Southern Housing (202428730)

Background

1. The resident’s tenancy started in December 2023. When she tried to move in, in January 2024, she found a leak in the flat above had caused significant water damage to her property. This caused widespread damp and mould issues within the property, and issues with the electrics and boiler. She told the landlord she would extend her stay in her privately rented property while it completed the repairs, as she could not move in. During this time, she accrued rent arrears. She asked the landlord to waive the arrears, and she remains unhappy with its decision not to do so.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s decision not to waive the resident’s rent arrears.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found there was:
   1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s decision not to waive the rent arrears.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s decision not to waive the rent arrears

5. The landlord did not consider whether the property was habitable or the resident’s welfare following the leak. It missed opportunities to consider temporary housing or support, despite knowing the resident faced financial hardship by paying rent on 2 properties. Its poor internal communication added to this, causing prolonged distress and inconvenience to her.

The complaint handling

6. The landlord appropriately acknowledged it did not respond in line with its target timescales. However, its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the impact caused to the resident. The complaint responses were poor, and the landlord did not address her concerns fully. It therefore missed opportunities to resolve the complaint effectively.

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.

7. Despite being aware that the resident was not staying at the property as a result of the leak, the landlord missed opportunities to support her. For example, it:
   1. Failed to consider whether the property was habitable or if it needed to temporarily rehouse her while it completed the repairs. This was not in line with its decant procedure, which outlines that it should have completed a risk assessment and made a decision about whether to offer temporary accommodation.
   2. Regularly contacted her because she was not paying rent. It is acknowledged that the resident was obliged to pay rent under the tenancy agreement. However, she had raised concerns about not being able to afford to pay rent on 2 properties at the same time. The landlord did not consider this further, and did not enter into discussion as to whether it considered that the property was habitable and/or whether the resident could leave her private accommodation.
   3. Delayed offering or signposting her to financial support due to her affordability concerns prior to its complaint responses.
8. The landlord repeatedly chased the resident to pay the rent arrears which had accrued since January 2024. In May 2024, it said it had not assessed the property’s habitability. However, it then added it would find out when the property became habitable. This suggests there was already a period when it deemed the property was uninhabitable, and did not dispute the resident’s comments that she could not move into the property. Despite this, it failed to demonstrate that it had considered this further. This meant it had also failed to consider whether the resident should have been offered temporary accommodation, which she could move to and end her private tenancy.
9. It is unclear why the landlord did not, as it was aware that the resident was facing financial hardship. In one email, she said “I’ve got to the point where I seriously can’t cope anymore with this”. The landlord’s failure to address her concerns therefore caused significant upset to the resident.
10. The landlord’s records show it raised works to address issues with damp and mould, the front door being unable to lock internally, the boiler, and the utility meters. These were significant repairs which impacted the safety and security of the property. It is therefore a further failing that it did not expedite these repairs, especially given it had not offered her alternative housing during this time.
11. It is evident from this that the landlord failed to communicate effectively between its teams following the resident’s concerns. In its complaint response, it said it “was not instructed to decant” her. While this may have been the case, the landlord had the opportunity to consider this further in May 2024, when it accepted that the property had not been habitable, and it failed to do so. As a result, it missed another opportunity to offer the resident alternative temporary accommodation and to consider whether compensation was warranted for the fact that she had been unable to move into the property.
12. It would have been helpful if the landlord arranged a cross-team meeting to discuss the habitability and arrears. Better internal communication between its repairs, rent, and complaints team, may have promoted transparency and enabled a resolution-focused approach. However, by not doing so, it understandably impacted its ability to recognise and address the resident’s concerns.
13. As the landlord did not appropriately consider the resident’s concerns, it meant she:
    1. Had to repeatedly explain her concerns to the rent and complaints team.
    2. Spent significant time and trouble asking for updates about both the progress of the repairs and the rent arrears.
    3. Was scared of losing her tenancy or damaging her credit score, while also worrying about whether she could afford to pay rent for 2 properties at the same time. It outlined this as potential action it could take within letters sent to her about the arrears.
    4. Had to ask her private landlord to extend her tenancy on a monthly basis despite giving notice to leave because she had secured her new tenancy.
    5. Had to later pay rent for the property and an additional monthly amount towards the rent arrears, causing her further financial hardship.
14. The resident said the landlord told her it had completed the majority of repairs following the boiler repair on 6 June 2024. The landlord has not provided evidence of this. However, an internal email on the same date confirmed it had repaired the boiler, and it was safe to use. In the absence of any risk assessment by the landlord, we consider the resident was able to move into the property on this date.
15. Overall, it was not appropriate, nor in line with its procedure, that the landlord did not consider whether it should temporarily rehouse the resident in response to her report of a leak. Especially given the extent of the repairs needed following the leak, the boiler safety concerns and the security concerns of the front door lock. While the landlord acknowledged failings in its handling of matters and that it should have explored temporary housing, it failed to take steps to put things right. Given the landlord’s poor handling and the prolonged distress to the resident, we have found severe maladministration.
16. Considering this, we order the landlord to pay compensation for the loss of enjoyment of the resident’s property between 15 January 2024 and 6 June 2024. We have also ordered it to pay further compensation, in addition to its offer of £150. This is to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of her concerns during this time.
17. Additionally, the resident complained about having to pay 2 amounts of utility bills during this period. Internally, the landlord said in similar cases, it would usually reimburse rent to the date she moved in and review any bills of any outgoings paid while not living there. We have therefore made a relevant order related to this.
18. The resident has told us that she still experiences damp and mould issues on an external wall, impacting the second bedroom and her walk-in wardrobe. In the landlord’s complaint responses, it said it would complete works to resolve this in October 2024. Given the ongoing concerns, we have ordered the landlord to inspect the property.

19. The landlord’s complaints policy aligns with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
20. The landlord’s complaint responses had incorrect dates on them. It dated the stage 1 response as 11 September 2024, but its complaints log shows it sent this to the resident on 16 September 2024. Similarly, it dated the stage 2 response as 18 September 2024, but its log shows it sent this on 18 October 2024.
21. This caused the resident avoidable confusion. Additionally she was left concerned that the landlord had considered her concerns and drafted a response within 2 days. The landlord should be mindful of ensuring its responses are dated correctly to prevent similar issues in the future.
22. The landlord did not respond to the complaint within the timescales set out in its policy or the Code. It took 66 working days to respond at stage 1. This was 51 days late, considering it must acknowledge and respond to the complaint within 15 working days.
23. The landlord appropriately acknowledged this at the time, and offered £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused. However, this amount was not proportionate to reflect the time and trouble caused to the resident by its delayed response. While it contacted her to let her know of its initial delay, it failed to then respond by its updated timescale of 23 July 2024. As a result, the resident was left to chase the landlord on 5 occasions for an update before it responded. As such, its delayed response and poor communication about this caused her considerable time and trouble in trying to progress her complaint.
24. Additionally, the content of the landlord’s complaint responses was poor. It failed to answer the resident’s concern about the repairs and whether the property was habitable between January and June 2024. Instead, it focused on the repairs at the time of its response, which was not her main concern.
25. In line with the Code, the landlord should ensure it addresses all points raised in the complaint. By not doing so, it missed an opportunity to investigate the resident’s concerns and consider her request to reimburse her rent during this period. It instead understandably caused her to feel that the landlord ignored her concerns, which is a failing.
26. The landlord should also ensure its wording within the complaint is helpful. In the resident’s escalation request, she said its initial response did not consider her concern about the rent arrears. In the final response, the landlord said it was sorry “if” its initial response only considered the current outstanding repair issues. Its wording could be considered dismissive or lacking empathy. Instead, it should have reviewed its previous response and considered her concerns, answering this point fully within its final response. It is a failing that it did not do so.
27. Overall, we have found a series of failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have therefore ordered it to pay compensation to reflect the time and trouble caused and to put this right.

Learning

28. The landlord failed to follow its decant procedure after the leak by not assessing whether the property was habitable. It should ensure it follows its procedure, especially when residents explain they feel they cannot live there, to avoid this going forward.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. The landlord should ensure the dates on its formal complaint responses are accurate to prevent any confusion.

Communication

30. Internally, the landlord had poor communication between its teams. This led to a confused and disjointed approach to the repairs, rent and complaints teams’ responses to the resident.
31. The landlord should ensure it communicates any complaint handling delays at the earliest opportunity.