Southern Housing (202302554)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202302554
Southern Housing Group Limited
16 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 response to:
- Reports of window leaks, damp, and mould.
- Concerns raised about the garden service.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
Background
3. The resident is a shared owner of a 2-bedroom fifth-floor flat. The property was newly built when the resident’s lease began in 2019 and benefitted from a 12-month defect liability period (the DLP). The DLP ended in October 2020. The property benefits from the National House Building Council (NHBC) warranty cover.
4. In January 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to explain that she had been waiting for 4 years for her windows to be fixed, which had leaked into her property and caused damage.
5. On 14 February 2023 the resident complained about several issues. She explained that she was paying for a garden service (through service charges) but not receiving it. She said the gardener had been absent for 7 out of the last 12 months, and the gardens looked untidy. Additionally, she mentioned that even though she had bought her flat from new, the defects had still not been resolved and had ruined her home. She said that there was a large amount of damp ruining the front wall of her property.
6. Between 20 April and 6 June 2023, the resident reached out to our Service and her local councillor for assistance with her complaint after not hearing back from the landlord.
7. On 24 July 2023 the landlord provided a stage 1 response, which said the following:
- The resident did not report issues with the windows in the 6 months prior to her email in January 2023, and there was no further communication after contacting the aftercare team about the windows in November 2020.
- It did not have any previous reports of damp, aside from water ingress reported in 2020.
- Although the gardener attended, they had not signed the logbook due to access issues. The Estates Team confirmed that garden maintenance was carried out as expected.
- The landlord offered £200 in compensation, which included £100 for inconvenience, time, and trouble, and £100 for delays in handling the complaint.
8. On 9 August 2023 the resident escalated her complaint because she was unhappy that the landlord had not addressed her previous complaint about the windows and the garden. She had sent emails and photographs as evidence of water on the windowsills, wet internal walls, and damage. Additionally, the garden had not been maintained properly.
9. On 17 August 2023 a surveyor investigated the water penetration above the windows and noted that more investigation was needed. The surveyor recommended that the window manufacturer should conduct a technical inspection.
10. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 5 September 2023. It instructed a consultant to complete a defect analysis report on the leaks, windows, and damp. It increased its compensation offer to £225, offering an additional £25 for the delays.
11. In October 2023 the landlord’s records note that it had has submitted a claim to the NHBC for a comprehensive review of the building, and to rectify water ingress to all properties within the block.
12. On 8 December 2023 the resident made a second complaint. She was unhappy because she had not heard anything following the inspection in August 2023 and said that the walls in the bedrooms and front room had worsened. She was worried about her son’s health due to his breathing difficulties.
13. The landlord responded on 29 February 2024. It said it would send a surveyor to check if any work could be done to fix the damp and mould. The resident was offered £50 compensation for the delayed response to her complaint.
14. On 4 March 2024 the resident escalated her complaint, again saying that nothing had been fixed. She had to go to the hospital over the weekend because she had trouble breathing, which she thought was because of the damp and mould. She asked for compensation to pay for new flooring which the landlord had not responded to.
15. On 26 March 2024 a latent defect technical analysis was completed by a specialist. They checked the building to see if temporary repairs could be done while the landlord awaited the outcome of its NHBC claim. The specialist found that water was gathering on the shared roof terrace and seeping into the building and suggested doing more tests. The specialist also said that the landlord needed to check the finishes around the cladding to make sure the drains were good, and to build a better gutter and edge that would last longer than the current material.
16. On 18 April 2024 a stage 2 response was issued. It noted that in August 2023 a surveyor had inspected the windows and asked the window manufacturers to conduct a technical inspection. The aftercare team and NHBC were dealing with a claim for water ingress from the windows. The landlord could not permanently fix the damp and mould until the building defects were addressed because the building was under NHBC warranty. However, it would clean the mould.
17. It said that the compensation policy did not cover damage to personal items like flooring. The resident was advised to claim on her home contents insurance or through the landlord’s insurance. The landlord apologised for the time it took to resolve the matter and for the damage caused. Once the building works were completed, the landlord would repair the internal damage through the developer or the building’s insurance and cover the £250 excess. Compensation of £965 was offered, including £600 for the impact on the family due to failing to follow policy, repeated visits, and the resident having to chase for updates, £250 for the excess to complete an insurance claim, £50 offered at stage 1, £50 for the complaint handling and record keeping, and £15 for the 8-day delay in acknowledging the stage 2 complaint.
18. The resident contacted our Service, saying that she was unhappy with the lack of action taken by the landlord to resolve her complaint. She confirmed that the windows in the property were blown which attributed to condensation in the flat. The landlord had not been able to find a solution to the damp and mould in the property.
Assessment and findings
Scope of investigation
19. The landlord’s internal complaints procedure investigated and responded to several issues. However, the resident has subsequently confirmed to our Service that she only considers the issues defined above to be outstanding, and that the other issues of the complaint have been resolved. This investigation has focussed on and assessed the circumstances of the issues that remain outstanding.
20. Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the member landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
21. It is acknowledged that the resident had concerns about the windows and level of service provided by the landlord since she moved into the property in 2019. In accordance with paragraph 42(c), this investigation will focus on events from 18 January 2023, when the issues were brought to the landlord’s attention. We have considered events after the landlord’s stage 2 response in April 2024 as the issues remain unresolved.
22. Part of the resident’s complaint is that the health conditions of the family have been exacerbated by the presence of damp and mould in the property. We acknowledge the concerns and distress this would have caused. However, this would be more appropriately considered by a court, where liability can be established. We have not sought to establish liability in this case but have considered the way in which the landlord responded to her health concerns.
Policies and procedures
23. The NHBC guarantee insures properties against latent defects present from when the property was built for a period of 10 years. The guarantee only covers faults present due to failure to build properties in line with construction guidelines and does not cover faults due to wear and tear, neglect, or damage.
24. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should:
- Adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this.
- Ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
Windows, damp, and mould
25. It is not disputed that the landlord was responsible for the arrangement of repairs to the windows. As this was a structural defect impacting several properties within the development, and the property was still under guarantee, the landlord took the decision to achieve repairs via NHBC and the original developers.
26. When there is a significant impact on a resident, we would expect the landlord to ensure that remedial works are arranged promptly and completed within a reasonable length of time.
27. The resident brought the issue with the windows to the landlord’s attention in January 2023, and she referred to damp in her February 2023 complaint. An inspection should have commenced soon after these reports. The landlord did not instruct a survey of the windows and damp until August 2023, 7 months after the resident’s report. This was an unreasonable delay in addressing the problem and was not in line with the recommendations in our spotlight report. The evidence does not show that the landlord regularly communicated with the resident in this time to manage her expectations.
28. After the inspection in August 2023, the landlord did not share the inspection findings with the resident or give any indication of next steps. It is unclear whether the landlord acted on the surveyor’s recommendation for the window manufacturer to do a technical inspection. If they did, the findings were not shared with the resident. The record of the inspection does not refer to damp, and so it is unclear whether this was inspected.
29. While we understand the limitations of the landlord in completing works itself, it was slow in submitting a claim to NHBC. The landlord should have supported the resident better, managed her expectations, and taken steps to progress the matter quickly. Also, the landlord should have explained how long the process could take and what could be done to manage the ongoing issue in the meantime.
30. Because of a lack of communication on the landlord’s part, the resident had to ask for an update which resulted in a second complaint in December 2023. She explained that her property condition had deteriorated but there was still no plan to resolve the issues. We understand the landlord had limits on what it could do, but greater consideration should have been given to the resident and the impact on her property and household.
31. The communication from the landlord was poor throughout its management of the defects and repairs. The resident contacted the landlord on numerous occasions for updates about the repair work and asked for a designated contact regarding the works. The resident experienced inconvenience and took extra time and trouble to contact the landlord on several occasions. The lack of response likely added to the frustration and distress she experienced.
32. The landlord acknowledged that there were failings in its handling of the matter and subsequently made an offer of compensation to recognise this. While this was appropriate, greater priority should have been given to putting things right. We appreciate that the landlord was arranging for several defects to be addressed under its NHBC claim, but it failed to resolve the matter within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord should have shared an action plan and promptly considered if it was able to improve the resident’s situation, such as temporary fixes to stop the window leaks (although we note this has been looked at more recently and it was found it was not possible to do so) and options to prevent the damp and mould from worsening such as dehumidifiers.
33. The landlord’s final response was sent in April 2024. The landlord has confirmed to us that it is still waiting for its claim with NHBC to be processed. Our investigation has not found evidence of communication between the landlord and NHBC to show that the landlord ensured effective progress. We understand that when a third party is involved, matters may be out of the landlord’s hands to some extent. However, the matter is still ongoing, 9 months after the claim was submitted, with no evidence of the landlord taking steps to follow up with NHBC, or any other attempts to progress the matter. The landlord has not shown that it has been mindful of its interest in the property or its relationship and responsibility to the resident. During this time, the resident has advised that her property condition has worsened. As the substantive issues were unresolved at the point of the landlord’s final response, it would have been reasonable to suggest reviewing its position and the compensation previously offered once the works had been completed.
34. The landlord acted reasonably by advising the resident to claim on her contents insurance for any damage caused by the leaks, damp, and mould. It also gave her the option to make a claim to its insurers. Furthermore, the landlord offered the resident £250 to cover the excess of an insurance claim, demonstrating a resolution-focused approach. It also said it would arrange for the resident to be contacted monthly, and a mould wash to address the damp. It offered £600 compensation for the impact the matter. It was appropriate for the landlord to take these actions to try and “put things right” for the resident.
35. However, while the landlord took appropriate steps through its complaint investigations to acknowledge the delays in addressing the defects to the resident’s home, the delays were significant and are ongoing. As such, the issue has still not been “put right” and the resident continues to experience and adverse effect.
36. The landlord’s records do not demonstrate proactive action to pursue the repairs which meant the resident expended time and effort in obtaining responses and updates. Overall, the landlord failed to respond to and take action to resolve the resident’s repairs within a reasonable amount of time. While we understand and appreciate that the landlord was arranging the repairs through a third party, it still has a responsibility to support the resident, communicate regularly, manage her expectations, and actively seek a prompt resolution. It does not appear to have done so in this case.
37. The resident expressed her concerns about her health and her son’s health, stating that the damp and mould were making it worse. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged her concerns or offered any support, which was unreasonable. For example, given the reports of damp in December 2023 the landlord should have inspected the property to determine its condition, and considered if it could have improved the conditions within the property temporarily, while awaiting the completion of works. For example, temporary repairs to prevent further water ingress or providing dehumidifiers to remove moisture in the property with an offer to cover running costs. The landlord’s response to the reports of damp were not in line with the recommendations in our spotlight report.
38. The landlord has confirmed that, as part of the NHBC claim, it will review and repair the internal damage caused by water, damp, and mould once the repairs are completed. It is fair for the resident’s interior decorations to be restored to their original condition considering the damage.
39. Due to the lack of a forward plan to resolve the issues and the extended period these have been unresolved, a finding of maladministration has been made, along with orders for an increased offer of compensation to recognise the continued impact following the final response. The amount is in line with our own remedies guidance, which suggests total amounts of between £100 and £600 if the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident.
Garden
40. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the garden service provided in February 2023. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to discuss the matter with its Estates Team.
41. The landlord stated in its stage 1 response in July 2023 that the gardener had visited but was unable to sign the logbook due to access issues. However, the resident disagrees with the landlord’s claims. The landlord has not provided any records to support its assertion that the gardening was done. Consequently, it is unclear how the landlord monitored the service to ensure that it was meeting the standards that the resident was paying for.
42. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to check how it had assessed the quality of grounds maintenance from the point the resident raised her concerns and to consider whether additional monitoring was needed. Its failure to do so meant that it was unable to fully address the resident’s concerns. This effectively meant that, apart from passing on performance concerns the landlord took no action to investigate the issue.
43. In summary, the landlord did not sufficiently investigate the resident’s concerns about the performance of its grounds maintenance contractors to assure itself and the resident that the service she was paying for was being received.
44. As such we cannot conclude that the landlord acted fairly, undertook an appropriate investigation, or had a system in place to monitor performance. Therefore, we have found maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns and have awarded compensation to recognise the inconvenience this likely caused.
Complaint handling
45. The resident submitted her first complaint on 14 February 2023. In line with the landlord’s complaints policy, it should issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days. While the complaint was acknowledged on the same day, it did not provide a response until 24 July 2023, 110 working days later.
46. It was unsatisfactory that the resident had to instruct the help of our Service and her local councillor to obtain a response. Because of the landlord’s complaint handling, the resident expended time and trouble chasing her complaint which was unreasonable.
47. The resident raised a second complaint on 8 December 2023. The resident contacted the landlord on 27 December 2023 after failing to receive a response. It is evident that the landlord requested an extension to respond at stage 1 on 17 January 2024. It was appropriate for the landlord to notify the resident of the delay, but it would have been better if this were done at an earlier stage to manage the resident’s expectations.
48. The resident contacted the landlord again on 8 February 2024 to chase a response to her complaint. A stage 1 response was issued on 29 February 2024, 56 working days later.
49. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for not responding to the resident’s complaints within its published times. It offered £150 compensation for the delays for the first complaint and £100 compensation for the second complaint. While this went some way to trying to put things right for the resident, the evidence does not show that the landlord learned from the mistakes it made first time and continued in the same way with the second complaint. Additionally, the substantive issues remain unresolved and there have been further failings post-complaint in keeping the resident informed and ensuring that work progresses satisfactorily.
50. The resident’s complaints process was unreasonably prolonged. She submitted more than one complaint about similar matters, followed up repeatedly and sought the help of her local councillor and our Service to get a response. The resident went to considerable trouble to obtain responses which failed to provide her with a resolution to her complaint, impacting the resident’s trust that the landlord would be able to resolve the issues.
51. For these reasons, the Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord’s ineffective handling caused unreasonable delays and failed to consider the impact on the resident.
52. To compensate the resident proportionately for its failings and for missing the opportunity to use the complaints process as an effective tool to resolve the substantive issues, £150 compensation has been ordered to reflect the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused to the resident. This amount is in line with our own remedies guidance, which suggests total amounts of between £100 and £600 where there has been maladministration, but no permanent impact.
Determination
53. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to:
- Reports of window leaks, damp, and mould.
- Concerns raised about the garden service.
- The complaint.
Orders
54. The landlord is ordered, within 4 weeks of the date of the report:
- Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
- Pay the resident £725, comprising:
- £250 for the impact of the continuing delays from April 2024 until September 2024.
- £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the ongoing repair issues from April 2024 until September 2024.
- £150 for the distress and inconvenience, time, and delay caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
- £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused because of its handling of the garden maintenance service.
- This is in addition to the £956 compensation already paid by the landlord (which should also be paid if it has not already).
- Update the Ombudsman and the resident on the NHBC claim, detailing what action it has already taken and will take in future to pursue this.
- Consider options, such as the provision of dehumidifiers or the installing of fans/vents if these are not already present, to alleviate the reported damp in the property while the repairs remain outstanding. The landlord should write to us and the resident detailing the outcome of this consideration.
- Upon completion of the latent defects, the landlord should arrange to complete the works to make good the internal damage because of the defects.
- Provide clear information to the resident regarding the gardening service. This should include a schedule of items agreed, actions undertaken at each visit and how the landlord monitors the performance of this team.
55. In accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to conduct a review of its practice in relation to responding to latent defect requests for repairs due to leaks, damp, and mould. The review must be conducted within 12 weeks and should be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation. The review should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
- An exploration of why the failings identified by this investigation occurred, including its lack of consideration of the impact the situation had on the resident.
- Identification of all other residents who may have been affected by leaks, damp, and mould related to the defect in this development. This should include those who have not necessarily engaged with its complaint’s procedure.
56. Following the review, the landlord should produce a report setting out:
- The findings and learning from the review.
- Recommendations on how it intends to prevent similar failings from occurring in the future.
- The number of other residents who have experienced similar issues.
- The steps it proposes to take to provide redress at the earliest opportunity to the residents who have been similarly affected by the identified failings. This should include consideration of compensation commensurate with the level of detriment a particular resident has experienced, if caused by a failing on the part of the landlord.