Southern Housing (202205648)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205648

Southern Housing Group Limited

23 February 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 concerns:

1. The landlord’s handling of reports of a fault to the communal front entrance door.
2. The related complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a shared owner leaseholder. The tenancy started on 19 March 2010. The property is a one bedroom flat on the second floor of a six-storey block.
3. The freehold of the building is held by a public limited company (property developer). An Estate Management agency manage the communal areas on their behalf.
4. The landlord holds the headlease and the resident holds the underlease.
5. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.

Scope of investigation

6. In her formal complaint dated 18 October 2021 the resident stated that issues with the communal front entrance door (FED) have been occurring since 2019. This review however will focus on reports made in regard to the FED since 22 February 2021 as this is 8 months prior to the resident raising a formal complaint with the landlord in relation to the FED which is within a reasonable timeframe. Any reference in this review to pre 2021 is for context only.

Summary of events

7. The landlord’s case complaint notes provide a chronology of reports and repair works in relation to the communal FED of the resident’s block. This shows a report was made on 22 February 2021 regarding the FED not engaging when the door was closed. The job notes refer to the door being open for non-residents and indicates that an appointment was made for its security contractor to attend on 24 February 2021.
8. The job note dated 25 February 2021 gave a description of the works carried out on this date. The engineer noted the door was found open, the reader was “flashing” and that the closer seemed “tampered” with, with the side covers broken and screws missing. The notes states there was an intermittent fault with the “pte,” and a replacement needed to be fitted.
9. The landlord’s repair records show an appointment was made for an engineer to attend on 11 March 2021 to fit a new part. The job notes of the same date state the part was fitted and that the door was tested and left “working ok”. 
10. The landlord’s records show that on 23 June 2021, the Home Services Manager (HSM) for the resident’s block reported that the FED was broken again. The landlord made an appointment for its security contractor to attend on 24 June 2021. There is no information in the landlord’s records to show the outcome of this visit.
11. The landlord’s records show that a further engineer appointment was made to attend the FED on 10 August 2021, who found that the door was rubbing on the cobble stones. The note stated: “ground down and tested and all ok, job complete”. A few days later the landlord received a further report that the issue persisted. The landlord’s repair records show it made an appointment for its manager to attend to survey the FED on 16 August 2021. The notes referred to sending an email to the managing agents to attend to lower the paving slabs. No further information is included in the record.
12. On 8 September 2021 and 4 October 2021, the resident sent emails to the Housing Services Manager (HSM) requesting updates on the broken FED.
13. On 18 October 2021, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord regarding the “constantly broken entrance door” that she said compromised the safety and security of the building. The resident said that the broken FED had been out of order for nearly 2 months (since August 2021). She said the lift had been used “as a public toilet” which made it unusable. She had reported the broken front door to the HSM on many occasions in the past 2 years however he had advised her to make a complaint. The resident said she had been “extremely patient” but now requested a refund of the service charge for this issue.
14. The resident contacted the landlord by phone on 15 November 2021 advising she had not received a response to her complaint. The landlord replied in writing on 16 November 2021 stating it had received her complaint and this had been recorded at stage 1 of its complaint’s procedure. It provided a summary of her complaint and the outcome sought. It said it would provide a response within 10 working days.
15. The landlord’s internal communications dated 17 November 2021 show the resident’s complaint was raised internally for investigation.
16. On 18 November 2021, the resident acknowledged the landlord’s communication and said it had now been nearly 4 months since the FED had been broken.
17. The landlord’s complaint case notes show it raised a job on 18 November 2021 for the security contractor to attend on 24 November 2021 to “ensure the main communal door was in good working order”. There is no record of the outcome of this visit. However, on 22 November 2021 the resident emailed the landlord advising that an operative had come to fix the entrance door that day, however the FED was now “constantly wide open”, as the overhead door closer seemed to be “on constant motion” and the door could not be closed. She explained that prior to the operative’s visit the entrance door at least could be closed behind with door magnet. She said she could hear “constant bangs” of the entrance door when resident’s were trying to close the door behind them to no avail.
18. The resident said the landlord had provided “an appalling service,” especially for “extremely high” service charge fees. She told the landlord that she would like this issue included in her complaint.
19. On 29 November 2021, the HSM sent a video of the door not closing to the landlord commenting it posed a security risk and that the door had broken at least 3 times that year. They said due to high footfall, something “more durable” was needed. On the same date the landlord emailed the resident advising it required an extension until 13 December 2021 for her stage 1 complaint. It advised it was awaiting internal feedback regarding her complaint concerning cleanliness of the car park (this complaint was not brought to the Ombudsman and so details have not been provided here).
20. The landlord’s security contractor attended on 30 November 2021 who reported: “found auto closer arm broken from track joint, removed and fitted new PUSH Arm, re-setup auto closer and fitted hard stop on top of closer and tested all ok”.
21. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 13 December 2021. Within its response, it said regarding the communal FED, this had a history of repairs dating back to February 2021. It stated at this time its contractor found that the main cover was missing screws, and the reset closer door was open when they arrived. A part was needed, and the door was left in working order. It said this job was completed on 11 March 2021. More recently in August 2021, a survey was completed on the door and subsequently the managing agent were contacted and request to attend and lower the paving slabs. The landlord said each time its security contractor had attended, the door has been fixed and left in good working order.
22. The landlord advised that upon raising her complaint it had asked for its security contractor to attend to assess the situation with the FED and report back any issues. It said they had not yet reported their findings but it had asked for this to be provided as an action plan for her complaint.
23. The landlord stated it was not able to confirm any service charge costs or deductions, as they were not investigated as part of the complaint’s procedure. It explained service charge actuals were collated at the end of each year and if needed to, she could dispute these costs outside of the complaint process.
24. It said if the resident was dissatisfied with its response, she could contact it within 20 days to request an escalation to stage 2 of its complaint process explaining the reasons for her dissatisfaction. The landlord told the resident this concluded stage 1 of its complaints process and her complaint would now be closed with an action plan to update her in 5 working days, regarding the outcome of its contractor’s assessment.
25. On 21 December 2021, the resident emailed the landlord telling it that the FED was still broken. She said it had not been fixed for 4 months, since August 2021 meaning non-residents could easily enter the building which created a safety issue. She said there may have been an attempt made earlier that month to fix it, but the door was still broken and not closing properly. The resident also said that the entrance glass door was broken which was a health and safety hazard and must be replaced immediately. She attached photos.
26. In her complaint, the resident said that she understood that from its response that it had closed her complaint which she did not agree with as the issue raised was still outstanding and no update had been provided. On this basis the resident said that she would like to escalate her complaint to “senior management.”
27. The landlord’s security contractor visited the block to inspect the FED on 21 December 2021. On 29 December 2021, the security contractor advised the landlord its engineer reported that the spindle for the auto closer had broken, they said the closer was old and parts all round were in poor condition, therefore, this would need to be renewed. It included a quote for works from the contractor for renewal of the auto opener/closer “with new sensors and signage.”
28. The resident emailed the landlord again on 11 January 2022 saying she was following up on her 21 December 2021 email. She asked that the landlord acknowledge or reply to her email as she did not want her complaint to “get ignored.” She also told the landlord that the FED was still broken and reiterated her concerns about safety and security.
29. The landlord’s internal communications dated 13 January 2022 stated the works to the door had been booked in for 25 January 2022.
30. The resident sent a chaser email on 17 January 2022 and also called the landlord.  The landlord’s call notes of the same date stated it provided an update to the resident on the repair to the door during the call. The resident reiterated that there was glass on the floor which was a hazard. The notes said the resident explained she was very unhappy with its response and the service received and wanted to speak to a senior manager. The notes stated the landlord explained the options to the resident and agreed to send her the leaflet regarding stage 2 of its complaints process. Comments in the landlord’s note state if the complaint went stage 2, there was no other internal escalation and that it felt the matter could be resolved.
31. The landlord’s case complaint note dated 18 January 2022 referred to having raised a job for its security contractor to replace the glass and its security contractor had confirmed this would be fitted on 21 January 2022.
32. On 20 January 2022, the landlord emailed the resident advising the glass was being fitted on 21 January 2022. It said a quote had also been approved for works to renew auto closer on the door, complete with new sensor and signage. It told the resident these works would be carried out on 25 January 2022.
33. Within this response, the landlord also provided an explanation in regard to the delay with providing her with a stage 1 response. It said when its service centre team received an online complaint form, they raise this with the appropriate teams. Her enquiry was accepted by the service centre on 19 October 2021 and marked as completed on 3 November 2021. The landlord explained that the notes suggested that a case was raised, and a request was sent to the HSM. It said this may be because it was about the service charge and the complaints team did not investigate service charges. As such despite her enquiry stating: ‘I would like to make a complaint,’ a complaint was not raised.
34. The landlord said it had fed this back to the service centre team managers, and it apologised for this service failure. Following their telephone conversation earlier that week, it had sent her information on stage 2 of its complaint process. Whilst it did not offer compensation for communal repairs, it had taken into account the service she had received from it and, as a goodwill gesture, it offered her £100 compensation. This had been calculated based on £50 for its email delays and £50 goodwill gesture for communal repair delays.
35. The resident raised a stage 2 complaint with the landlord on 26 January 2022 regarding her dissatisfaction about the way the issue and her complaint had been handled. The landlord acknowledged her complaint on 2 February 2022 and confirmed it had escalated this to stage 2 of its process and told her a response would be provided within 10 working days, by 10 February 2022.
36. On 24 February 2022, the landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response. Within its response it said the issue with the door was in relation to the door strut which was broken. When an initial repair failed, it required multiple visits to inspect the door, source the parts and then attend to undertake the installation.
37. The failure of the door strut was not because of a failure by the landlord to maintain it correctly but because of resident misuse. It had reviewed the CCTV footage from the foyer of the block and can see that often resident’s pushed the door open once they had pressed the automatic door release however, it had been unable to identify which specific incident has caused it to fail. Its CCTV was on a 30-day loop and therefore no footage was retained beyond the 30 day period, which was a legal requirement of GDPR.
38. The landlord said it had placed a notice up on the communal FED reminding resident’s of the need to ensure they do not push the door as this could damage the mechanism. Whilst it recognised the door itself was open and unsecure for a period between its failure and then repair, it did not consider the security of the building was significantly compromised. The landlord stated it had reviewed its records and there was no evidence that any antisocial behaviour occurred as a direct result of this. It said the building was protected by additional locked security gates at either end and only a select group of resident’s could access this area. It said it was also protected by CCTV. Therefore, whilst it recognised the inconvenience caused, the building remained relatively secure.
39. In relation to her request for a service charge refund, it was not able to offer this as there was no daily usage charge applied to her service charges for the use of the FED. It formed part of the building and the only charges applied are those for any yearly maintenance or inspections of for any day-to-day repairs it undertook, like the repairs recently undertaken by its contractors to repair the door. Furthermore, as the failure of the door strut was not because of a failure to adequately maintain it, the recharge for its repair would apply in full. In addition, the delay in the repair was due the need to manufacture a new strut which was beyond its reasonable control. Considering the above, the landlord stated it upheld the decision already made to offer £100 compensation as a gesture of goodwill.

Post the landlord’s final response.

40. The resident raised a new stage 1 complaint regarding outstanding repairs to the communal block and cleanliness of the lift and car park area to which the landlord provided a stage 1 response on 13 April 2022. The details have not been included here as this complaint did not exhaust the landlord’s complaints process.
41. The resident reported to the landlord that the FED was broken in August 2022.
42. As the headlease indicates that the developer is responsible for the common parts (although this does not specifically mention the FED), this Service sought clarification from the landlord as to whether the managing agent (on behalf of the develop) had responsibility for maintaining and repairing the FED or whether this responsibility was demised to the landlord. In its response dated 7 September 2023, the landlord only provided a screen shot of an email from the managing agents of the estate which stated: “we do have a maintenance contract in place for the door entry system….as this is deemed a shared service”.

The landlord’s policies and obligations.

43. The Headlease states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining, repairing, renewing, and cleaning the common parts of the block including lifts, alarms, gates, barriers, means of surveillance, fencing, lighting, video access and security services.
44. The Underlease, the landlord is responsible to maintain, repair, redecorate and renew the common parts of the building. This is echoed in the landlord’s repair and maintenance procedure (repairs policy).
45. The landlord’s repairs policy states that emergency repairs will be completed (or made safe) within 24 hours and that routine repairs will be completed as soon as possible.
46. The landlord’s complaints policy describes a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, its actions or lack of action, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or a group of residents.
47. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints procedure under which it is required to provide a stage one response, within 10 working days. Where a resident is dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint, they may request escalation to stage 2 of the process, following which, the landlord aims to respond within 20 working days. Its policy says if the resident wants to escalate their complaint, they will need to let it know the reasons within 20 working days.

Assessment and findings

Handling of reports of faults to the communal front entrance door. 

48. The landlord’s repair records show that during the 10 month timeframe prior to the resident’s formal complaint, the landlord received reports relating to the FED not closing properly on 22 February 2021, 23 June 2021, 10 August 2021 and 14 August 2021.
49. The first of these report was attended by the landlord’s security contractor within 2 days and resolved by 11 March 2021 once a new part had been sourced and fitted. Whilst the landlord’s repair policy does not include a timescale for responsive repairs, as the FED was inspected promptly and a repair completed within 3 weeks, on balance, the landlord’s response on this occasion was reasonable. When it next received a report that the FED was broken on 23 June 2021, the landlord promptly arranged for its security contractor to attend on 24 June 2021 to “overhaul” the FED. However, no details of the findings of this visit or of any action taken are included in its records. This is indicative of inadequate information sharing with its contractor and poor record keeping. The landlord did not give details of the outcome of this visit in its stage 1 response, this is likely to be because of its incomplete records held about this repair.
50. Further reports of a broken FED were reported in August 2021 and the landlord’s repair records show it arranged for an engineer to attend on 10 August 2021 who found the door was rubbing on cobble stones. Although this repair record states: “job complete,” a few days later, it received a report that the fault was persisting. This prompted the landlord to arrange for a manager to attend the site again on 16 August 2021 to carry out a survey on the door.
51. There are no details of the outcome of the survey in the repair record, although it references that an email was sent to the managing agents to lower the paving slabs. Whilst the resident chased the HSM for an update on the repair on 8 September 2021 and 4 October 2021, it is clear from the resident’s complaint raised on 18 October 2021, that the issue had not been resolved by this date as she said the FED was still not able to close properly. Although in its stage 1 response, the landlord referred to the survey and also said it contacted the managing agents to lower the slabs, it did not explain if this work was completed and neither has this Service seen any communication exchanges between the landlord and managing agents regarding the paving slabs or FED.  Again, this is indicative of poor data-keeping and also shows no steps were taken by the landlord during this timeframe to check with the managing agents if the work raised was completed and whether or not it had resolved the issue causing the issue with the door closing.  This is evidence of the service provided not reaching the expected standard.
52. Whilst in its stage 1 response the landlord advised the resident that it had asked its security contractor to attend, assess the situation and report back any issues, it is clear that the landlord only raised this job approximately 4 weeks after her stage 1 complaint once the resident contacted it on 15 November 2021 chasing the repair. This indicates a delay by the landlord in acting on the information in the resident’s complaint showing that it missed an opportunity to arrange for its contactor to attend and resolve the issue at an earlier stage. Despite a number of visits by its contractor over the next 2 months, the FED was not fixed until 25 January 2022 after it was identified the door strut was broken. In its final response the landlord explained the delay was due to one failed repair attempt and then because replacement parts needed to be sourced and then installed. Nonetheless, as the repair was provided more than 5 months after the FED was reported broken and 3 months after the resident highlighted to the landlord in her formal complaint that the repair to the FED remained outstanding, on balance, this demonstrates a failure by the landlord to investigate and address the problem within a reasonable timeframe.
53. The issue with the FED not closing was resolved by its security contractor by replacing the auto-closer and sensor (the entrance glass in the door was also replaced at this time as the resident reported this to be broken in late December 2021). This indicates this issue did not to relate to the problem diagnosed in August 2021 with the paving slab and suggests either the cause was misdiagnosed at that time or there were multiple elements affecting the functionality of the FED. It is not clear from the landlord’s repair records which of these scenarios applied. Furthermore, in its final response the landlord did not explain the delay between August 2021 up to when it arranged for its contractor to assess the FED on 22 November 2021. The landlord’s inability to explain the full length of the delay was likely due to the unclear and partial data in its repair records indicating inadequate information sharing with its contractor and managing agent whilst handling this repair.
54. Throughout the timeframe reviewed, there were a lack of updates provided to the resident in respect of the progress of the repair. In its stage 1 response the landlord promised, within 5 working days, to provide details as to the outcome of its contractor’s latest visit however there is no evidence of it doing this. The resident contacted the landlord on 21 December 2021 and again on 11 January 2022 advising the repair remained outstanding and she was concerned the issue was being ignored. Whilst the landlord’s internal communications and records show it was progressing the repair during this timeframe, there is no evidence to show the landlord provided any update until after the resident contacted it again by phone and email on 17 January 2022. This demonstrates poor communication on the part of the landlord.
55. In both her formal complaint and subsequent communications to the landlord the resident raised concerns about the security of the building being compromised and about antisocial behaviour in the common parts of property building that she attributed to the FED being broken. The landlord did not respond to this aspect of her complaint or investigate this at stage 1 of its complaints process. The landlord did respond to this concern in its stage 2 response and explained the estate was protected by additional locked security gates at either end and therefore said the building was “relatively secure” as only a select group of resident’s could access this area. However, the landlord’s manner when responding to this issue was very dismissive. On balance, the delay by the landlord in addressing her concerns and also the unempathetic tone of its response to her concerns about security and ASB, demonstrates it was unwilling to take this aspect of her complaint seriously. Due to the extended delay with providing a repair to the FED, it was reasonable to expect the landlord to have considered what action it could take in the meantime to address the concerns raised about increased ASB as a result of the open FED. However, there is no evidence of it doing this.
56. In its final response the landlord attributed the cause of the broken FED to residents’ misuse, however, the feedback from its security contractor dated 29 December 2021 does not support this as it refers to the closer being old and parts in a poor condition. However, regardless of the cause of fault, this would not remove the landlord’s responsibility to address the fault with the FED or excuse the unreasonable delay taken to resolve this issue. Furthermore, the repeated problems with the FED may indicate an underlying issue with the durability of the FED. Accordingly, a recommendation has been included below for the landlord to consider reviewing the performance of the FED to the resident’s block.
57. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it was unable to offer a service charge refund in respect to the faulty FED as it explained that the service charge actuals were collated at the end of each year after which she could dispute these via a different process if she needed to. It provided a further reasons as to why it could not provide a refund in its stage 2 response, therefore, having clearly explained its position in relation to her request, the landlord acted reasonably. However, in view of the number of failings identified in this review including record keeping, the compensation offered by the landlord of £100 is insufficient as it does not recognise the extent of the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
58. Although the landlord recently provided the Ombudsman with an email from the managing agents which may indicate they have responsibility for the repair and maintenance of the FED, this is unclear. Particularly given that throughout 2021 and during the complaints process, the landlord raised jobs with its security contractor to address the faults reported with the FED. At no point was the resident signposted to the managing agent regarding repairs to the FED. This indicates that responsibility for the FED under the headlease was demised (from the developer) to the landlord. However, due to the conflicting evidence, an order  has been included below for the landlord to review if responsibility for the FED is demised to it or not under the headlease.

Complaint handling

59. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 18 October 2021 and the landlord provided a stage 1 response on 13 December 2021. This indicates a failure by the landlord to comply with the timescales in its complaint policy. The main reason was because the landlord failed to log the complaint until 16 November 2021 which it only did after the resident contacted it again on 15 November 2021 to query the lack of a response received. It did not acknowledge or explain this delay in its stage 1 response however, it later told the resident that it was likely her complaint was not logged because it was about the service charges which its complaints team do not deal with.
60. Whilst the landlord’s complaint policy says there are some issues which it will not deal with as a complaint including enquiries about service charges, it is clear the resident’s stage 1 complaint was not a service charge enquiry. She specifically stated that she wished to raise a complaint about the constantly broken FED. As such the landlord misconstrued the resident’s complaint and its failure to log this when received, is clear evidence of the landlord obstructing the resident’s access to its complaint’s procedure.
61. When the resident then emailed the landlord asking to escalate her complaint “to a senior manager,” it did not log this request as a stage 2 complaint or respond to her email. The landlord also failed to respond to her subsequent communication sent 2 or 3 weeks later asking why it had not responded to her request. When the resident next contacted the landlord a week later, again it did not log her stage 2 complaint but provided her with information about stage 2 of its process. Therefore, the landlord’s repeated failure to escalate her complaint to stage 2 is evidence of it hindering the resident’s ability to progress her complaint through its complaint’s procedure. This is highly inappropriate and contrary to its own complaints process.
62. On 20 January 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident addressing some of the further issues raised and offering £100 in compensation to resolve her complaint. Whilst this shows the landlord made some effort to resolve the complaint, its response was not labelled a stage 2 complaint response and comments in the landlord’s notes indicate this response was sent, to some extent, to deter the resident from escalating the complaint to stage 2. The landlord in effect added a stage to its complaints process which was unacceptable. It is reasonable to conclude this would have confused the resident as well as cause stress and inconvenience.
63. In summary the landlord’s failure to log and progress the resident’s complaints through its complaints process within the appropriate timescales thwarted the resident’s access to its process and constitutes a substantial failing. This led to the resident having to spend a considerable amount of time in contact with the landlord chasing it for a response to her complaints and ultimately prolonged the complaints process.
64. The landlord recognised during the complaints process that its failure to log her stage 1 complaint within the timescale stated in its policy was a failing and it apologised for this. However, given the number of complaint handling failings identified, its apology and above mentioned offer of £100 fell significantly short of reflecting the extent of the failings and level of detriment caused to the resident as a result.

Determination (decision)

65. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports of faults to the communal front entrance door. 
66. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling the resident’s related complaint.

Reasons

67. A fault with the FED to the resident’s building which made it less secure was not fixed for more than 5 months indicating an unreasonable delay by the landlord in addressing this issue. The landlord failed to provide regular updates or when promised during this timeframe demonstrating poor communication by the landlord. 
68. It failed to respond to the resident’s complaints within the timescales in its complaints policy and only logged her stage 1 complaint and escalated her stage 2 complaint after chasers from the resident. Overall, its actions hindered the progression of the resident’s complaint through its complaints process.

Orders and recommendations

69. The Ombudsman orders that the landlord:

1. Pays the resident further compensation of £650 (£750 including the £100 offered in the complaint process) comprising:

1. £300 for service failures, including record-keeping, whilst handling her reports of a faulty FED (£400.00 in total).
2. £350 for complaint handling failures.

2. Reviews if responsibility for the FED is demised to it under the headlease. If it is, undertake a review of the performance of the FED to the resident’s block or if not, raise this issue with the managing agent.
3. Provides us with a timeline for providing staff training on complaint handling, including when to log a stage 1 and 2 complaint.
4. If not already done so, the landlord is to consider the findings of the Ombudsman’s spotlight report Knowledge and Information Management and self-assess against these findings and provide this Service with the outcome of its findings and any actions it proposes to taken. 
5. Complies with the above orders within 4 weeks.

70. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:

1. Complete the review of repair policy the landlord has already told the Ombudsman it is in the process of undertaking with a view to including timescales for all repairs.