Southern Housing (202224917)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224917

Southern Housing Group Limited

21 June 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of several repairs.
This investigation also considers the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. He has lived in the property, a 3-bed house, since September 2014. The resident lives with his wife and adult child.
The resident’s housing application provided by the landlord states that the resident’s wife and adult child have learning difficulties and that the resident and his wife have mobility and mental health issues.
On 6 June 2022 the resident made a stage 1 complaint. He raised concerns regarding repairs in the property which he said he had reported several times:
1. The front door and back patio doors – these were fitted poorly by the developer and the resident had been complaining about them since he moved in. The doors were replaced by the landlord but were “not installed correctly”. They did not open and close properly, there was a “considerable draught”, and mould was forming in the corners of the patio doors.
2. Bedroom windows – the windows in the bedrooms were also poorly fitted by the developer. The windows dropped when opened and it was cold and draughty which was affecting the family’s health as they had asthma. The plasterboard around the windows was wet and mouldy.
3. Gutters and down pipes – the gutters had been cleared many times due to debris from nesting pigeons but was a recurring issue. The gutters and downpipes were poorly fitted resulting in the external walls being wet.
4. Front fascia – the cladding was “bending” away from the fixings and was covered in “green algae” which would not come off.
5. Kitchen worktop and cupboards – the worktop was replaced by the landlord but poorly installed. It was not heatproof and when a hot pan was placed on it, it had “exploded”. There was also too much “overhang” around the edge of the worktop which meant they had to bend to see the oven controls. The cupboard and drawer fronts were “bubbling”
6. Downstairs WC – the flush was inadequate and the toilet had to be flushed several times to be effective. The toilet seat kept coming off and the landlord had refused to provide a more “robust” one.
7. Heating system and water pressure – this was inadequate. The hot water went hot and cold when in use. Using more than one tap at once in the property caused the water pressure to drop considerably.
8. Carpark lighting – he had asked for lighting to be installed in the carpark as he kept hitting the kerb when parking.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 8 June 2022. It stated that it was “considerably busier than usual” but would provide a response or request an extension of the complaint response timeframe within 10 working days.
On 20 June 2022 the landlord emailed the resident and said it needed to extend the complaint response timeframe as it had “not received sufficient information from the contractor”. It said it would provide a response within 10 working days.
The landlord contacted the resident on 5 July 2022 and 20 July 2022 and said it was still liaising with its contractors and needed a further 10 working days to provide its response.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 16 February 2023. It said:
1. The front and back doors were fitted and operating correctly.
2. There was no fault or defect with the bedroom windows. Condensation was forming on the windows on colder nights – this was normal.
3. The gutters were blocked due to debris from pigeon nests on the neighbour’s roof. It had contacted the neighbour to ask them to bird-proof the solar panels where they were nesting.
4. It would “only provide a reactive service” as it was not responsible for repairs to the neighbouring property.
5. The cladding on the property was not “curling”. It was made of cement fibre which could not do this.
6. The damage to the kitchen worktop was caused by the resident and a recharge would apply if he wanted this to be replaced by the landlord.
7. The boiler and heating system were working properly and would not be changed.
8. The complaint was partially upheld due to the “lack of communication” during the complaint investigation and time taken to provide a stage 1 response.
9. It offered £100 compensation.
On 20 February 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its complaint process. He said that he felt the stage 1 response was inadequate and was reliant on “misleading” information from its surveyor and the contractor. He maintained that the issues he had reported were still ongoing.
On 27 February 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident to acknowledge his stage 2 complaint.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 18 April 2023. It said:
1. There was no evidence within its repair logs of the resident reporting the issues recently.
2. The logs showed he had reported the blocked guttering, issues with the bedroom windows, and downstairs WC flush in 2021.
3. The logs also showed he had reported issues with the boiler, front and back doors, and downpipes in 2022.
4. The repair history showed some of the repairs mentioned in the complaint but they were not reported within the last 6 months.
5. It was unable to investigate service failures where the repairs had not been reported within the last year.
6. It partially upheld the complaint.
7. There were complaint handling delays and actions were not followed up from surveyor inspections.
8. It offered a further £100 compensation in addition to that offered at stage 1. This brought the total compensation offered to £200.
9. It provided the following repairs target completion dates:

a. Heating contractor inspecting heating system – 19 April 2023.

b. WC repairs – 15 May 2023.

c. Surveyor inspection of doors, windows and condensation issues – 28 April 2023.

d. Guttering to be cleared – 15 May 2023.

The resident escalated his complaint to this Service on 23 November 2023 as he remained dissatisfied as he said the repair issues had not been resolved. He stated that when he contacted the landlord for repair updates, he was told none were outstanding. He was concerned that repair logs may have been deleted.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

It is acknowledged that the resident states that he has been reporting repair issues to the landlord since moving into the property in 2014. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise issues with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
In this case the resident has referred in his complaint to several repairs issues. The evidence demonstrates that some of the repair issues were not raised with the landlord within a reasonable timeframe of the complaint. We have not therefore considered the landlord’s handling of the following issues as we have not seen evidence that the repairs were reported by the resident within a reasonable timeframe of his complaint:

a. Front fascia.

b. Kitchen worktop and cupboards.

c. Downstairs WC.

d. Bedroom windows.

This Service notes the resident’s concerns that the landlord may have either failed to record or deleted some of his repair reports. This Service has not seen any evidence to support this statement and have therefore not addressed this within the assessment.
It is noted that within his stage 1 complaint the resident requested that the landlord install lighting in the carpark. While it is acknowledged that the resident states that he had requested this prior to his complaint, we have not seen evidence to support this. Therefore, we have not considered the landlord’s prior handling of this issue but have considered its response to the request within our assessment of its complaint handling.

Handling of the resident’s reports of several repairs

The landlord is obliged under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to maintain the structure and exterior of the premises.
The landlord’s repair policy states that it will complete repairs within the following timeframes:
1. Emergency repairs (where there is an immediate risk to safety, security or health) – repair or make safe within 24 hours.
2. Routine repairs and communal repairs – “as quickly as possible” and at a time that suits the resident.
On 14 July 2022 the resident telephoned the landlord and said a surveyor had arranged to visit him that morning to inspect the property but had not attended.
The landlord’s repair records do not show an appointment for an inspection on this date. Several repairs were raised for the property however the following day which indicates that an inspection did take place but that no record was kept or provided to this Service. This is not demonstrative of good record keeping.
On 20 July 2022 landlord’s surveyor made the following comments on the issues raised by the resident:
1. The front door and frame were fitted correctly. When the landlord had attended a “very slight adjustment” was required. The door was operating correctly and “no further adjustments [were] justified”.
2. The back patio doors were working well. A minor adjustment was made but the doors were operating correctly prior to this.
3. There were no faults or defects noted with the windows. The mould was caused by condensation on winter nights, the resident was given advice to wipe the windows dry each morning.
4. The boiler was working as intended and would not be changed.
5. The kitchen worktop was damaged by the resident. If he wanted this replacing he would be recharged for this work.
6. The “bubbling” of the cupboards had been addressed in the surveyor’s last letter to the resident.
7. The gutters were blocked due to pigeons nesting on the neighbour’s roof. The landlord would respond to any calls to clear the gutters.
8. A repair had been raised to waterproof the back wall.
9. The landlord has answered all queries from the resident and the surveyor was “not prepared to instruct contractors to complete any further works to the property or answer these concerns again”.
The surveyor referred in their comments to a previous letter sent to the resident on the matter. We have not seen evidence of this letter and as it concerns matters relating to this complaint, we would have expected the landlord to provide this.
Internal landlord emails of 8 March 2023 stated that its ‘Ombudsman Panel’ had found “extensive service failures attributed to [its]…contractors who had attended [the] property”.
Despite this Service specifically requesting further information regarding the landlord’s Ombudsman panel the landlord has not provided a satisfactory explanation of what the panel is or its involvement in this case. It has stated that the “extensive” failures identified by the panel were “contractor failures” as they had attended repairs to both the front and back doors “multiple times since 2021” without resolving the issues.
It is noted that the landlord refers to the failings as being that of the contractor. This Service considers that the resident’s relationship is with the landlord and that the contractor was carrying out work on its behalf. It was therefore the landlord’s responsibility to monitor and manage the performance of its contractor. Contracting out certain jobs does not absolve the landlord of its repair obligations and it should reasonably ensure that works are completed in a timely manner and to a high standard. That it failed to identify performance issues dating back to 2021 for 2 years was a failing.
It is of concern that the “multiple” attendances by the contractors are not reflected in the landlord’s repair records. This in indicative of record keeping issues. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records so it can satisfy itself, the resident (and ultimately the Ombudsman) that it took all reasonable steps to meet its repair obligations.
The landlord is currently undergoing an investigation under paragraph 49 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. This will consider the landlord’s policies and practices and any recommendations made will be monitored by our insight and development team. Therefore a further order has not been made regarding this issue.
On 25 March 2023 the landlord emailed the resident and confirmed that it had raised the following works to the property:
1. New composite door to be fitted.
2. Overhaul back doors.
3. Investigate coldness.
4. Foam insulation to be installed around the windows and walls to be boarded.
5. Guttering to be removed and re-fitted.
That the landlord raised these repairs shortly after the mention in internal emails of its Ombudsman panel suggests that failings had indeed been identified. It is therefore of concern that we have not been provided with evidence of the findings of the landlord’s internal review.
It is unclear why the landlord did not identify these repairs during its prior attendances at the property in 2022. These were the same issues raised by the resident and only 8 months had passed since it stated that there were no issues with the condition of these components. The sequence of events does suggest there was a failing on the landlord’s part. This subsequently caused delays resolving the repairs and unnecessary time and trouble to the resident.
The resident reports that the repairs are not yet complete. The landlord has advised that its contractor has attended and that the works will be completed by 22 June 2024. That the repairs identified as required by the landlord remain outstanding 15 months later is unreasonable.
The landlord delayed in addressing the repairs reported by the resident between June 2022 and the date of this report. This was a protracted delay of 2 years. During this time the resident’s enjoyment of the property was reduced.
The resident has paid approximately £639 per month (taking account some annual incremental increases) in rental payments during the period of the landlord’s maladministration, which the Ombudsman reasonably considers to have started in June 2022. The Ombudsman considers that, in the circumstances, it is appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation in recognition of the amount of time that the resident’s occupation of the living room has been affected by outstanding repairs – 24 months. Taking into account the rent paid by the resident over the period, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate for the landlord to pay £1,533 compensation. This figure has been calculated as approximately 10% of the total rent during the period in question. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all the circumstances into account. The Ombudsman will award additional compensation in recognition of other failings it has identified, and for distress and inconvenience.
The landlord delayed in identifying the repairs required to the property despite the resident detailing the issues in his complaint. It has referenced “extensive service failures” but has not provided this Service with further evidence in relation to this. While it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its own failings, we should reasonably have been provided with all evidence relating to the complaint so that it could be considered objectively. Nevertheless, it is evident that the resident continued to experience repair issues for a period of 2 years following his complaint and this reduced his enjoyment of the property. Therefore there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of several repairs.

Complaint handling.

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It states it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and provide a response within 10 working days. It states it will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 20 working days.
The policy says the landlord may extend the complaint timeframe if it is not possible to respond in accordance with the policy. It states that if it does so it will contact the resident and explain why it is unable to provide a response and when it will do so. The extended timeframe will not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason.
The complaints policy sets out several issues which it will not consider as complaints but states that the list is not exhaustive.
The policy states that in order to escalate a complaint to stage 2 of its process a resident must set out the reasons they are unhappy. The reason must fit into one of the following categories:
1. The complaint was not fully investigated.
2. The landlord did not follow its policies and procedures.
3. An aspect of the complaint was not addressed.
It is noted that in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) we would expect the landlord to escalate the complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. We do not therefore consider that a resident should have to prove that their escalation request fits within one of the categories outlined in the landlord’s policy to be progressed. Rather the landlord should reasonably consider the merits of each escalation request it receives. In doing so, it may consider whether there are reasonable grounds for it not to escalate the complaint. However, it should exercise care and ensure that it is being fair and consistent when making such decisions.
Under powers introduced by the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 compliance with the Code is now statutory and all member landlord’s will be completing a self-assessment against the Code. For this reason no additional order has been made for the landlord to consider this part of its policy as this will be examined under the duty to monitor.
The resident made his stage 1 complaint on 6 June 2022. While the landlord initially acknowledged his complaint within the timeframes outlined in the Code and its own policy it then extended its response timeframe on 3 occasions and failed to provide a response until February 2023, 8 months later.
In each of its extensions of the complaint timeframe the landlord stated that it was waiting for information from its contractor. This Service has not however seen any evidence that the landlord was actively pursuing this information.
On 16 October 2022 the resident asked the landlord to raise a further complaint regarding the same issues. The landlord’s internal communications demonstrate that it was not until this time that it noted that the previous complaint was still open and required a response. This Service would reasonably expect the landlord to proactively monitor complaints at all stages so that they could not become ‘lost’ in the system.
As previously explained, the landlord is currently undergoing an investigation under paragraph 49 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The outcome of the investigation will be published via a special report, and any recommendations made following the investigation will be monitored by our insight and development team. Therefore a further order has not been made regarding this issue. However, it is expected that the landlord also gives consideration to this case when applying the learning and recommendations from our special report.
The resident contacted the landlord on 28 October 2022 asking for an update on his complaint. He called again on 3 occasions between 4 November 2022 and 16 January 2023 asking for an update. We have not seen evidence that he received a response to these requests. That the resident had to invest such time and trouble and still did not receive a reasonable response clearly exacerbated his distress and was a further failing.
The resident contacted this Service on 31 January 2023 and said his landlord had not responded to his stage 1 complaint. We wrote to the landlord and advised it to provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 16 February 2023. This was outside the timeframe given by this Service.
It took the landlord more than 8 months, a further complaint, and the intervention of this Service to provide a response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. This was wholly unacceptable and delayed the resident’s access to this Service by an unreasonable period.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response failed to address all the issues raised in the complaint. It made no mention of the issues with the downstairs WC or the resident’s request for lighting to be installed in the carpark. While it is accepted that the carpark lighting had not been requested previously so could reasonably have been handled as a service request, we would still expect the landlord to explain this within its response. That the landlord failed to address all issues of complaint was unreasonable.
The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for its “lack of communication” and time taken to provide the response. It did not however acknowledge the full extent of the complaint handling delays or the impact that the delays had on the resident. This was unreasonable and the compensation offered was not proportionate to the failing.
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 20 February 2023. The landlord acknowledged the escalation within the timeframe outlined in its policy. The response was due by 20 March 2023.
On 28 March 2023 the resident contacted this Service as he had not yet received a stage 2 response from the landlord. We wrote to the landlord and advised it to provide a response by 4 April 2023.
The landlord emailed the resident on 14 April 2023 and apologised for the delay in contacting him about his stage 2 complaint and on 18 April 2023 provided its response. This was outside of the timeframe given by this Service, the landlord’s own policy and the Code. This was another failing.
While the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response did address the issues with the downstairs WC it still failed to address the resident’s request for carpark lighting. It therefore did not consider all aspects of the complaint.
The landlord provided the resident with evidence from its repair logs that he had not recently reported the repairs raised in his complaint. It stated that, in line with its policy, it would not investigate repairs that had not been reported within the last year.
It is noted that the landlord’s complaints policy does not state that it will not investigate issues not reported within a year. This Service accepts that the policy does not provide an exhaustive list of all issues it will not consider but it would be reasonable for the circumstances in which a complaint may be time-barred to be made clear.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord increased its offer of compensation to a total of £200. It also acknowledged that there had been delays in its complaint handling and that actions identified during surveyor’s inspections were not followed up.
This Service does not consider that the compensation offered by the landlord was proportionate to the time and trouble invested by the resident and the distress and inconvenience he experienced over a prolonged period.
Overall the landlord’s complaint handling was unreasonably slow and was not compliant with the landlord’s own policy or the Code. Following the resident’s stage 1 complaint the case was ‘lost’ in the system indicating that there are issues with the landlord’s monitoring of complaints. The landlord failed to address all of the issues raised by the resident in his complaint and did not provide proportionate compensations for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident. Therefore there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of several repairs required to the property.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report a senior officer of the landlord to apologise to the resident in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to pay the resident £1,933 compensation comprising:
1. £1,533 for reduced enjoyment in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of several repairs required to the property.
2. £400 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to demonstrate that the following works have been satisfactorily completed:
1. New composite door to be fitted.
2. Overhaul back doors.
3. Investigate coldness.
4. Foam insulation to be installed around the windows and walls to be boarded.
5. Guttering to be removed and re-fitted.