Southern Housing (202302575)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302575

Southern Housing Group Limited

14 October 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. reports of issues with the hot water system.
    2. reports of a leak in the bathroom.
    3. requests for reasonable adjustments.
    4. the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord, a housing association. The resident occupies a 1-bedroom ground floor flat and her tenancy commenced in September 2018. The resident is a vulnerable adult with learning difficulties and health conditions including epilepsy and Raynaud’s.
  2. Around March 2020, the resident made a complaint about a leak in her hot water system and a leak from her shower, and felt her utility bills were too high. The landlord installed a new hot water cylinder system in April 2020. However, the resident said the new cylinder was too large for the kitchen and did not fit in the cupboard, so stuck out and caused an obstruction. In December 2020, she complained about the installation of the new hot water system and also that she was unable to shower as an operative had removed the shower. The resident wanted a reasonable sized cylinder, the timer on the boiler to be fixed and a shower to be installed.
  3. In April 2021, the resident chased again, and complained again on 14 May 2021. She reiterated her concerns about the size of the cylinder and that its cupboard had caused injury. She added that the contractor had been out numerous times and attempted to alter the cupboards to allow it to fit but was unsuccessful. She said the shower had still not been replaced and that she was unable to use the bath due to her epilepsy and relied on the shower to bathe. She added that she had had no contact from its contractor for months and reminded the landlord that she has learning difficulties and is unable to read and write.
  4. The landlord appeared to issue its stage 1 response around 28 May 2021. It said its contractor had arranged to survey the bathroom on 2 June 2021 in order to replace the shower. It added that another contractor would inspect the cylinder. In June 2021 the resident chased the landlord as nothing had been done. She said that despite operatives attending, they were unable to move the tank as it was too big and simply took photos. The landlord logged a stage 2 complaint on 24 June 2021. It understood the resident was unhappy that she did not have a working shower and that the replacement cylinder was much larger than her old one. On 6 July 2021, the resident confirmed that an electrician connected up a new electric shower.
  5. The landlord issued a stage 2 response around 20 July 2021. It said the resident had confirmed the shower had been replaced and worked well. It upheld her complaint and acknowledged its stage 1 response did not fully address her concerns. It added its heating contractor had agreed to replace the cylinder for a smaller one. It offered compensation of £300 for the delays and inconvenience experienced. It stated it would monitor the situation and contact her a weekly basis from 27 July 2021 to update her until the works are completed.
  6. A further inspection took place on 18 February 2022 and the report stated the cylinder installed in April 2020 did not fit in the compartment and an electric heater was the most suitable way to heat water. It added that a supply of hot water was required for only the bathroom basin tap and the kitchen sink tap. Advocates for the resident contacted the landlord in June, July and October 2022 complaining that this issue was still not resolved and the landlord had not responded to previous letters.
  7. The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 30 November 2022 to measure the existing cylinder. On 24 January 2023, the landlord emailed the resident asking what the outstanding repairs were so it could chase these up with its contractor. The resident said there were still leaks in the bathroom and the shower was not working, as well as the issue with the hot water cylinder.
  8. On 26 January 2023, the landlord installed a multipoint water heater. The landlord issued a further stage 2 response on 27 January 2023. It partially upheld the complaint as the leak in the bathroom had – incorrectly – not been logged as a repair within the last 12 months nor could it see a record of repairs to the shower. It said it had arranged for a plumber to attend and report back on any remedial work needed and had contacted its contractors regarding the work order for the shower/toilet leak, and would schedule appointments. With respect to the delays with the hot water cylinder, it accepted there were multiple visits and delays and apologised for the inconvenience caused. Further, it acknowledged there were delays in handling the complaint and in escalating to stage 2. It also said the resident’s daughter had advised that Citizens Advice were helping the resident with housing matters and it had provided its contact details for them. It offered total compensation of £150 made up of £100 for the delay in replacing the hot water cylinder and £50 for complaint handling delays. It added it would investigate and remedy the leaks in the bathroom and it asked the resident to send pictures so it could arrange for floor coverings in the kitchen and bathroom to be replaced. It promised to report back by 28 February 2023 and committed to oversee the remaining work.
  9. Its contractor attended on 31 January 2023 to inspect the bathroom for leaks. They found no leaks from the toilet but noted the electric shower was not working. A new electric water heater was subsequently installed around 2 November 2023. The landlord attended again on 30 January 2024 to fix a leak from the toilet and replaced damaged wall tiles and filled holes in the kitchen.
  10. In June 2024, the resident advised that she has heating and hot water and access to bathing and shower facilities. However, there were still areas that were damaged when the new water heater was fitted, which have not been made good. As a resolution, she wants the landlord to explain and apologise for the failings in its handling of this matter, make good the areas affected by work carried out and provide further compensation. 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. This Service acknowledges the resident’s comments that there have been longstanding issues with the property. There is evidence of the resident experiencing issues with the hot water system and a leak in October 2019.  While this may be the case, this investigation will not seek to consider matters as far back as this. The Ombudsman expects residents to bring issues they are dissatisfied with to the landlord’s attention in good time. This is set out in paragraph 42c of the Scheme, which explains that the Ombudsman may not investigate a complaint which was not brought to the attention of the landlord, by way of a formal complaint, within a reasonable period – which would normally be within 12 months of the matter arising.
  2. The Ombudsman has seen evidence of a complaint made in March 2020, but it is unclear if this complaint was fully progressed through the landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident made another formal complaint in May 2021 with the landlord issuing its final response January 2023.  As such, this investigation will only look back as far as May 2020 in respect of the event and whether the landlord followed its policies and procedures and treated the resident fairly in the circumstances, up until the final response in January 2023. However, events outside this period may be referred to for contextual background. 
  3. The Ombudsman notes that the resident also suggested that the landlord’s handling of the issues impacted her mental and physical health. She reported she had injured herself on a cupboard that jutted out following the installation of the hot water cylinder in April 2020. The Ombudsman is sympathetic to the resident’s situation. However, it is beyond the expertise of the Service to reasonably determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions or inactions and the impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more appropriate to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s handling of reports of issues with the hot water system

  1. When a repair is reported to a landlord it must inspect and decide if it is responsible for repair. Where it is responsible under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, it must complete the repair within a reasonable time. What is a reasonable time depends on all the circumstances of the case. The landlord is responsible for keeping in repair and working order any installations it provides for sanitation and for the supply of water including basins, sinks, baths, toilets, flushing systems and waste pipes as well as installations for space heating and heating water. Its responsive repair policy sets out the timescales for responding to repairs. A repair will be treated as an emergency if there is an immediate risk to safety, security or health and it will repair or, if that is not possible, make safe within 24 hours of being notified. 
  2. The Ombudsman recognises that the hot water cylinder installed in April 2020 was, in the resident’s view, too large. This is corroborated by the landlord’s surveyor report of July 2021 which acknowledged the cylinder needed to be of a smaller size. It also noted it was unable to adjust the existing boxing and a builder was required to box in the cylinder. The Ombudsman, while not wishing to diminish the effect the size of the cylinder had on the resident, notes that she did not appear to report concerns until December 2020, over 7 months later. The landlord’s records indicate it attempted to attend the property on 21 December 2020 but was unable to gain access. Following this, the landlord checked the timer on the boiler in late January 2021 and a supervisor inspected the system in April 2021, noting that a builder would need to fix the boxing around the cylinder.  Despite the resident making a formal complaint in May 2021 stating she had difficulty moving around in her kitchen space, the landlord’s stage 1 response simply stated it understood its contractor had arranged an inspection for the water heater system. This was inappropriate as it may have led the resident to feel that the landlord was not taking this issue seriously. It also failed to apologise for the delays and did not offer any compensation for the delay.
  3. As a result of the resident chasing again on 8 June 2021, operatives attended but could not move the tank. Even though the landlord’s stage 2 response of July 2021 acknowledged its heating contractor had agreed to replace the hot water cylinder for a smaller one, it still did not arrange for a replacement in a reasonable time. The resident continued to chase in September 2021 and in June, July and October 2022. In June and July 2022, she was reporting that the electrics were not working as designed and she had to wait 2 hours before water was hot as well as other issues such as sparking when it turned off.
  4. The landlord’s contractor did not attend until 30 November 2022 to measure up. They suggested a smaller slimline combi boiler would be needed. Yet it was not until 26 January 2023 that a new smaller water heater was installed and left working. It is concerning that the landlord’s notes for its stage 2 response of January 2023 stated it had instructed the supply and fitting of a cylinder as early as March 2022. Indeed, it had identified that the cylinder needed replacement as early as July 2021, after the resident first alerted the landlord to the issue in December 2020. The period December 2020 to January 2023 is a considerable length of time, which is extremely concerning.
  5. While it was appropriate for the landlord to ensure that the cylinder size was correct for the dwelling, this should have been done far earlier in the repair process. There seemed to be some issues with access and the resident asserts this was due to the contractor attending appointments without prior warning and not making reasonable adjustments. The landlord has provided its contractor notes that suggest some delays were attributed to the tenant such as cancelled appointments and a refusal to allow completion of works. While there may have been some issues with access and cancellation, the landlord is responsible for ensuring that its residents have access to a functioning heating and hot water system and consequently should have adopted a more proactive approach in dealing with the resident’s concerns, and should have communicated better with the resident. Instead, the resident was left to chase updates to ensure she could have an appropriately-sized water heater system. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  6. It is concerning that after the installation in late January 2023 of the new water heater, the landlord’s contractor sent an email dated 8 February 2023 to urgently recall the contractor who carried out the work as they felt the job was left incomplete. They added there was no pressure-reducing valve and the connection had been left open. This may have been related to a phone call made by the resident to the landlord in which she advised the hot water did not work from the bath taps. The issues relating to the new water heater appear to have been attended to on 13 February 2023. It was however the case that the decision was taken to install a different new electric water heater 7 months later, in November 2023.
  7. While the new electric heater installed in January 2023 was solution for the issues the resident was experiencing, as soon as it was made aware that it was not suitable for her needs, it should have installed a suitable alternative promptly. Yet, this did not happen. Further, the landlord seemed indecisive with regard to the type of water heater to be installed. This would have caused distress and frustration to the resident who found that damage was caused to surrounding areas of her kitchen each time the water heater was changed.
  8. It is noted that despite the landlord stating it would monitor the situation and would contact her on a weekly basis from 27 July 2021, this did not appear to happen. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of weekly contacts from 27 July 2021 as promised in its first stage 2 of July 2021. This oversight would have eroded the resident’s trust in the landlord to resolve her concerns. Indeed, this scenario happened again with the second stage 2 of January 2023, where the landlord promised it would oversee the remaining work and make sure it was completed to a good standard within timeframe in the schedule. Again, this did not appear to happen.
  9. In the resident’s complaint of December 2020, she explicitly stated that she was at risk of drowning when using a bath due to her epilepsy and expressed a preference for the shower. The landlord’s surveyor who attended on 18 February 2022 stated the only hot water requirements were to supply the bathroom basin tap and kitchen sink tap following the resident complaining about not having hot water to the bath taps. It is unclear if the system did not actually work or if the resident had difficulty using the system. It is possible the landlord, having taken into account the resident’s comments of December 2020 and May 2021, considered it was not unreasonable to fit an electric water heating system which did not supply hot water to the bath. Subsequently, the resident’s GP sent a letter dated 13 February 2023 stating that because of the resident’s health condition, she needed to stay warm, and would benefit from taking baths. It appears that around this time the lack of hot water to the bath was rectified by the contractor, enabling the resident to take baths.
  10. Notes made by an operative of the landlord who attended around 15 December 2022 suggest they advised the resident to raise her concerns about the high cost of utility bills with her energy provider, which was a reasonable approach to take. In contact with this Service, the resident advised she often did not run the heating as she felt the energy cost was too high. Separately, the landlord’s advocates said that she had been left without hot water for a long period of time, but the only record of the resident reporting a loss of heating and hot water was on 15 December 2022 when it was found that the central heating and hot water were in fact operational and no other problems were found at that time with the operation of the system.
  11. The resident says that she was without hot water for a significant period of time after the landlord’s final response, however this period has not been investigated.
  12. It is unclear if the issues with heating and hot water resulted in an increase in the resident’s utility bills. The Ombudsman has evidence that the landlord contacted its community investment team regarding the resident and that she was not using the heating as she struggled to pay her bills. This was an appropriate approach to take, in line with its reasonable adjustment and vulnerable needs policy, whereby it may assist with signposting and other forms of support. As the Ombudsman has not seen the outcome of this referral to its community investment team, a recommendation has been made.
  13. The landlord’s stage 2 responses accepted that there were multiple appointments and that there were service failures in its handling of reports of issues with the hot water system, causing disruption to the household. It was appropriate that the landlord apologised and identified learning to improve its service. However, having agreed to replace the hot water system, the time taken by the landlord to complete the works in a satisfactory manner far exceeded that set out in its policy. The landlord promised solutions to resolve the issue in its formal responses. However, it did not follow up on these. While there were some issues with access and the landlord asserts the resident refused to allow works to take place, looking at the overall picture, there were considerable delays on the part of the landlord in installing an effective and lasting replacement of the hot water system. There was an instance where its contractor attended with the incorrect-sized cylinder as well as inordinate delays in 2022 where its own repair logs stated how overdue the matter was.
  14. Even then, the final replacement was not completed until well after its final response and intervention from the Ombudsman. This is despite the fact that the landlord was aware the resident was vulnerable and had medical needs which led to her needing to keep warm. It is also concerning that where the landlord was aware there would be delay, it did not keep the resident informed. In conclusion, there was maladministration in the handling by the landlord of issues with the hot water system.
  15. The Ombudsman has seen compensation of £300 was offered in the first stage 2 response in July 2021 and the landlord has confirmed this has been paid to the resident. However, the £150 offered in the second stage 2 of January 2023 has not been paid. It is considered that the compensation offered for the delays and repair issues even across both stage 2 responses, in the Ombudsman’s view, was insufficient to reflect the extent of the resident’s stress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the hot water system repairs. In line with this Service’s remedies guidance, compensation awards from £100 to £600 should be made where the Ombudsman has found failure which adversely impacted the resident, and an order of further compensation has been made below.
  16. When investigating this complaint, the Ombudsman has noted that the repairs records supplied by the landlord often omitted information or lacked detail, so evidence has not been comprehensive in this case and it is often unclear when appointments were raised, what actions were agreed upon, and what work took place. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. In this case, the record-keeping has hindered the Service from being able to fully ascertain what took place and therefore the full extent of the detriment to the resident. A recommendation has been made below.
  17. The resident informed the Service in June 2024 that she has adequate bathing facilities including a shower and bath. However, she states that the kitchen should be redecorated as the landlord damaged the side units and kickboards while making the various hot water installations. An order has been made below.
  18. The resident advised that she has recently reported damp and mould in the bedroom and the operative who attended to inspect was, she felt, rude to her about works in her kitchen relating to this case. The resident is seeking that an alternative operative attend. A recommendation has been made below.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a leak in the bathroom

  1. The landlord has an obligation to repair leaks in the property for which it is responsible. Its responsive repairs policy states some repair issues have a potentially adverse effect on a resident with a medical vulnerability or condition. In these situations, the landlord will investigate the matter promptly and work in partnership with its contractors and in liaison with the resident to resolve the matter. It adds that in all instances the resident’s welfare, health and safety will be its primary concern.
  2. There appeared to be leaks with both the shower and the toilet, although they seemed to occur at separate times. It was unclear what was the extent of the leak. However, it did not appear to be an emergency repair nor was it treated as such. The landlord’s emergency repair policy states that a repair will be treated as an emergency if there is an immediate risk to safety, security or health. The landlord will repair or, if that is not possible, make safe as soon as possible and always within 24 hours of being notified.
  3. It is unclear when the resident first informed the landlord about a leak from either shower or toilet. In 2020, the landlord acknowledged there had been an ongoing issue with a leak from the shower. This seemed to be resolved when the large hot water cylinder was installed in April 2020. Following work in the bathroom around this time, the resident said her shower was removed and she had no bathing facilities. In May 2021 internal landlord’s emails stated the shower needed replacing and the electrics and pipework were old, so would need to be replaced. It added it would attend to carry out a full survey and prepare a quotation for the works on 2 June 2021. On 8 June 2021, the landlord recognised it needed to fix her shower and said “she had no other bathing facilities”. A new electric shower was installed on 6 July 2021. Although the landlord was aware that the resident did not have a shower as early as December 2020, this was a timeframe of around 145 working days. This was a significant amount of time and contrary to its repair policy which states it will investigate the matter promptly and work in partnership with its contractors and in liaison with the resident to resolve the matter. It is unclear if at this point the resident did not have hot water for the bath or if she did but chose not to bathe in the bath due to her epilepsy and the risk of an event that could compromise her safety.
  4. During the installation of the electric shower, the resident said bath panels were damaged. It is unclear if this contributed to the leak. However, it is clear from the landlord’s second stage 2 response that it was aware of a report of the toilet leaking as early as February 2022 and an appointment was booked for 21 February 2022. However, this appointment did not appear to take place.
  5. The landlord acknowledged in its second stage 2 response of January 2023 that, having examined the repairs history, it could not see any repairs logged for the shower within the last 12 months and upheld this aspect of the complaint. While it was appropriate for the landlord to recognise and apologise for its failings, it did not truly reflect the impact this had on the resident considering it had been notified of the issues in or before February 2022. The landlord’s contactor visited the property on 31 January 2023 and noted the toilet was satisfactory but the electric shower was not working and needed a Part P electrician to attend.
  6. The landlord set a target completion date of 28 February 2023 and acted fairly by arranging a contractor to attend on 6 February 2023 to inspect the shower. However, it is unclear what action was taken or if the shower or toilet leak was resolved at that time. Either way, it was a substantial period of time from February 2022 when the issue seemed to be first reported to the landlord. In accordance with its repairs policy, for a routine repair, it should have completed the repair as quickly as possible and at a time that suited the resident. It would also aim to finish the work the first time whenever possible. The landlord did not act in line with its policy which would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who may have felt the landlord was ignoring her requests.
  7. The landlord acted fairly by asking the resident to send pictures of the flooring so it could arrange for the floor coverings in the kitchen and bathroom to be replaced. This was a suitable approach to take to resolve her concerns in this respect, but it is unclear if this flooring has been replaced to date. An order has been made to ensure that this is done.
  8. While the landlord’s contractors attended multiple times, it is unclear whether they were attending to inspect the water heating system or to remedy leaks. Again, the landlord’s records proved challenging to comprehend and this has been highlighted earlier. The landlord’s apology alone was unsatisfactory given the delays and the resident’s efforts to chase the reported leaks. Indeed, across its formal responses it did not appear to offer any financial remedy for these. It is also concerning that the landlord’s internal emails indicate that in March 2024 the toilet was leaking from the flush pipe on the back of the toilet pan. Additionally, around April 2024 the resident complained about a dripping noise in the bathroom. However, the landlord’s operatives could not hear any noise when they visited. While the landlord has clearly taken some steps to resolve the resident’s concerns, it took far too long to satisfactorily resolve the issues reported on multiple occasions and left the resident having to frequently chase the landlord for action, and this amounts to maladministration. In line with this Service’s remedies guidance, compensation awards from £100 should be made where the Ombudsman has found failure which adversely impacted the resident, and an order has been made below.
  9. In June 2024, the resident informed this Service that leaks are now resolved but she was not sure exactly when that had been the case. She also advised that since she contacted the Ombudsman, the landlord had replaced the bath panels, installed a new fan in the bathroom and a new fan in the kitchen.

 The landlord’s handling of requests for reasonable adjustments

  1. The landlord’s reasonable adjustment’s policy at the time notes that it would aim to make reasonable adjustments to how it delivers its services to ensure residents with additional needs are not disadvantaged. The Ombudsman understands that ‘reasonable adjustments’ do not include specific or ongoing support, but rather changes to how a landlord will approach its service delivery for residents with specific needs. This could include telephoning before sending any correspondence in writing such as by email. In this case, given the resident’s learning difficulties, the telephone was her preferred means of contact. 
  2. The landlord has provided a reasonable adjustments and vulnerable needs policy dated January 2024 which set outs how it would support residents with vulnerable needs and explains how it defines, assesses and records vulnerabilities to meet a resident’s needs when necessary. It defines a resident with vulnerable needs as someone with any condition or circumstance that affects their ability to access landlord services. It states a reasonable adjustment can be an adjustment to the way the landlord communicates with its resident to meet their specific needs and it expects its colleagues and its contractors to anticipate the vulnerable needs a resident may have, and that they may need support or assistance. The Ombudsman notes that while this policy was not available at the time of the resident’s initial reports and complaints, it is reasonable for this report to make reference to it as a sensible guide where appropriate.
  3. As part of her complaint, the resident felt that the landlord failed to implement reasonable adjustments in its communication during its repair and complaints process. The landlord acknowledged that concerns about the communication needs of this resident were highlighted in 2020 and the resident’s profile was updated regarding learning difficulties. Further, the Ombudsman has seen that the resident stated she has learning difficulties in her housing application of September 2018. The landlord ought to have known from its records that the resident required an adjustment when it communicated with her. In May 2021, the resident called the landlord and explained she is both physically disabled and has learning difficulties and said she felt that the landlord and its contractors did not care. She explained she cannot read or write so does not respond to email or texts and requested all correspondence to be done via telephone. She reminded the landlord of this several times across 2021 and 2022. The landlord’s internal notes dated February 2022 stated the resident was vulnerable.
  4. The Ombudsman has seen examples where the landlord adjusted its communication by calling the resident and following up in writing, such as on 28 May 2021. There were also times when the landlord acted appropriately by communicating with the resident’s daughter such as in August 2021, and in its stage 2 of January 2023 it passed the landlord’s details on to the Citizens Advice advocate who was assisting the resident. This was a satisfactory approach.
  5. Nevertheless, on 15 June 2021, she received a text from the contractor cancelling her appointment, which she was unable to read and had to ask her neighbour to confirm. Also, around December 2022, the resident reported that she received a text from a contractor which suggested she get a slimline water tank, but she was unable to read it. These were oversights on the part of the landlord as its contractors should have arranged to call the resident either before or shortly after the text message had been sent.  There is also evidence that the landlord emailed the resident on 26 August 2021 asking for her bank details to pay compensation without first calling her. Having been aware of her reasonable adjustments, it should not have done this.
  6. The Ombudsman has not seen extensive records of phone calls or telephone logs as it would have expected in this case. While some telephone calls were made to the resident as requested, there were many instances of emails and text messages sent by the landlord’s contractor. This was contrary to its policy of making reasonable adjustments to its complaints service where necessary, ensuring customers with a disability are not at a disadvantage when accessing its service. This was inappropriate and would have caused distress to the resident who was forced to rely on her daughter and other advocates to assist with reading correspondence from the landlord.
  7. The Ombudsman notes that the situation with this case resonates with the Ombudsman’s Special Report on Southern Housing published in May 2024. In the Report, there were various examples where the landlord did not appropriately act on knowledge it had about the resident’s needs. As part of the Report, the Ombudsman recommended the landlord update its reasonable adjustments policy and ensure there is one single, accessible, source of accurate knowledge of residents’ vulnerabilities and reasonable adjustments.
  8. Overall, the landlord did not adequately adjust its communication with the resident in accordance with its own records and her requests. This led to distress and frustration which would have diminished her trust in the landlord to satisfactorily resolve the issues she experienced. Further, the landlord failed to acknowledge in its formal responses the shortcomings in its communication, which it would have been appropriate to do. Additionally, the Ombudsman has seen evidence of internal landlord emails dated in 2024 that indicate the resident’s profile did not have any communication preference or requests, which is concerning given the information supplied by the resident to the landlord on many occasions, starting with her housing application. There was service failure by the landlord in respect of this issue. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests awards up to £100 should be made where the Ombudsman has found failure which impacted the resident but did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident. An order and recommendation have been made to remedy.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure under which it is required to provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days. Where a resident is dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint, they may request escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process, following which the landlord aims to respond within 20 working days. If the landlord is unable to respond within 20 working days, it would contact the resident to explain why and when it would issue the response, which would not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason and the resident’s agreement.
  2. Despite the landlord acknowledging the resident’s formal complaint in December 2020 which was described as a “complaint”, it did not take any meaningful action. She made another formal complaint on 14 May 2021. The landlord acknowledged this complaint on 17 May 2021 and subsequently provided its stage 1 response around 28 May 2021. This was within 10 working days as per its policy. However, it is noted that the landlord failed to include the date and reference number in this response.
  3. Following the stage 1 response, the resident called the landlord 3 times throughout June 2021. It logged a stage 2 complaint on 24 June 2021 and issued a stage 2 response around 20 July 2021. This was a time frame of 18 working days which was in line with its complaints policy. Following this stage 2 response, the landlord should have carried out any actions and commitments to resolve the complaint. However, this did not happen and the resident and her advocates continued to chase in September 2021, June 2022, July 2022, October 2022, December 2022, and January 2023. This was a substantial period of time during which the resident made concerted efforts to obtain information from the landlord. It instead acknowledged a stage 2 complaint on 18 January 2023 with the same case reference as its stage 1 response from May 2021. This would have caused confusion to the resident as the landlord had already completed its internal complaints procedure back in July 2021, almost 18 months before. The landlord ought to have taken action far sooner and considered whether a new complaint should have been logged for the delay in carrying out the outstanding works given the time that had elapsed since July 2021.
  4. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the landlord acknowledged in internal emails that this had been “severely overdue” since 2021. The landlord issued another stage 2 response on 27 January 2023. Considering the resident had continued to express concern from September 2021, this was a substantial amount of time to formally respond to her concerns. The landlord failed to follow its own policy by not issuing a stage 1 response following the resident’s report of dissatisfaction in September 2021. Further, its second stage 2 response was issued after a lengthy period of chasing by the resident’s MP and advocates. This would have caused further distress to the resident who would have felt that even with the support of external agencies the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously.
  5. It is unclear why the landlord seemed to issue two stage 2 responses for the same complaint – one in July 2021 and one in January 2023, and with differing amounts of compensation. This was unsatisfactory and not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord’s failure to engage with the complaint and its lack of consistency would have caused frustration and confusion to the resident. Moreover, the landlord informed the resident in its stage 1 response that it intended to close the complaint. However, the resident did not wish for the case to be closed as there were outstanding actions at these times. This happened again when, following its second stage 2 response of January 2023, the landlord said the case was closed.
  6. While a landlord is entitled within reason to choose how it governs its processes and hence when to suggest closing a case, it should have recognised that closing the complaint at this point would have caused confusion and frustration for the resident. It would have been reasonable to leave the case open until it was satisfied the matter was resolved or had been escalated as necessary. It certainly should have taken adequate steps to reassure her that, despite the complaint having been closed, it was committed to any outstanding actions. A recommendation in relation to this has been made.
  7. Looking at the case as a whole, the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor and a significant failing in its service delivery. Evidence showed that the resident and her advocates regularly contacted the landlord for updates to the repairs and for a response to her complaint, but the landlord often failed to respond in a timely way which led to unnecessary delays. The landlord should have sought to keep the resident updated regularly, but it failed to do this and as a result the resident had no effective or open dialogue with the landlord. While the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint had not been dealt with in accordance with its target timescales and offered £50 for its complaint handling delays, this remedy was not proportionate in putting things right. An order and recommendation have been made below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s reports of issues with the hot water system.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak in the bathroom.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of requests for reasonable adjustments.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 28 calendar days of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Write to the resident, acknowledging, apologising for, and explaining the failings identified in this report.
    2. Inspect the property and satisfy itself that it has made good any areas that were affected following the installation of water heater system. It must also confirm whether the replacement flooring in kitchen and bathroom have been completed. If further works are identified, the landlord must provide a schedule of works with anticipated completion dates and keep the resident updated throughout until completion.
    3. Pay the resident £750 made up of:
      1. £150 as offered in its second stage 2 response of 27 January 2023, if it has not done so already.
      2. A further £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in repairing the water heater system.
      3. £200 for the failings in its handling of reports of a leak in bathroom.
      4. £50 for the failings in its handling of the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments.
      5. A further £100 for the failings in its handling of the complaint and the delayed formal responses.
  1. This £750 ordered is in addition to the £300 as offered in July 2021, which the landlord has confirmed has been paid to the resident already.
  1. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should:
    1. Review its record-keeping practices to ensure appropriate recording, handling of and responses to complaints and delivery of operational service including non-emergency repairs, including when it is appropriate to close a case that has outstanding actions for which appropriate commitments should be made. It should also consider, if it has not done so already, implementing a Knowledge and Information Management Strategy. This is discussed in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM).
    2. Ensure that a vulnerability flag on residents’ records are sufficiently obvious that it cannot be overlooked by its staff and contractors to prevent the poor appointment handling, and review its staff training needs in this respect.
    3. Contact the resident to signpost her to additional support or financial assistance, if appropriate.
    4. Contact the resident to progress her reports of damp and mould in the property, and ensure that its contractors are mindful of how to behave in residents’ homes.
    5. Review the resident’s formal complaint submitted on 23 February 2023, which was followed up on 13 and 27 July 2023 by the representative.