Southern Housing (202221957)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221957

Southern Housing Group Limited

9 July 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Reports of water ingress into the resident’s property.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a 1-bedroom ground-floor flat.
  2. The resident has told the landlord she is disabled and suffers from long-term mental health conditions.
  3. The resident told the landlord, following a storm, that she was concerned about damage and a loss of tiles to the roof of the property. The landlord acknowledged this report and said it would pass this over to its repairs team. The resident reported water ingress through the ceiling of her property on 7 April 2022. She said that water had been coming from the light fixtures and smoke alarm, creating a brown stain on her ceiling. The landlord attended on the same day to make safe the electrics but did not complete any follow up works. On 1 November 2022, the resident again reported water ingress from the same location. The landlord attended on 4 November 2022 in order to perform an inspection and make safe the electrics.
  4. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 4 November 2022. She was unhappy that the landlord had not completed any works following the April water ingress and that this had now reoccurred. She said she wanted the landlord to inspect the roof from the outside immediately and plan for any remedial action.
  5. Following delays due to weather conditions, the landlord installed scaffolding and began work on repairing the roof at the end of November 2022. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint on 9 December 2022. It upheld her complaint, apologising for its service failures. It offered her a total of £353.52 compensation, consisting of £293.52 for the loss of her living room, £60 for failures to complete the repair and £15 for failing to follow its processes. The landlord said it had also completed works relating to temporary lighting for the resident and was raising a work order for repairs to the resident’s ceilings. It said this whilst this was still ongoing, it would be monitoring the repairs on a weekly basis. The landlord completed the external works to the roof in December 2022.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process on 2 January 2023. She was unhappy that e-mails sent about her complaint had been ignored as well as the landlord not sending her hard copies of important documents in the post. She was dissatisfied that no appointment had been made to look at the internal damage or inspect the damage to the loft. She was unsure of exactly what works the landlord needed to perform to the ceiling and sought clarification about this.
  7. The landlord arranged a complaint review panel to consider her complaint on 2 February 2023. It then sent its stage 2 complaint response on 3 March 2023. It apologised for its delay in providing its response. It also reiterated its apology for its service failures, offering her an additional £450 compensation for disruption and inconvenience and £30 for heating costs for when she had to dry the property following the water ingress. It also offered a decoration pack as a gesture of goodwill to help with the mould and discolouration on the ceiling. It asked to arrange a meeting to address the impact its action had on the resident as a disabled tenant as well as offering confirmation that it would be in contact with a proposal to complete the internal works by 9 March 2023.
  8. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 27 March 2023, advising that she had received the landlord’s response to her complaint but remained unhappy. She said the landlord had failed to provide the proposal for repairs it had promised her as part of its stage 2 response. In a conversation in December 2023, the resident told this Service that the internal repairs remained outstanding and that she was uncertain about how the landlord was going to rectify the issue – stating two different contractors had told her different things. She reiterated that she remained how unhappy she had been treated as a disabled person.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress into the property

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will attend to emergency repairs within 6 hours of the issue being reported. It includes dealing with storm damage to the structure of the home as a repair which would qualify as an emergency. The repair policy does not have a timescale for dealing with any follow-up repairs however it says it aims to take as little time as possible.
  2. The landlord consistently failed to take the necessary actions to rectify faults when it was put on notice about these repairs. It took no action following a February 2022 report about the condition of the roof, nor did it complete the necessary follow-up works in April 2022 following the first instance of water ingress into the resident’s property. This appears to have been caused by the landlord’s failure to communicate properly between departments as, despite acknowledging the resident’s reports, there is no evidence this was passed to the correct department and no roofing work orders were raised prior to the further leak in November 2022.
  3. The landlord did attend to the April 2022 water ingress in a reasonable period of time. Although the landlord’s policy says this will be within 6 hours, it appears that the contractors attended slightly after this. Nevertheless, this was within 24 hours. The resident said that, after speaking to the contractor, they mentioned they could have come sooner given the severity. However, there is no evidence that the landlord unnecessarily delayed sending an operative out to this job. The Ombudsman in this instance cannot see evidence of service fault in the ‘make safe’ work by the landlord.
  4. Nevertheless, the landlord’s communication with the resident, throughout the complaint, was poor. The landlord did not provide correspondence to follow-up on either the February 2022 or April 2022 reports. As part of its December 2022 complaint response, it said it would be monitoring the outstanding works on a weekly basis. However, there is no evidence that the landlord did not provide the resident with any written or formal updates about the progression of works. The resident was forced to chase the landlord for any updates. The landlord in this instance should have provided the resident with regular updates about the work, considering it had already admitted service failure in its handling of the leak.
  5. The landlord was informed by the resident and by her support worker that she was disabled. This occurred as early as February 2022. The landlord at this time had nothing noted on its system for any vulnerabilities that she may have. The landlord failed to act upon these reports until it sent its stage 2 complaint response, when it requested a meeting with the resident to discuss this. The landlord’s failure to record the resident’s vulnerabilities effectively meant that, when dealing with the leak reports and the associated complaint, it failed to accurately consider the effect of the ingress on her. The failure to consider or investigate her vulnerabilities after receiving reports of these represented a failure in service by the landlord when handling these reports.
  6. The landlord committed, as part of its stage 2 complaint response, to provide the resident with a new proposal for completing the outstanding internal works by 9 March 2023. The resident still has not received this and the works remain outstanding. There has been mention of the resident not allowing access, a fact which she disputes, saying she is simply unsure what actions contractors are going to take due to conflicting information. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities and what the landlord has noted about these, it should have clearly outlined the works it intended to do. It should then have fulfilled these in a reasonable timeframe. Its failures to communicate with the resident fairly, considering her vulnerabilities, and to provide the proposal for completing the outstanding works represent maladministration. It is now over 2 years since the resident first reported ingress and the damage caused by this has still not been rectified by the landlord.
  7. The landlord offered the resident a decoration voucher in order to combat the water marks and mould that occurred following the leak. Whilst the landlord has an obligation to complete repairs, it should also make good any damage to decorations as a result of the repair work. This applies both to damage that occurs because the landlord fails to comply with a repairing obligation and to damage which occurs as a result of the repairing work. Given this damage to the paintwork was caused by the landlord’s service failure, it should complete this work as part of the overall internal works it will be carrying out in the resident’s property.
  8. As part of its complaint responses, the landlord offered the resident £852.52 (which was an incorrectly calculated total), consisting of £293.52 for the loss of use of the living room, £60 for failures to complete the repair, £15 for failing to follow its processes, £30 for heating costs and £450 for disruption and inconvenience. This amount would have been considered fair by the Ombudsman but the resident failed to respond in a reasonable period of time when informed about the resident’s vulnerabilities and did not provide the resident with the proposal for completing the internal works that it committed to as part of its stage 2 complaint response. This meant that the landlord did not put things right or learn from outcomes in accordance with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.
  9. For the above failings, the landlord should pay the resident £1,250 compensation. This is inclusive of its previous offer of £852.52. The landlord should also arrange for someone to visit the resident’s property to survey the ceiling and assess what works remain outstanding, including any necessary work to repair decorative damage. If mould remains from the water ingress, the landlord should also detail how it intends to rectify this. The landlord should then fulfil its commitment to provide the resident with a new proposal for completing the internal works, including planned timescales.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy has 2 stages. At stage 1, the landlord aims to provide a written response to the complaint in 10 working days. At stage 2, the landlord reviews the complaints with a panel. It aims to complete the panel review within 30 days. It then says it will aim to provide its complaint response within 10 working days of the panel meeting.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code requires a 2 stage complaints policy with responses provided in 10 working days at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2.
  3. At stage 1, the landlord received the complaint on 4 November 2022, providing its response on 9 December 2022. This was 25 working days after receiving the complaint so outside of the timescales specified in its policy.
  4. At stage 2 of the complaints process, it took the landlord 43 working days to provide its complaint response. Whilst it organised and undertook its panel review within the 30 days specified in its policy, it failed to provide its written response to the resident until over a month later – rather than the 10 days it commits to as part of its policy.
  5. The landlord did write to the resident on 2 occasions to inform her that its responses would be delayed. Given the extent of the delay, and that delays occurred at both stages of the complaints process, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer the resident compensation for its service failure.
  6. The resident mentioned in her correspondence with the landlord that she was unhappy with the timeframe given for escalating her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process, feeling that it should have given her additional time to produce evidence. The landlord’s complaint policy at this time gave residents 10 working days to escalate their complaints. In this instance, the landlord did communicate with her, advising that it would allow her additional time if necessary. The landlord’s actions in this instance were fair and allowing the resident flexibility represented good practice.
  7. The landlord also acknowledged that several e-mails from the resident about her complaint went unanswered due to a member of staff no longer being part of the complaints process. The Ombudsman has not seen the content of these e-mails. Nonetheless, it is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure it communicates fairly with the resident, including providing her with the correct contact details whilst her complaint is ongoing. The failure to inform the resident that this member of staff was no longer in the complaints department led to additional distress and inconvenience for the resident due to feeling the landlord was not acknowledging her concerns. This represented service failure from the landlord.
  8. The landlord’s failures in service when dealing with the resident’s complaint represented maladministration. For this failing, the landlord should pay the resident £150 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends figures in this range where the landlord has acknowledged failings but failed to address the detriment to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of water ingress in the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. It is ordered that, without 4 weeks of the date of this letter, the landlord:
    1. Pay the resident £1,400 compensation consisting of £1,250 for its failures in dealing with the water ingress, and £150 for its failures in handling the associated complaint. This is inclusive of the landlord’s previous offers of compensation.
    2. Survey the resident’s ceiling and any internal works that remain outstanding following the water ingress. The landlord should then, within 2 weeks of this survey, provide the resident with a written proposal for completing the works, inclusive of timescales, confirmation of the method of works and a point of contact during the works.
    3. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    4. Provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has done so.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider asking resident who make complaints how they would like to receive information about their complaint and if they require hard copies for their own records.