Southern Housing (202301251)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301251

Southern Housing Group Limited

23 September 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 is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of a leak into the property which led to his bedroom ceiling collapsing.
    2. The remedial works to the bedroom ceiling, including the quality of the work.
    3. The associated complaints.

Background

  1. The property is a 3-bedroom maisonette and the resident had an assured tenancy. The resident confirmed to this Service that he had permanently moved out of the property on 8 July 2024 as part of a mutual exchange.
  2. The landlord has advised this Service that it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  3. The tenancy agreement states:
    1. The landlord will “keep the structure and outside of the property in a reasonable state of repair and proper working order. This includes…outside pipes and the roof, inside walls, plastering (aside from minor cracking), floors, ceilings…”.
    2. The landlord will “carry out any repair work that is our responsibility within a reasonable time of receiving your report and to a reasonable standard”.

 

 

Summary of events

  1. The landlord’s records show that it raised an order on 21 September 2021 to investigate a leak affecting the main bedroom ceiling. The landlord’s notes state that the order was cancelled as the operative was sick. The landlord stated that it had attempted to phone the resident but there was no answer and no option to leave a message.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 October 2021 to report that the leak was affecting his bedroom ceiling. The landlord therefore raised a repair order and booked an appointment to attend the property on 11 October 2021 to investigate the leak. The landlord’s records state that it attended but was unable to obtain access to the flat above the resident’s property.
  3. The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 November 2021 and stated that he wished to complain about the lack of communication and action in relation to the leak from the upstairs flat. The resident provided the following additional information:
    1. The resident said he had contacted the contractor on 20 August 2021. The contractor attended on 7 October 2021. However, the contractor was unable to obtain access to the upstairs flat.
    2. The resident phoned the contractor again on 27 October 2021 to report that there was a large damp patch on his ceiling due to the leak and there was also mould present on the ceiling.
    3. The resident stated that he had not received any communication from the contractor regarding the leak.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 12 November 2021 and sent its stage one reply on 25 November 2021 in which it stated the following:
    1. The landlord confirmed that the resident had reported the leak in August 2021 and the contractor had attended on 7 October 2021 but had been unable to access the flat above the resident’s property. The contractor had advised the resident of the lack of access.
    2. Due to the delay in repairing the leak, the damage to the ceiling had increased.
    3. The contractor had contacted the neighbour in the upstairs flat on 4 November 2021 and booked an appointment for the following month.
    4. The landlord apologised for the delay and offered the resident compensation of £50.
  5. The resident phoned the landlord on 15 December 2021 to report that he had mould on his ceiling. He stated he was unhappy with the lack of communication regarding the leak and requested the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2.
  6. The landlord raised an order on 16 December 2021 to investigate the leak affecting the resident’s property. The contractor attended on 21 December 2021 but was unable to obtain access to the upstairs flat.
  7. The resident phoned the landlord on 22 December 2021 to report that the leak from the upstairs flat was still ongoing and therefore the action plan offered in the landlord’s stage one reply had not been adhered to. The landlord’s records stated that it had escalated the complaint to stage 2.
  8. The resident phoned the landlord on 30 and 31 December 2021 to report that his bedroom ceiling had collapsed on 30 December 2021. He said that the fire brigade had attended and had accessed the upstairs flat. The resident said the neighbour in the upstairs flat had advised the fire brigade that the contractor had missed the last 2 appointments. The landlord’s job notes state that its contractor attended on 30 December 2021 and made the situation safe by securing the rest of the ceiling in the resident’s property to prevent it from coming down. The contractor noted that the water had not affected the electrics.
  9. The landlord raised a further order on 31 December 2021 to carry out any further making safe to the ceiling and carry out repairs to stop the leak. The job notes stated that the contractor was unable to obtain access to the upstairs flat and therefore referred the matter to the landlord.
  10. The resident phoned the landlord on 4 January 2022 to request an update regarding the bedroom ceiling.
  11. The landlord’s surveying team raised a further order regarding the leak on 17 January 2022. The landlord’s records stated that the resident spoke to a surveyor, however, the landlord has advised this Service that it has no further notes regarding the job as the surveyor had left the organisation.
  12. The landlord raised an order on 20 January 2022 to board and make good the bedroom ceiling and to deliver a dehumidifier. The contractor attended on 26 January 2022 and delivered the dehumidifier. However, the job notes stated that the resident would not allow the contractor to repair the ceiling as he wanted the whole ceiling replaced.
  13. On 21 January 2022, the landlord raised a further order to decorate the affected areas following the leak.
  14. The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 January 2022 and apologised that it had not yet replied to his stage 2 complaint as it was working through a backlog of stage 2 complaints. The landlord accepted that the action plan it had offered in the stage one reply had not been adhered to.
  15. The resident wrote to the landlord on 31 January 2022 to report problems with the dehumidifier that the contractor had placed in the property. He stated that he had moved out of the property and was waiting for the ceiling in his bedroom to be repaired. He asked the landlord when it would repair the ceiling.
  16. On 11 February 2022, the resident informed the landlord that an operative was currently on site for a job to repair the bedroom ceiling. However, the operative said he was unable to repair the ceiling as the leak had not been resolved. The landlord’s records show that it raised follow-on works but has advised this Service that it is unable to provide details of the works ordered. The resident advised the landlord that 2 bedrooms were out of use and he was not currently living in the property. The resident also chased the landlord regarding the repairs on 14 February 2022.
  17. The landlord raised an order on 15 February 2022 to repair the ceiling following the leak. The landlord’s records show that 2 operatives attended on 1 March 2022 and boarded up about 20 square metres of the ceiling. The job notes stated that follow-on works were required to plaster the ceiling. The landlord therefore raised an order on 2 March 2022 to replaster the ceiling and the job notes show that this was done on 10 March 2022. The notes stated that follow-on works were required to paint the ceiling.
  18. On 11 March 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident’s MP and confirmed it was aware of the leak affecting the resident’s bedroom ceiling. It stated that the leak had been resolved and repairs to the ceiling had started on 1 March 2022. The landlord added that appointments had been scheduled to complete the repairs on 10 and 21 March 2022. The landlord said it had been liaising with the resident and would continue to do so until the works had been completed.
  19. The landlord’s records show that the contractor attended on 21 March 2022 and repainted the ceiling. The job notes stated that follow-on works were needed to sand down and paint the filler around the ceiling. The notes also show that the dehumidifier was collected on 21 March 2022.
  20. The landlord raised an order on 30 March 2022 to sand down the ceiling and paint the filler around the ceiling. The landlord’s records show that the contractor attended on 13 April 2022 to carry out this work and completed the work.
  21. The resident phoned the landlord on 13 April 2022 and stated that the wallpaper in his bedroom had been damaged by the leak and needed to be replaced. He also mentioned that his carpet had been damaged, the plastering to the ceiling had been done to a poor standard and the ceiling had not been painted correctly.
  22. The landlord raised an order on 13 April 2022 to repair the wallpaper that had been damaged by the leak. The landlord has stated that it has no information regarding this order due to the change-over of systems.
  23. The resident spoke to the landlord on 9 May 2022 and explained that the remedial work carried out to his ceiling was of poor quality. He therefore requested a surveyor to post-inspect the work.
  24. The landlord spoke to the resident on 9 June 2022 regarding his stage 2 complaint and wrote to him on the same day. The landlord confirmed that it would compensate him for the loss of his bedroom.
  25. On 7 October 2022, the landlord sent its stage 2 reply to the resident in which it stated the following:
    1. The landlord outlined its understanding of the timeline regarding the reported leak, the damage to the carpet and the ceiling collapsing.
    2. The roof leak had initially been reported in August 2021. The contractor visited the flat above the resident’s property but was unable to obtain access. The landlord said that a plumber then visited the flat again on 7 October 2021 but again could not obtain access.
    3. The landlord said that due to the delay in resolving the leak, the resident’s bedroom ceiling collapsed on him while he was asleep on 30 December 2021. The landlord stated that the leak had weakened the ceiling. The resident reported the collapsed ceiling on the same day and an emergency contractor attended and made the affected area safe, including the electrics.
    4. The landlord stated that its contractor had failed to check the roof and instead had focussed on obtaining access to the flat above the resident’s property.
    5. The landlord also said that the resident had experienced missed appointments and a lack of communication, which meant that he had to constantly chase the landlord for updates.
    6. The landlord said that the resident had advised him that although the remedial works to the ceiling had been completed, the resident was dissatisfied with the quality of the work. Therefore, he had not used the bedroom since January 2022.
    7. The landlord said that the carpet had been cleaned by a contractor on 28 September 2022.
    8. The landlord upheld the complaint, apologised for the distress caused to the resident and said it would ensure the plastering to the ceiling was finished to a satisfactory standard.
    9. The landlord stated that although the bedroom had not been in use for 9 months, it was compensating him for 10 months as the plastering was still outstanding. The target date for completion of the plastering was 31 October 2022.
    10. The landlord confirmed it would discuss the findings with its senior managers and the contractor to improve their service.
    11. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £2007.77, which was made up of:
      1. £1607.77 for the loss of use of the bedroom for 43 weeks.
      2. £200 for service failures and delays.
      3. £200 for a goodwill gesture.
  26. The resident contacted this Service on 11 April 2023 and 31 July 2023 and explained that there had been a leak from the flat above his property (he disputed the landlord’s information that the leak had been from the roof). The landlord had repaired the ceiling but the work had been done to a poor standard and the ceiling needed painting. He also advised that the wallpaper needed to be replaced due to damage caused during the replacement of the ceiling.
  27. The resident advised this Service of the following information on 9 September 2024:
    1. The resident stated that the landlord had attended a few days after he had first reported a damp patch on his ceiling in August 2021. However, he stated that the contractor had not been able to obtain access to the flat above the resident’s property.
    2. The resident stated that the leak had been caused by a slow dripping pipe in the cupboard of the upstairs flat and that the leak had been repaired in January 2022.
    3. The resident stated that the collapse of the ceiling had been traumatic as he had been asleep when the incident occurred.
    4. The resident stated that following the contractor’s attendance on 13 April 2022, it did not return to carry out any further remedial work to the ceiling or wallpaper.
    5. The resident confirmed that the landlord had cleaned his carpet.
    6. The resident confirmed that he had permanently moved out of the property on 8 July 2024 as part of a mutual exchange.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The Ombudsman has received information showing events that took place in relation to the property after the landlord sent its final complaint response on 7 October 2022. A key part of the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated by the Ombudsman as part of its complaint response. It is therefore considered fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response. Information following the landlord’s final complaint response has, however, been included in this report for context.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak into the property which led to his bedroom ceiling collapsing

  1. The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy outlines 2 repairs categories – emergency repairs and non-emergencies. Emergency repairs are attended to within 24 hours and non-emergencies are completed “as quickly as possible” at a time that suits the resident.
  2. The landlord accepted in its stage 2 reply dated 7 October 2022 that the resident had initially reported a leak from the upstairs flat in August 2021.The contractor tried to obtain access to the upstairs flat at the time but was unsuccessful.
  3. The evidence shows that the contractor then attended the upstairs flat again on or about 7 October 2021 and again was unable to obtain access. It was reasonable that between August and October 2021, the contractor had attempted to obtain access to the upstairs flat to resolve the leak. It was also reasonable that the contractor had advised the resident of the access difficulties.
  4. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the contractor brought the access problems to the attention of the landlord during this period. This meant that the landlord did not write to the neighbour in the upstairs flat to formally request access during this period and to remind them of their contractual obligations to provide access. It was inappropriate that the neighbour had not received formal notification about the potential breach of their tenancy by not allowing access. The delay in obtaining access meant that the leak continued and the evidence indicates this was causing damage to the resident’s ceiling.
  5. In its stage one reply dated 25 November 2021, the landlord confirmed that it had contacted the tenant in the upstairs flat on 4 November 2021 and an appointment had been made for the contractor to attend during the following month. The contractor attended on 21 December 2021 but once again was unable to obtain access to the upstairs flat. The Ombudsman has again not seen any evidence of the landlord enforcing the tenancy conditions to obtain access to the upstairs flat. This was therefore again inappropriate as the leak had been ongoing for 4 months since the resident reported the leak in August 2021.
  6. The resident’s ceiling collapsed on 30 December 2021. In its stage 2 reply, the landlord stated that the ceiling had collapsed due to the delay in resolving the leak, which had weakened the ceiling. Although the landlord could not have reasonably known that the ceiling would collapse, the Ombudsman’s view is that the delay in enforcing the tenancy conditions to obtain access to the upstairs flat was unreasonable. In addition to any express term in the tenancy agreement giving the landlord a right to enter the premises to inspect, there is an implied right for the landlord to inspect a property within Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The resident must provide access at reasonable times if at least 24 hours’ notice in writing has been given by the landlord.
  7. The evidence is unclear about when the leak was repaired. However, based on the information from the resident and the landlord, the leak was repaired in January or February 2022. Although the landlord’s stage 2 reply mentioned the roof, the evidence indicates that the leak originated from the upstairs flat. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence indicating that roof repairs were carried out by the landlord.
  8. The evidence shows that the resident had to chase the landlord on various occasions for updates, for example on 7 October, 9 November, 15 December, 22 December, 30 December and 31 December 2021. The landlord and its contractor had therefore not been pro-active in contacting the resident and in pursuing the upstairs neighbour for access. The landlord’s communication with the resident and the action to obtain access to the upstairs flat were therefore inappropriate. The resident had made it clear in his complaint dated 9 November 2021 that there was a large damp patch and mould on his ceiling and therefore this should have alerted the landlord about the urgency of resolving the issue.
  9. In its stage one and stage 2 replies, the landlord accepted that there had been a delay in resolving the leak. It also accepted in the stage 2 reply that the delay had weakened the ceiling and therefore the ceiling had collapsed. The landlord apologised for the delays, agreed to clean the resident’s carpet and offered compensation. The landlord also stated that it would ensure the plastering on the bedroom ceiling was finished to a satisfactory standard.
  10. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. An assessment of the landlord’s offer is covered below under a separate heading.

The landlord’s handling of the remedial works to the bedroom ceiling, including the quality of the work

  1. Landlords have a responsibility to make good any damage to decorations arising as a consequence of a repair that is the landlord’s responsibility(Bradley v Chorley DC (1985) 17 HLR 305). The remedial works to decorations must use quality materials and demonstrate a good standard of workmanship.
  2. The landlord raised an order on 15 February 2022 to repair the ceiling following the leak. The contractor attended on 1 March 2022 and fitted about 20 square metres of plasterboard. The contractor attended within a reasonable timescale after resolving the leak and raising the order to fit new plasterboard to the ceiling. The contractor had made the ceiling safe in December 2021 after it had collapsed.
  3. The landlord raised a follow-on job on 2 March 2022 to plaster the ceiling. This was appropriate as the contractor had fitted new plasterboard on 1 March 2022 and therefore now needed to apply plaster to finish the ceiling. An appointment was made for the plastering to be carried out on 10 March 2022 and for the ceiling to be painted on 21 March 2022. The contractor therefore attended within reasonable timescales following the fitting of the new plasterboard given that the plaster would have needed to dry before being painted.
  4. The landlord raised an order on 30 March 2022 to sand down and paint some filler that had been applied around the edges of the ceiling and the landlord carried out this work within a reasonable timescale on 13 April 2022.
  5. The landlord raised an order on 13 April 2022 to carry our remedial work to the wallpaper. This was appropriate as the landlord had accepted there was damage caused to the wallpaper following the leak and the landlord had a responsibility to make good the damage.
  6. The resident spoke to the landlord on 9 May 2022 and reported that the plastering to the ceiling had been carried out to a poor quality. He therefore requested the landlord to post-inspect the work. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord acted on this request, which was inappropriate. The resident had advised the landlord that the work had been carried out to a poor standard and therefore the landlord should have taken steps to check the quality of the work.
  7. In its stage 2 reply on 7 October 2022, the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and said it would ensure the plastering to the ceiling was finished to a satisfactory standard. Given that the resident had reported issues with the quality of the work on 9 May 2022, it was unreasonable that 5 months later at the time of its stage 2 reply the landlord had not acted to address this.
  8. In its stage 2 reply, the landlord offered compensation for service failures and delays. As stated earlier, an assessment of the landlord’s offer is covered below under a separate heading.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. The policy states that the landlord will reply to stage one complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The policy states that at both stages if it cannot meet the prescribed timescales, it will contact the resident and let them know why it is unable to do this and when it will provide the response. This will not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason and the resident’s agreement. It adds that if it cannot agree on an extended timeframe, the resident is entitled to contact the Housing Ombudsman to discuss this further.
  2. The resident submitted a stage one complaint on 9 November 2021 regarding the reported leak. The landlord replied to the complaint on 25 November 2021, which was 12 working days after the resident made the complaint. The landlord therefore took slightly longer to respond than its published timescale, which was a shortcoming on its part.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 15 December 2021 and requested it to escalate his complaint to stage 2. The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 January 2022 and apologised that it had not yet responded to his stage 2 complaint. The landlord then spoke to the resident about his complaint on 9 June 2022. However, the landlord did not formally respond to the complaint until 7 October 2022, which was 204 working days after the resident had requested the landlord to escalate his complaint. Although the landlord had contacted the resident during the intervening period and had carried out works to stop the leak and repair the ceiling, the time taken to reply was excessive and unreasonable.
  4. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states: “A complaint response must be sent to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue, are completed”. This Service would therefore have expected the landlord to have responded to the complaint much earlier and then tracked the outstanding works to ensure they were addressed expeditiously.
  5. The Ombudsman has taken into account that the landlord contacted the resident to apologise for the delay in replying to the stage 2 complaint and that it offered compensation for “service failures and delays” in its stage 2 reply. There is therefore evidence that the landlord acknowledged the delays and tried to put things right. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman has found there was service failure by the landlord due to the time taken to reply to the stage 2 complaint. The delay in replying delayed the landlord’s offer to put things right and to learn from the failings.
  6. The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £100, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for service failures.

The landlord’s offer of compensation

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy states:
    1. The landlord will consider awarding compensation where “a customer loses the use of an amenity, such as a bedroom, heating or hot water”.
  2. The assessment carried out by this Service has identified various failings by the landlord, including:
    1. The contractor unsuccessfully tried to obtain access to the upstairs flat during August to December 2021. However, during this period, the landlord did not seek to enforce the tenancy conditions by formally writing to the tenant regarding the failure to provide access.
    2. The landlord was not pro-active in keeping the resident advised of progress or its efforts to obtain access to the upstairs flat. This meant that the resident had to chase the landlord for updates on several occasions.
    3. The landlord did not act appropriately on the resident’s report on 9 May 2022 that the plastering had been carried out to a poor standard.
  3. The landlord offered compensation of £50 in its stage one reply and £2,007.77 in the stage 2 reply. Therefore, the landlord offered total compensation of £2,057.77.
  4. In considering the landlord’s offer of redress, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the offer was in line with its Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  5. In this case, the landlord acted fairly by acknowledging its failings, apologising and offering compensation. The landlord also cleaned the resident’s carpet. The landlord accepted that the resident had not been able to use his bedroom since the ceiling had collapsed and therefore calculated that he should be refunded for the loss of the bedroom for 10 months. As the landlord expected the outstanding plastering work to be completed by 31 October 2022, it was reasonable for the landlord to compensate the resident up to this date. It was also reasonable that the landlord’s offer included separate sums to recognise the service failures and delays and an amount as a goodwill gesture.
  6. The Ombudsman has found that the circumstances for maladministration apply in this case given the failings that occurred. However, the evidence shows that the landlord attempted to put things right and offered substantial financial redress to the resident. The amount offered is above the level of redress recommended in the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for findings of maladministration. Therefore, in the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident to put things right in relation to the various failings regarding the leak and the bedroom ceiling.
  7. The landlord’s stage 2 reply stated that it had highlighted the complaint to its relevant senior managers and it would discuss the failings with its contractor to help them improve their services. In particular, the landlord accepted that any access issues experienced by the contractor should have been reported back to the landlord so it could assist. In bringing the failings to the attention of its managers and the contractor, the landlord demonstrated learning from the complaint, which is one of the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak into the property which led to his bedroom ceiling collapsing.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the remedial works to the bedroom ceiling, including the quality of the work.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

 

 

Reasons

  1. The landlord acknowledged its failings, apologised, cleaned the resident’s carpet and offered reasonable compensation to put things right in relation to its failings in handling the leak.
  2. The landlord acknowledged its failings, apologised and offered reasonable compensation to put things right in relation to its failings in handling the remedial works to the bedroom ceiling leak up to the point of issuing its stage 2 reply.
  3. The landlord contacted the resident to apologise for the delay in replying to the stage 2 complaint and in its stage 2 reply it offered compensation for “service failures and delays”. However, there was an excessive delay in the landlord sending its stage 2 reply, which delayed the landlord’s overall offer to put things right.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to pay the resident £100 for its complaint handling.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should reoffer the resident the £2,057.77 compensation if this has not already been paid.

 

Chat to us