Southern Housing (202505763)

Background

1. The resident lives in a maisonette. The landlord has recorded on 26 October 2009 and 2 August 2016 that the resident has disabilities. The resident has severe psoriasis, and his partner has COPD and asthma. The resident reported issues with pigeons landing and roosting leaving faeces on his balcony. He contacted the landlord between 22 September 2023 to 8 November 2023 to request proofing work including spikes on his bedroom window. He was concerned that he was unable to use the balcony reporting that the faeces was making his psoriasis worse.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. Pigeon pest proofing works.
   2. The associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of pigeon pest proofing works.
4. There was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord unreasonably delayed the pigeon pest proofing works. The landlord completed some work 9 months after the resident initially reported it. The landlord delayed completing the follow up work until 12 November 2024 to the neighbouring property. This was 4 months after the resident’s report that it was outstanding. The resident reported to us that the work was still outstanding.
6. There was evidence of poor internal and external communication leading to the delays in completing work, identifying where its contractor should complete the work and the scope of the work needed.
7. The landlord’s poor record keeping will not have helped it to keep track of the outstanding work, or to understand its own housing stock to provide accurate information to its contractor and to keep the resident suitably updated.
8. The landlord extended the period to provide its stage 1 complaint response 4 times which was unreasonable. This unnecessarily extended the complaints process. Its poor internal communication contributed to the unnecessary extensions. It didn’t escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 when the resident asked it about this on 31 October 2024 causing further delay in responding.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not investigate

9. The resident had a previous complaint with the landlord that predates the complaint that he sent to us to investigate. According to the landlord’s records this was a stage 1 complaint. We have therefore not investigated this former complaint as we have no evidence that it fully exhausted the internal complaints process at the time.

What we did investigate

10. We have focussed this investigation on the period from the resident’s report of 22 September 2023 to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response of 16 December 2024.
11. The landlord advised the resident on 2 occasions on 22 September 2023 and 8 November 2023 to raise a new repair for pigeon proofing work to his bedroom window and the neighbour’s window ledge. The landlord said its head of contracts would need to make the decision whether the work could go ahead. There was a 2-month gap before the landlord raised a task, and we have seen no records of why it delayed this which was inappropriate.
12. When the resident chased up the landlord again on 25 January 2024 the landlord asked its internal colleagues to investigate, but we have seen no evidence it provided any outcome to the resident at the time, which was inappropriate. There was delay in the landlord’s contractor completing a survey in March 2024 and the landlord’s records are unclear whether it advised the resident of the survey or the outcome which was also inappropriate.
13. Following the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 3 April 2024, the landlord’s investigation found that a previous contractor had not completed the pigeon proofing works as the landlord hired an external roofing contractor to do it. It noted the resident’s complaint was that the work was not finished despite the resident asking and chasing this up. It emailed internally on 24 April 2024 to ask if its contractor could complete the work, chasing this up on 8 and 13 May 2024. Its contractor emailed the landlord on 13 May 2024 to ask if it required a quote. The landlord agreed to a quote to organise a clean of the balcony. Its contractor advised that as the windows opened outwards it would need to install spikes on the windows by abseiling from the roof.
14. In response to the resident’s further chase up on 13 May 2024, the landlord advised the resident that it was waiting for its contractor to provide a plan of works following the March 2024 survey. It would consider a solution and had requested a quote. It would provide the resident with dates and the action plan. We have seen no records that the landlord followed up on the March survey to request a quote earlier which will have caused additional delay. The landlord also said it needed to contact the resident’s neighbour for the flat above and this could cause delay. This would be understandable as it could take for the landlord to arrange a suitable date with the neighbour.
15. The landlord asked its contractor if there was an alternative on 21 May 2024. It arranged its contractor to visit on 23 May 2024. However, it failed to communicate with the resident who was not expecting the visit and advised the same day that it was too short notice and he had a hospital appointment to attend. He also asked the landlord to not clean the balcony as the birds were landing on the window ledge above his balcony and this needed to be dealt with first.
16. The landlord told the resident the following day that its contractor was already going to the block that day and had said they would call in. It offered to arrange another appointment and agreed to wait to clean the balcony. It also emailed its contractor to request the contractor’s surveyor to attend again when the resident would be at home. It was important for the surveyor to speak to the resident to help determine the scope of any work required.
17. However, when the surveyor attended again on 29 May 2024, they said it was not necessary for the resident to be at home. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to fully understand the resident’s concerns and to provide an earlier resolution. The landlord authorised the contractor’s recommendation of bird free gel on the bedroom window. However, it failed to consider the resident’s ongoing reports about the birds landing on the neighbour’s window above.
18. The landlord told the resident on 7 June 2024 that its contractor would complete the remaining work on 28 June 2024. However, the contractor did not attend until 2 July 2024, 9 months after the resident’s September 2023 report. This was an unreasonable delay. The miscommunication in the landlord’s and contractor’s understanding of what needed doing led to the resident contacting the landlord again on 2 July 2024. He reported that only part of the work was complete with further work needed on the back balcony. As the landlord advised the resident on 24 May 2024 that its contractor’s quote included the balcony above, the resident would have reasonably expected this work to be completed as well.
19. According to the landlord’s repairs policy, it should complete routine repairs within “as little time as possible.” This is vague and it would be appropriate for the landlord to specify its service level agreement within the policy. We have used 28 days as an appropriate timescale to complete routine repairs.
20. The landlord’s pest proofing procedure states that “pigeons may be a nuisance but do not usually represent a health risk or cause property damage.” However, it may consider action where there are direct health implications for a resident or due to a resident’s vulnerability. The landlord was aware of the resident’s health issues, and it needed to consider any risk factors in its response and consider the priority to undertake the required work.
21. Landlords are required to use a risk-based approach known as the Housing, Health, and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to identify potential hazards. Pest infestations and pigeon fouling fall within the scope of the HHSRS due to the possible spread of disease and building damage that they can cause. The landlord may wish to review its policy about pigeon pest control to reflect the HHSRS.
22. The landlord did not raise another works order until 17 July 2024 to apply bird free gel at the back balcony of the property and the property above the balcony. It requested the resident to provide pictures on 18 July 2024 when it could have gathered these earlier if it had arranged for the resident to be in when the contractor’s surveyor called in May 2024. Its contractor visited the block on 13 August 2024, but it did not know the flat numbers of the flats above. The landlord should have provided these prior to its contractor’s visit to avoid any further delays. The landlord advised the resident on 11 September 2024 that it would be unable to proceed without his neighbour’s permission.
23. The landlord said in its final complaint response of 16 December 2024 that it had surveyed the upper flats on 13 August 2024 and that other residents had not reported any bird activity; however, we have seen no record of this survey. We have seen evidence that it completed proofing work to one of the flats on 12 November 2024, 4 months’ after the resident reported work was still outstanding. This was an excessive delay.
24. The landlord said it would complete additional pest surveys in its final complaint response. However, the resident reported to us that the landlord had not completed additional work to the flats above. Whilst the landlord completed some pest proofing work, there was unreasonable delay in completing this. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s compensation offer of £255 (£140 compensation at stage 1 of its complaints process and £115 compensation at stage 2) does not fully compensate for the identified failings. The Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the pigeon pest proofing words.
25. After carefully considering our guidance on remedies we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £350 pounds in compensation (inclusive of the £255 already offered). This comprises £200 (inclusive of the £105 previously offered) in respect of the unreasonable delays and poor follow-up and communication. The landlord should also pay the £150 it previous offered, it has not already done so, to recognise the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings.
26. We have also ordered the landlord to complete an inspection of the property by a suitably qualified surveyor with the resident in attendance so it can understand what work is outstanding. It must send a copy of its inspection report and any schedule of works to the resident and to us.

27. The resident’s made his complaint to the landlord on 3 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 10 April 2024 within 5 working days in line with its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Code (the Code) timescale. However, it wrote to the resident on 4 separate occasions between 24 April 2024 to 23 May 2024 to extend the timescale to respond. This was unreasonable. It issued its stage 1 complaint response on 7 June 2024. This was 40 working days after its complaint acknowledgement.
28. The landlord’s complaints policy allows it to extend the time limit to respond to a complaint. However, the Code states that any extension must be no more than 10 working days without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident.
29. The resident enquired about going to stage 2 in his email to the landlord of 31 October 2024. The landlord should have therefore considered escalating the complaint at this point. Instead, the landlord’s response on 7 November 2024 used an inappropriate tone saying it had advised the resident “multiple times” that he could escalate his complaint to stage 2. The resident therefore had to specifically request that the landlord escalate his complaint on 11 November 2024.
30. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 18 November 2024 which was within its policy and the Code’s 5 working day timescale. It issued its stage 2 response on 16 December 2024. This was 20 working days after its acknowledgement which was in line with its complaints policy and the Code. However, the landlord could have provided this sooner if it had escalated the complaint appropriately. The landlord awarded £50 in respect of the delays at stage 1, but it did not address the failure to escalate the complaint to stage 2 earlier.
31. The Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £150 (inclusive of the £50 offered at stage 2) in compensation for its complaint handling failings. This recognises the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling failings.

Learning

32. The landlord identified some learning in its complaint responses saying it identify training needs for its service centres and repairs contractors concerning record keeping and sharing of information. It had also fed back to its lessons learned team to highlight the resident’s experience. These are appropriate steps to take to improve its service delivery.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

33. The landlord’s record keeping was insufficiently robust. It was relying on the resident to provide his neighbours’ flat numbers. The landlord should keep accurate and up-to-date records so that it can understand its own housing stock and proactively monitor the completion of repairs. In a recent case (reference 202500448) we found similar record keeping failings. We recommended that the landlord reviews its self-assessment of its knowledge and information management based upon our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) and follow up report (January 2025) to improve its record keeping practices.

Communication

34. The landlord recognised that its communication was poor in its complaint responses. It was reactive rather than proactive to the resident’s chase ups. The landlord’s internal and external communication was also poor. Its complaints handling team had to chase for updates from its operational team to answer the resident’s complaint at stage 1 leading to the 4 complaint extensions at stage 1. Its follow up and communication with its contractor following its March 2024 survey was also poor.