressed and frustrated at the lack of response from the landlord. Her concerns that the damp and mould on the bathroom walls could be affecting her daughter’s health added to her distress. As the resident had made the landlord aware of these concerns when she originally made the complaint and then reiterated them when chasing the landlord for an update on the progress of the remedial repairs it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered prioritising the work and considering whether a damp and mould survey was required. However, there is no evidence that the landlord did so and in August 2022 the resident brought some anti mould paint and painted the bathroom walls herself.
  7. Although the landlord took appropriate steps to reimburse the resident for the cost of the painting materials, she should never have been left in a situation  where she felt she had no alternative but to address the mould herself. This was not acceptable. The landlord used its stage 2 response on 16 September 2022, to apologise for the delays in carrying out the work and its decision to calculate the compensation once all of the work was completed was reasonable. However, there were further delays in completing the work, and although the landlord confirmed in its compensation letter on 5 April 2023 that the painting work had been completed, it also acknowledged that the carpet had not been repaired or replaced. The resident has confirmed that at the point that she moved out of the property in August 2024, this was still the case.
  8. Although the landlord took appropriate steps to offer compensation for the failings it had identified, the Ombudsman does not consider the amount of £605 to be fair or proportionate. This is because the landlord did not take into account the resident’s personal circumstances and the distress caused by her concerns that her daughter’s asthma could be exacerbated by the delays in addressing the mould on the bathroom walls. In addition to that although it calculated compensation based on delays from when the complaint was raised in April 2022, it failed to acknowledge or compensate for the delays in repairing the light socket or starting the process of replacing the carpet before that date. Although it took appropriate steps to agree to repair or replace the replacement carpet, this never happened and when the resident moved out in August 2024 , it had still taken no action to address the replacement carpet.
  9. Therefore, in line with our remedies guidance for cases of maladministration where there were failings which had a significant impact on the resident and accumulated over a significant period of time, we will be ordering the landlord to pay additional compensation of £295 to the resident. This is in addition to the £605 it has already offered, which means the total amount of compensation it should pay to the resident for this aspect of the complaint is £900. This amount is to be paid in addition to the £206.41 it has already reimbursed the resident. We will also be ordering the landlord to apologise for its failings.
  10. Since this complaint, the landlord has confirmed that it has taken several positive changes to improve the way it approaches similar cases. These changes include improvements to the ways residents can report and track their repairs and a new procedure for dealing with damp and mould, repairs, and serious health conditions. It has also started the process of recruiting a dedicated team to oversee a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould. In light of these changes the Ombudsman will not be making any further orders related to this aspect of the complaint.

Complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy in place at the time the complaint was made states that when a complaint is raised it will log and allocate the complaint within one working day and aims to provide a response within 10 working days. The timeframe for responding at stage 2 is not clear, as it refers to a 10 working day timeframe in relation to review panels investigating complaints at stage 2,. However, it does not give a timeframe for senior managers investigating a complaint at stage 2 (as was the case in this complaint). However, the response timeframe the Ombudsman recommends at stage 2 is 20 working days.
  2. When the resident raised her complaint on 26 April 2022, the landlord appropriately acknowledged it the next day and provided a summary of its understanding of the complaint. The resident responded to the summary on the 27 April 2022 to advise that she would also like it to address the frustration and additional stress caused by having to constantly call for updates and to chase appointments.
  3. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have responded within the 10 working day timeframe in its complaints policy, and to have addressed those concerns. However, the landlord failed to respond within that time frame, which meant that the resident had to contact the landlord again on 11 May 2022 for an update. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 25 May 2022, which was 20 working days after the resident raised her complaint and double the timeframe it should have responded in. It also failed to apologise for that delay in its response.
  4. The landlord acted appropriately by offering compensation for the additional electric the resident had used for the dehumidifier. However, it would also have been appropriate for it to have acknowledged and offered compensation for the delays in carrying out the repairs and carpet fitting since the initial leak was discovered on 10 December 2021. It failed to do so. Instead, it said that it had identified no clear service failure. However, it then referred to the £100 offer as being for “service failure”, which would have been very confusing for the resident.
  5. When the resident escalated her complaint on 11 June 2022, the landlord should have acknowledged the request and provided a response within 20 working days. However, the landlord failed to do so and the resident had to contact the landlord numerous times until it finally agreed to escalate it on 17 August 2022. At this point it emailed the resident to apologise for the delay in escalating the complaint and assured the resident that this would be considered in the stage 2 review. The landlord’s internal emails show that its complaints team were also advised to ensure that the complaint handling was addressed in the stage 2 response and compensation offered for any delays in issuing the stage 2 response.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response was issued on 16 September 2022, which was 70 working days after the resident escalated the complaint which was far outside the 20 working day timeframe and unacceptable. The landlord failed to either acknowledge, apologise, or offer compensation for the delays in the complaints process. This was a further complaint handling failure.
  7. It is noted that the landlord agreed to calculate its final compensation offer once the works had been completed. This was reasonable as it would then have more detail about the total length of the delays in completing works. However, it may have been helpful to consider making an interim compensation offer in the meantime.
  8. In light of the failings highlighted above the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. In line with our remedies guidance for cases of maladministration where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident which the landlord failed to acknowledge or put right, we will be ordering the landlord to apologise and pay £275 compensation to the resident.
  9. It is noted that since the complaint the landlord has confirmed that it has taken several positive steps to improve its complaint handling. This has included introducing a new complaints policy and process. It has also recruited additional staff in order to expand its complaints team,. In addition to this it has designed, produced, and trained over 90% of employees in its new customer service programme. Therefore, we will not be making any additional orders in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs following a leak into the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the impact of its failings in respect of its handling of repairs following a leak into the property, and its complaint handling.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £1175, comprised of:
      1. £900 for the impact of its failings in respect of its handling of repairs following a leak into the property (This includes the £605 it previously offered plus an additional £295).
      2. £275 for the impact of its complaint handling failings.