Southern Housing (202203603)

Background

1. Both the resident, and his wife, were in contact wit the landlord throughout the complaint. For clarity, in this report we refer to them collectively as “the resident The resident purchased his share in the property in May 2021. He reported defects. The landlord reported the defects to the developer as the property was within its defect liability period. After delays in getting the developer to resolve the issues the landlord served the developer with notice that it was going to rectify the defects and pursue it for the costs of doing so. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response to the issues and made a complaint.”. The resident sold his share in the property in late 2024.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of defects, in particular:
   1. The front door.
   2. The patio doors.
   3. The driveway.
   4. A bath panel.
   5. Plasterboard joints.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of defects, in particular:
   1. The front door.
   2. The patio doors.
   3. The driveway.
   4. A bath panel.
   5. Plasterboard joints.
5. The landlord made a reasonable offer of redress which put right the inconvenience caused by errors in its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of defects

6. The landlord was contractually obliged to report the defects to the developer to resolve. When there were issues with the developer the landlord appropriately took responsibility for the defects. It accepted its communication about its progress was poor. It offered an appropriate level of compensation for the delays up to the point of its final complaint response. There were further delays in completing the commitments it made in its final complaint response, and it did not adhere to the deadline it set.

The landlord’s complaint handling

7. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint was delayed, and it failed to acknowledge the delay in its response. There was a long delay in opening the stage 2 complaint investigation. The landlord appropriately apologised for the errors in its complaint handling and offered a proportionate amount of compensation.

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.

8. The resident and landlord identified approximately 42 defects shortly after he took possession of the property. This included a leak that caused an area of mould in the property, and a defective kitchen the landlord replaced in July 2023. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance respond to first. This investigation has focused on the defects the landlord responded to in its final complaint response. This is because these were the defects the resident raised in his stage 2 complaint escalation (as listed above). As other defects were not raised, or responded to in the final complaint response, we have not investigated the landlord’s response to them.
9. The resident reported the landlord’s response to the defects impacted on his health and wellbeing, and cost him financially. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused, and a claim for financial loss. The courts are best placed to deal with these types of disputes as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last, and what quantifiable costs a resident may have incurred. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
10. When the resident started reporting defects in 2021, the landlord was contractually obliged to report them to the developer to resolve. It had to give the developer a reasonable opportunity to do the repairs before taking them on itself. This is known as the defect liability period. As the developer is not a member of our Scheme we have not assessed its handling of the issues. We have investigated the landlord’s response to the issues. We would expect a landlord to give a resident regular updates about its progress on such matters. It is evident the landlord did not do so in this case, a fact it accepted in its complaint responses. The resident was evidently distressed at the conditions at the property because of the defects. The landlord’s poor communication may have increased his distress.
11. As set out in its complaint responses, the landlord took on responsibility for defects after it had given the developer reasonable opportunity to resolve the issues. This was appropriate and evidence it took the resident’s concerns seriously. Even after the landlord took on the repairs itself, there were lengthy delays in resolving some of the issues in the property. We have assessed the landlord’s handling of the defects that are within our jurisdiction below. We have assessed the landlord’s handling of matters beyond its final complaint response that were outstanding, and any commitments made in its final complaint response.

The front door

12. The landlord was on notice about the front door defect from June 2021. The landlord appropriately pursued the developer. It then supported the resident to make a claim to the National Housing Building Council (NHBC) who provided the warranty for the property. This was appropriate in the circumstances. The landlord’s communication around this time was poor and we have seen evidence the resident had to regularly chase it for updates.
13. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response lacked detail about its latest position on the defects. But it explained it had taken responsibility for them from January 2022. There is no evidence it progressed with the door issue at that time. When it sent the complaint response it had assumed responsibility for the matter for 6 months without making any progress. The resident was inconvenienced by the need to chase the landlord for a progress update on the door issue in September 2023.
14.  When the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response, in January 2024, the door issue was still outstanding. It was unacceptable this was the case nearly 2 years after it had taken on responsibility for the repair. The landlord appropriately apologised and offered compensation for its overall handling of the defects. It said it planned to complete any repairs needed by 29 February 2024.
15. The landlord’s contractor inspected the door on 1 March 2024. This was slightly outside the timeframe for completing the repairs set out in its final complaint response. It was decided the door needed replacing. The door was replaced on 14 May 2024. This was not an unreasonable period from when it identified the door needed replacing. However, had it inspected sooner after its complaint response this may have reduced the time the resident waited for the matter to be resolved.

The patio doors

16. As above, there was an unreasonable delay in the landlord progressing with the repairs to the patio doors once it took on responsibility for the repair. The landlord appropriately apologised and offered compensation for the delays in both its complaint responses.
17. As with the front door repair, the landlord did not adhere to the timeframe set out in its final complaint response. It did its initial inspection outside the timeframe set out in the response, and then completed the repairs to the patio doors on 14 May 2024. This was over a month after the deadline given in its response. The resident was inconvenienced by the delay.

The driveway

18. The issue with the driveway flooding was intermittent which added complexity to the matter. Unlike with the other defects the evidence shows the developer took responsibility for the repair after the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response. The evidence shows the developer did some works to the driveway to try and resolve the issue around November 2023. The resident reported the issue persisted on 16 November 2023, and the landlord agreed to raise the matter with the developer again. We have seen no evidence it followed this up with the resident, which was an error in its communication. The resident was left not knowing the next steps, which inconvenienced him.
19. The landlord committed to investigating the matter further in its final complaint response. The evidence shows it arranged an inspection on 15 February 2024. This was within a reasonable period of its complaint response. However, the evidence indicates it did not give the resident prior warning of the inspection. This was a further error in its communication.
20. The landlord appropriately arranged a survey of the driveway based on evidence the resident provided in February 2024. This is evidence it took his concerns seriously and wanted to identify the cause of the issue. The survey went ahead in May 2024. While not an excessive delay, this was 3 months after the resident reported the issue was ongoing. He was inconvenienced by the need to chase it for updates in February and March 2024.
21. The landlord contacted the resident on 31 May 2024 and said it had received the results of the driveway survey, and said it would come back to the resident with the next steps. There is no evidence it followed this up. This was a further error in its communication.
22. We have seen evidence the landlord advised the resident, in September 2024, the position had changed and in planned to do further works to the driveway. This was 8 months after its final complaint response, and it had fulfilled its commitment to do a further inspection. We have therefore not investigated the landlord’s handling of the matter beyond May 2024.

A bath panel

23. As above the landlord said in its complaint response it took on the responsibility for some of the defects in January 2022. The evidence shows the bath panel was a defect it took on responsibility for. It did some works to the bath panel in July 2022. This was 7 months later, and an unreasonable delay.
24. The resident reported concerns about the quality of the workmanship for the bath panel when discussing the stage 2 complaint with the landlord in January 2024. Up to that point the landlord was reasonably of the view its repair in July 2022 was successful. The landlord appropriately agreed to investigate the issue further in its stage 2 complaint response.
25. The landlord adhered to the commitment made in its final complaint response and wrote to the resident on 15 February 2024 saying it would replace the bath panel. The bath panel was replaced on 23 April 2024, 2 months later. While not an excessive delay, any delay would cause the resident some inconvenience.
26. We have seen evidence the resident was unhappy with the quality of the works done to replace the bath panel in April 2024. As this matter arose after the landlord’s final complaint response we have not investigated it. This is because the landlord needs the opportunity to respond to a complaint before we can investigate. If the resident remains unhappy with the quality of the workmanship to replace the bath panel, he may want to complain to the landlord. We may then investigate if he remains unhappy after exhausting the landlord’s complaint process.

Plasterboard joints

27. As set out in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, the developer continued to accept responsibility for some of the defects. The developer committed to inspecting the plasterboard joints in an email to the landlord in September 2022. It is unclear whether the landlord followed this up with the developer. It did not follow up with the resident to update him on the matter. This was a failing in its communication. The resident was inconvenienced by the need to chase the landlord for an update about the issue in August and September 2023. There is no evidence the landlord followed up with the resident after he confirmed the location of the plasterboard issue in the property. This was a further failing in its communication that inconvenienced the resident. He was inconvenienced by the need to raise the matter again in November 2023 before the landlord referred the issue to its contractor.
28. There is no evidence the repair progressed after being referred to the landlord’s contractor in November 2023. The landlord appropriately apologised for the delays in its stage 2 complaint response and committed to doing the repairs by 29 February 2024. The repairs did not go ahead until April 2024. While not an excessive delay this was outside the timeframe it committed to in its final complaint response. This inconvenienced the resident.

The landlord’s offer of redress for its response to the resident’s reports of defects

29. We welcome the fact the landlord offered compensation for its handling of the matter. The landlord offered £500 for its handling of the matter in its stage 1 complaint response, and an “additional” £630 in its final complaint response. Our compensation guidance, available on our website, says orders for compensation for over £1,000 may be appropriate when a landlord’s errors had a long term impact on a resident. The above applies in this case, and we consider its offer of compensation appropriate up to the point of its final complaint response.
30. The landlord failed to complete repairs to the front and patio doors, the bath panel, and the plasterboard joints within the timeframe it committed to in its final complaint response. There were also errors in its communication after its final complaint response. The resident was inconvenienced by the need to chase the landlord for an update about the repairs in February 2024. In line with our compensation guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident an additional £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its errors after its final complaint response.

31. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response 31 working days after the resident complained. This was outside the timeframe set out in its complaints policy and mandated by our complaint handling code. It failed to acknowledge the delay in its response. It missed an opportunity to show learning and put right the inconvenience caused by the delay.
32. The resident asked to escalate his in February and November 2023. There was a long delay in opening the stage 2 complaint investigation. The resident was inconvenienced by the need to seek assistance from us, in January 2024, before the landlord opened a stage 2 complaint. This is evidence of an unfair and hard to access complaints process.
33. The landlord appropriately apologised for the errors in its complaint handling and offered £150 in compensation in recognition of the delay. Our compensation guidance says that orders for compensation for complaint handling up to £250 may be appropriate when a complaint response is delayed by months resulting in a delay in resolving the dispute. The above applies in this case. We consider the landlord’s offer of £150 proportionate to resolve the inconvenienced cause by the delays.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication

34. The landlord’s records were sufficient to enable us to complete our investigation. The landlord’s communication about the defect issues was poor, a fact it accepted. It failed to learn from the outcomes of its complaint investigation, as its communication about the repairs after its final complaint response continued to be poor. The resident was inconvenienced by the need to chase it about the repairs.