Southern Housing (202312170)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house with her daughter, son in law and 3 grandchildren. She told us her daughter is disabled, and her granddaughter has asthma, but the landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about how the landlord handled:
   1. The resident’s repair requests.
   2. Her reports of damp and mould.
   3. The Japanese Knotweed.
   4. Her complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repair requests.
4. There was a maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damp and mould.
   2. Associated complaint.
5. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the Japanese Knotweed.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord was unable to rely on its records to confirm the status of repairs, whether it fulfilled its repairing obligation or whether it did so within the timeframe specified in its policy. This led to repeated inspections and repairs that the resident had to accommodate. It also created confusion as to what repairs were left outstanding. We relied on the resident to confirm that most repairs had now been completed, although she also reported that the standards of these repairs were poor, particularly in relation to the bath panel.
7. There were outstanding repairs to aid ventilation and prevent damp and mould from recurring, particularly in relation to repairing the bathroom fan and installing ventilation in the built-in wardrobes. We were also not able to confirm that it has completed sealing the windows.
8. The landlord could have communicated with the resident better following her report in February 2023, but it put an effective treatment plan in place. It took appropriate action when its contractor entered the resident’s garden without her permission and offered reasonable compensation.
9. It did not deal with the complaint in line with the Code or its own policy. It acknowledged delays   and offered £105 compensation in total. This was not enough, given the level of inconvenience caused to the resident over the 7 months it took to complete its complaint process.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration, we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

10. In May 2024, we published a report following a special investigation of the landlord’s handling of repairs, damp and mould and complaints. We found common failings in the landlord’s approach and made recommendations for improvement. The report is available on our website. We found similar failings in the landlord’s handling of repairs and its record keeping in this case to those we highlighted in our special investigation report.
11. In her complaint of 13 July 2023, the resident said the landlord had not attended to her reports of:
    1. Kitchen units “falling apart”.
    2. A warped and damaged bath panel.
    3. Water damage and sunken floor under her bath. The bath needed sealing and there was a gap between the skirting board and floor.
    4. Toilet lids getting stuck behind the cistern causing them to break.
    5. A loose banister which she felt was unsafe.
    6. Gaps around her window frames and water in the double glazed panels.
    7. Radiators having no adjustment controls, being 23 years old and having never been bled.
    8. Plastering in her lounge and bedroom which had not been finished.
12. In her escalation request (around 15 November 2023), she said the landlord had not attended to other repair issues including:
    1. Internal doors none of which closed properly and were a fire safety risk.
    2. A missing safety latch on a window which a surveyor had noticed during an inspection.
    3. A loose washbasin.
    4. A broken fence panel.
13. The resident told us some of the issues dated back to the start of her tenancy in 2000 and others from 2013 when the landlord replaced her kitchen and windows. As events become historic, it becomes difficult for us to investigate and arrive at meaningful conclusions. Given the passage of time and evidence available to us, we have investigated the landlord’s handling of the repairs from 2022, 12 months before the resident raised her formal complaint.
14. The landlord’s repair records were not a reliable or accurate account of repairs its contractor attended or completed. Jobs were marked as completed but its contact records and emails sent by the resident showed its contractor had either not attended arranged appointments or had attended but not done the work ordered.
15. The landlord typically responded by raising another order for the same work. Often this again resulted in the contractor not attending or attending but not doing the work. On some occasions the contractor asked the landlord to inspect. The landlord inspected 5 times between 18 April 2023 and 24 October 2023. The landlord also failed to explain why it was arranging further surveys. This caused the resident to call to make sure the surveys were needed before arranging time off work.
16. The evidence suggests there were other inspections too but it is not clear when they took place or if they were done by the landlord or its contractor. The multiple inspections added to the resident’s frustration because different repairs were identified each time. While the landlord ordered repairs after each inspection, it is unclear what work, if any, was actually done and when.
17. The landlord had little oversight of its contractor’s actions and often emailed it to ask if jobs were still outstanding. The lack of oversight may explain why the landlord and contractor often gave the resident conflicting information about her repairs. Several times, the landlord told her jobs were outstanding but then the contractor told her they were cancelled.
18. There is no evidence the landlord held its contractor to account as it should have or took any action to make sure its contractor did the work it had ordered. This left the resident having to report the same repair issues repeatedly and take more time off work for appointments than should have been necessary.
19. It appears some of the work the resident asked for may not fall under the landlord’s repair obligations. For example, she wanted her internal doors replacing but internal doors are a resident’s responsibility under the landlord’s Repairs Policy if the need arrives from general wear and tear. However, it raised multiple repair orders for internal doors from April 2023. While it appears that no repairs were actually done, the orders gave the resident the expectation that the landlord was responsible for the doors. We cannot see that it told her it was not responsible before its stage 2 complaint response of 15 February 2024.
20. Through its complaint responses, the landlord agreed there were failings and delays in its handling of the repairs. It offered a total compensation of £615. For this part of the complaint, it offered £340. After the end of its complaint process, it inspected again and arranged for a different contractor to seal worktops, repair the bathroom floor, replace the bath panel and overhaul the bathroom suite, although she continued to report issues with the workmanship, particularly with the bath panel.
21. In assessing the level of compensation, the landlord offered fair and proportionate compensation which falls within the range recommended in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for complaints where a failure by the landlord affected the resident but not permanently.
22. However, the landlord’s records have failed to offer us assurance that all repairs have been completed and without unreasonable delay. As we were unable to evidence it has done so, we found there was a service failure.

23. The resident believes the damp and mould has caused her granddaughter to have asthma. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for her to make a personal injury claim. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any impact on health. We have not investigated this aspect further. We can decide if the landlord should pay compensation for any distress or inconvenience caused by its response to her reports.
24. The landlord’s repair records show the resident reported damp and mould earlier in her tenancy. But, as with the repair issues, we have investigated its handling of her reports from 2022.
25. The resident reported mould “persisting” on 29 March 2023. The landlord inspected on 18 April 2023, but there is no evidence explaining what was found or what actions would be taken. In May 2023, the resident asked the landlord to clarify the actions it would take following the April 2023 inspection. The landlord sent internal emails to colleagues asking for an update. There is no evidence this was clarified to the landlord or the resident.
26. In her stage 1 complaint in August 2023, the resident said the mould in the property has been ‘horrendous’, and other people had told her she needed vents in the bathroom and in the built-in wardrobe. She also said the windows needed sealing. The landlord sent a surveyor in August 2023, who confirmed the windows needed sealing. There is gap in its record keeping and it is not clear what actions it has taken in response.
27. It sent its surveyor to the property again in October 2023 who said that the bathroom extractor fan was not working and that vents could be fitted in built-in wardrobe doors to improve ventilation.
28. Through its complaint responses, the landlord implied it had treated the mould and sealed the windows. The resident agreed it had washed the mould but said it did not fit ventilation in the built-in wardrobe or repair the extractor fan in the bathroom. We were unable to confirm the status of these from the landlord’s records.
29. After its complaint process, the landlord inspected again on 7 June 2024 and confirmed the extractor fan had not been replaced. It found mould around the window. It is not clear from the evidence whether it had raised the jobs for these repairs to be completed.
30. We therefore find that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould. We have made orders below for it to inspect the property and complete the necessary repairs in a timely manner.
31. In assessing the level of compensation for this part of the complaint, the landlord offered £120 in compensation. We found that this was insufficient to fully put it right for the resident, given the unreasonable level of involvement from the resident, the time and effort, trouble and inconvenience chasing the landlord to act on the recommendations of its qualified operatives from as early as October 2023. This caused the resident added worry with regard to her granddaughter’s diagnosis of asthma. We therefore ordered a compensation of £250 for this aspect of the complaint.

32. Japanese Knotweed is an invasive, fast growing, non-native plant which can cause ecological damage. There is no legal obligation for landowners to remove it but it is an offence to allow it to spread into the wild or other gardens.
33. The resident reported the Japanese Knotweed growing in her garden on 17 February 2023. The landlord did not act on her report until 16 May 2023 because its staff were not sure how to deal with Japanese Knotweed growing in a garden. The delay caused some inconvenience as the resident was worried it would spread and chased the landlord for a response.
34. From 16 May 2023, the landlord updated the resident and engaged a licensed contractor to assess the Japanese Knotweed. It received the contractors report on 31 May 2023 and raised an order for the treatment and monitoring plan it recommended.
35. The resident knew the contractor was doing the first treatment on 11 July 2023. She shared her dissatisfaction with the landlord however, as the contractor had started work without letting her know it had arrived. It was appropriate the landlord addressed this with the contractor and told the resident its contractor would let her know when it arrived in future. It was reasonable the landlord later offered £50 compensation through its complaints process for the distress and inconvenience caused.
36. The resident was also unhappy because she understood she could not use her garden during the 5-year treatment plan. It was reasonable the landlord sought advice from its contractor and confirmed she could use the areas not being treated as normal. It also gave the resident its contractor’s information leaflet which explained the precautions occupiers should take during the treatment plan. It may have been helpful if the landlord had given the leaflet before treatment started.
37. The resident told us the last treatment was done recently and there is no Japanese Knotweed in her garden. But it remains present on adjoining land that the landlord does not own. She is worried it will come back and about using her garden. While we understand her concerns, there is no evidence the landlord was responsible for the presence of the Japanese Knotweed and it acted appropriately in arranging the treatment and monitoring plan.

38. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2022 edition.
39. The resident complained on 13 July 2023. In line with the Code, the landlord should have logged and acknowledged it within 5 working days. It logged the complaint on 25 July 2023 and told the resident it would acknowledge it within 5 working days. It sent a formal acknowledgement on 1 August 2023 which was 12 working days after it received the complaint.
40. In line with the Code, it should have given a stage 1 response within 10 working days. By the time the landlord extended its response timescale on 10 October 2023, its response was 43 working days late. It then failed to provide a response within the extended timescale it gave and, on 25 October 2023, extended the response timescale by a further 10 working days.
41. This meant it stage 1 response of 10 November 2023 was 63 working days late. While we understand the resident’s complaint was complex, such a long delay was inappropriate.
42. We cannot tell from the landlord’s records exactly when it received the resident’s escalation request but the evidence suggests it was around 15 November 2023. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 19 December 2023. The 2022 edition of the Code did not specify a timescale for landlords to acknowledge escalation requests.
43. In line with the Code, the landlord should have given a stage 2 response within 20 working days of its acknowledgement but it failed to do so. After our intervention, it gave a response on 2 February 2024. But the letter said it was a stage 1 response, did not confirm the resident had completed its complaint process, or set out the next steps should she remain dissatisfied. We intervened again and the landlord gave its stage 2 response on 15 February 2024. This meant its final response was 19 working days late.
44. The delays at both stages caused inconvenience because the resident chased the landlord for its responses and needed to ask us to intervene at stage 2. It also delayed the resident in being able to ask us to investigate her complaint.
45. The content and wording of both complaint responses was inadequate. For example, the landlord set out the repairs orders it had raised but did not clearly explain what work it had done or timescales it would work to for outstanding repairs. Its stage 2 response did not give a clear explanation of why the landlord felt some of the resident’s requests were not repairs it was responsible for.
46. We find there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

47. Since the events in this case, the landlord has acted on the recommendations we made in our special investigation report. This included revising its Repairs Policy, introducing measures to manage contractor performance, and improving its complaint handling and record keeping practices. We will assess the impact of its changes through our future casework.