Southern Housing (202121668)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121668

Southern Housing Group Limited

31 July 2023

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

The complaint is about the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs at the start of the tenancy, in relation to the kitchen.
This Service has also considered the associated complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident occupies a two-bedroom terraced house with garden and holds an assured tenancy with a housing association property.
The tenancy started on 8 October 2021. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.

Scope of investigation

In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may only consider complaints that have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. This Service acknowledges that the resident brought a complaint to the landlord in relation to a faulty boiler and pest infestation and further acknowledges that a stage one response was provided by the landlord, of which this Service has seen a copy. However, the complaint was not escalated to stage two of the complaints procedure and consequently has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. As such that part of the resident’s complaint cannot be investigated by this Service.

Summary of events

An internal email date 23 September 2021 showed a list of items that needed to be completed as part of the void works:
1. Hole in the kitchen floor and tear in vinyl flooring.
2. Vinyl flooring in the kitchen and bathroom should be replaced as these looked beyond wear and tear.
3. Garden to be brought to standard and removal of dead trees if possible.
4. Garden door doesn’t seem to lock properly and is currently locked by a latch.
5. Fence panels need repairing.
6. Front patio area by the gas meter, there are very loose slabs, need securing or removing.
On 27 September 2021 after having viewed the property four days earlier, the resident emailed the landlord expressing concerns about the condition of two cupboard units in the kitchen. He explained that the laminate was peeling away on one of the cupboards and there was a burn mark on another and asked for confirmation that they would be replaced prior to sign up.
An internal email dated 29 September 2021, the landlord said that the cupboards were not due for renewal and that any items in need of repairs would be repaired as assessed by the appropriate team. Any items beyond a state of repair would be considered for renewal, but this did not include cosmetic imperfections.
On 30 September 2021, the resident telephoned the landlord and submitted a formal complaint in relation to the condition of the property when he viewed it. He explained the issues with the kitchen cupboards. He added that he didn’t feel it was fair to ask potential tenants to view a property when it’s not completely finished and not give them another chance to view once all void works have been completed.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 1 October 2021. It confirmed the resident’s complaint to be:
1. The resident was unhappy that repairs were needed in the property and that they would not be done until he had moved in.
2. The resident was unhappy with the process.
The landlord confirmed that it would carry out a full investigation and provide a response within 10 working days.
Following receipt of the letter acknowledging his complaint, the resident emailed the landlord to clarify his complaint. He stated that he was complaining about the double wall mounted kitchen cupboards, one of which had a burn mark, and the laminate was peeling away on the other.
He further explained he had been advised that the cupboards were not due for renewal and would not be replaced. Any repairs deemed necessary would be assessed by the relevant team, but that it did not include cosmetic imperfections.
He clarified that he was seeking confirmation that the damaged wall mounted kitchen cupboard unit would be replaced prior to sign up.
An internal email dated 7 October 2021 confirmed that the void had been completed and that certificates had been attached to the email. The landlord attached the handover inspection sheet and the gas and electrical safety certificates.
This Service has seen copies of all the documents listed above, which showed the following:
1. The handover inspection sheet showed that the post inspection survey had been completed and that the property met the letting standard and was signed and dated 4 October 2021.
2. The gas safety was record dated 1 October 2021. It showed that the meter was capped, and that the appliance could not be tested as there was no electricity in the property. The boiler had been disconnected from the gas meter.
3. The domestic electrical installation certificate listed the items that had been installed/replaced and included alarms and the customer consumer unit. The certificate was signed and dated 1 October 2021.
4. The building regulations certificate of compliance dated 1 October 2021, in respect of the electrical work completed.
5. The energy performance certificate valid until 28 June 2024, showed the property had an energy rating of D.
According to the landlord’s repair history, the resident reported a repair with a faulty back door lock on 10 October 2021, the repair was cancelled on 25 October 2021 as it had been issued in error.
The landlord’s evidence showed that the boiler was retested and reconnected on 13 October 2021 and was functioning. This Service acknowledges that the landlord’s moving in property standard states that the gas supply and issue of a gas safety certificate would be carried out after reletting. The attending operative highlighted that a new room thermostat was needed. The appropriate gas safety record was provided.
The landlord responded to the stage one complaint on 14 October 2021. It confirmed its understanding of the resident’s complaint to be that:
1. The resident was unhappy that repairs that were needed in the property he viewed would not have been completed until he moved in. This included the kitchen cupboards, one of which the resident said had a burn mark on it and the laminate was peeling off of another.
2. The resident wanted the issues resolved prior to moving in.
In its response the landlord explained that its policy was to conduct viewings as soon as it was safe to do so. It added that it preferred its properties not to be empty for longer than necessary, consequently the relevant team would carry out repairs during the viewing process. It added that once the property was ready it would be signed off by the appropriate person.
The landlord explained that if the cupboard was considered useable and the imperfection only cosmetic it would not consider replacing it. However, it noted that the resident had mentioned that the laminate was peeling away and said that it would ask if this could be replaced.
The landlord concluded that as the resident had accepted the property, he should report any repairs to the repairs team directly.
The resident escalated his complaint on 20 October 2021. He said that instead of repairing furnishings that were visibly damaged through wear and tear, the landlord deliberately decided to leave the defective items for him to sort out, either by having to repair them personally or through reporting to the repairs team.
The resident added that whilst he appreciated the opportunity to view the property early, he had no idea if the defects he reported would have been dealt with prior to moving in.
By way of resolution, the resident asked for:
1. the defects to be repaired without delay.
2. The landlord to forward details of relevant resident involvement groups he could join.
Landlord’s notes dated 2 November 2021, showed that it telephoned the resident to find out how he was settling in. The resident advised that he had not moved into the property as there were outstanding issues. The resident explained that there had been an issue with the boiler that had since been resolved and a fault with an electrical socket which had been reported. The landlord apologised for the repair issues and confirmed that electrical and gas certificates confirmed that the property was ready to let.
On 5 November 2021, the resident reported an issue with the thermostats. Then on 15 November 2021, he telephoned the landlord to explain that he wanted to discuss additional concerns. The landlord advised that his complaint had been escalated to stage two and that he would receive a call for the relevant investigating officer.
On 17 November 2021, an internal email explained that although the resident’s tenancy started on 11 October 2021, he had still not moved into the property as there had been some repairs issues reported. The landlord said that the resident was still experiencing issues with the front and rear doors and commented that the rear door could not be locked.
The landlord responded at stage two of its complaints process on 18 November 2021. It apologised that the resident had cause to complain about the condition of the kitchen cupboards and understood that it was disappointing to see such damage when moving into a property. The landlord stated that it could not make a compensation payment as the damage reported did not prevent the resident from moving into the property. The landlord also noted that there had been a problem with the boiler, but this had been resolved and concluded that the complaint was closed.

Post complaints process

The following day the resident reported that he was unable to regulate the heating and that the radiators remained consistently hot.
The same day he submitted another complaint via social media. He explained that the condition of the property when it was let to him was disgusting, he added that there was a pest infestation. The resident attached photographs of the issues he referred to.
The landlord responded and explained that it understood his complaint was being dealt with at stage two and that he would receive a call from a senior manager. The landlord said that it had forwarded the photos to the repairs team with a request that it urgently contacted the resident.
It is unclear when the resident’s second complaint was accepted by the landlord. However, the landlord’s complaints case notes showed that on 25 November 2021 the stage two response, relating to the resident’s complaint about the outstanding repairs in the kitchen at the time of letting, was sent for a second time. This Service finds it reasonable to assume, given the contents of the letter, that it was not sent in relation to the second complaint but instead sent in error.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations

Section 6.7 of the landlord’s letting process states that viewings can take place during the voids works once it has been confirmed that it is safe to do so. The surveyor will sign off the property once voids works are completed. Once the property is handed back from the surveyor the landlord must check there are appropriate gas and electrical safety certificates, and a valid EPC.
The landlord’s responsibilities within the tenancy agreement include the provision for the landlord to let the property initially in a reasonable state of repair and with all the fixtures and fittings in working order. In addition, where furniture or fixed floor coverings are provided, the landlord will aim to keep them in good repair.
The landlord has provided a copy of its moving in property standard, which sets the agreed standard for the rooms/areas in a property. The standard states that the landlord is not generally seeking to upgrade the facilities within an empty home but ensure that what is present is in good repair and fit for purpose. Any necessary improvements and modernisation would normally be carried out as part of a planned works programme. Each area/room type has an agreed standard. In respect of the kitchen, the standard includes:
1. If the existing kitchen is capable of repair or only partial replacement this is all that is required. The policy is to repair what is there already, unless uneconomic to do so.
2. All kitchens to be decorated.
In respect of the general cleaning the standard also states that:
1. All surfaces should be left dust, smear, residue, and odour free.
2. Kitchen units to be cleaned inside and out.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints process aiming to resolve the issue at the earliest opportunity and responding at stage one of its complaints process within 10 working days. The landlord explains that its stage two process comprises of three options: a compensation review; a complaint review; or a senior manager review. The outcome the resident is seeking will determine the most appropriate route. Apart from the compensation review, which will be decided within 10 working days, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage two of its complaints process within 20 working days. In addition, the policy explains as part of the stage two escalation, the resident can request to speak to the reviewing manager to explain their position. The call would also enable the manager to clarify any elements of the complaint.

The outstanding repairs at the start of the tenancy, in relation to the kitchen.

It is current practice for landlords to agree minor repairs with residents after the tenancy has commenced to ensure that residents are able to move into the property as soon as possible, making best use of housing stock and supporting residents into their new homes. The property was safe and met the required standards and was ready to let. The landlord was aware of the cosmetic issues with the kitchen cupboards.
The resident was invited to view the property ahead of all void’s works being completed. This is usual and standard practice, and it was reasonable to expect the landlord to follow its policy position.
The landlord provided the relevant certificates showing that the necessary checks had been carried out at the property and that it had been signed off ready to let. In addition, the landlord provided this Service with photos showing before and after void works took place in the property. This Service has seen evidence that the landlord carried out considerable work in the property to ensure that it could be let in a reasonable state of repair and is satisfied that the landlord met the lettable standard set out in its policy.
The landlord explained to the resident that the two kitchen cupboards would not be replaced as the defects highlighted were cosmetic, and any items beyond the state of repair would be considered for renewal. This was a reasonable response and in line with the landlord’s policy position.
As part of its response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord said it would ask if the peeling laminate could be replaced. This Service has not seen evidence that this request was ever actioned. As set out in the complaint handling Code, landlords should not promise anything that cannot be delivered. Consequently, the landlord should have completed the self- imposed action and in failing to do so failed in its service delivery.
This Service is satisfied that the landlord has shown that it complied with its relevant policies in respect of the condition of the kitchen cupboards at the start of the tenancy and finds no maladministration.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operates a two stage complaints process and states that it aims to resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity. It has shown that it responded to the resident’s stage one complaint within the timescale given.
In its stage one response the landlord failed to provide a full explanation as to why the kitchen units could not be repaired or replaced. Then on 2 November 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to check how he was settling in. The resident made the landlord aware that he had not moved into the property due to ongoing repairs issues. The Ombudsman would expect to see a proactive response from the landlord so early on in a resident’s tenancy, to ensure that they have the best chance of sustaining the tenancy. The warning markers around not having moved into the property and repairs issues should have directed the landlord to actively engage with the resident.
In addition, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s request for information on tenant’s groups. This was a missed opportunity and failed to fully respond to the resident and the resolution he was seeking.
The resident escalated his complaint and later contacted the landlord to explain that he wanted to discuss additional concerns. As set out in its own complaints policy, residents can request to speak to the reviewing officer in order to explain their position. The resident was told that he would receive a call from the investigating officer and therefore it was reasonable to him to expect that he would. However, the landlord failed to call the resident and issued its stage two response.
The response was brief and did not uphold the resident’s complaint. The landlord commented that it was aware that the resident had experienced an issue with the boiler but that it had been resolved.
The following day the resident submitted a further complaint about the condition of the property and a mouse infestation. From reading the evidence provided by the landlord, it is likely that the resident would have discussed these concerns with the reviewing officer had he been given the opportunity to do and as was suggested by the landlord.
Had the landlord followed its policy and contacted the resident as part of the stage two investigation, he would have had the opportunity to explain the other concerns and potentially avoid having to submit a second complaint. In addition, the landlord would have had an opportunity to resolve all issues at the earliest opportunity. However, the landlord failed to follow its policy and therefore failed in its service provision, which was of detriment to the resident who submitted a second complaint. This Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the resident’s reports ofoutstanding repairs at the start of the tenancy, in relation to the kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord followed its policy position regarding the kitchen units.
The landlord failed to follow its policy position, which resulted in the resident making a further complaint and consequently being denied the opportunity to have all the issues resolved as quickly as possible. It failed to respond fully to all of the concerns raised by the resident at the earliest opportunity.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings highlighted in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident £200 for the inconvenience caused to him.
Within six weeks of the date of this report, self-assess against the complaint handling Code, and in particular consider whether its three-option approach to responding at stage two complies with the Code, if not already done so.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within the timescales requested.

Recommendations

Contact the resident in respect of the complaint submitted on 19 November 2021 to find out which issues, if any, remain outstanding. Reconsider any outstanding issues and provide the resident with formal response.
If it hasn’t already done so, provide details to the resident of any resident involvement groups, as previously requested by the resident.