Southern Housing (202316338)

Background

1. The resident complained the landlord identified a gas leak and turned off her gas in October 2022. She asked the landlord to compensate her for the energy bill she was charged for the period she said she was without gas. The landlord advised that it had not identified a gas leak or switched off her supply at any stage, and therefore would not reimburse her energy bills. The resident disputes the landlords account and considers it should reimburse her around £800.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about how the landlord handled the resident’s request for reimbursement of energy bills.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found that:
   1. There was service failure in how the landlord handled the resident’s request for reimbursement of energy bills.
   2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

5. There is no evidence of any failing by the landlord which caused the resident to incur excess energy bills. Therefore, it acted in line with its policy when it refused to reimburse these for her. However, it delayed significantly in meaningfully addressing the resident’s allegation that it had identified a gas leak and switched her supply off.
6. The landlord exceeded its timescales on multiple occasions in acknowledging and issuing responses to the resident’s complaints over a 12 month period.

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.

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.

7. The landlord’s compensation policy explains that it will compensate residents for quantifiable loss when its own failure has resulted in a measurable loss.
8. On 8 December 2022 the resident submitted a claim for compensation. She explained the landlord issued her a gas leak warning notice on 12 October 2022 and switched off her supply. She explained she was then charged for gas that she did not use from this point onwards and asked the landlord to reimburse her for this.
9. We have seen the gas safety warning the resident claimed was issued to her by the landlord on 12 October 2022. It is not dated or signed, and the meter number is different from the meter number listed on the resident’s energy bills from 2022 to 2023. Therefore, we do not consider that the landlord issued this to the resident. We note the landlord has advised that it does not employ the contractor listed on the letter, and the records corroborate this. We have also seen that the landlord completed a gas safety check on 12 October 2022 and found no defects. We have seen no records to corroborate the resident’s account that the landlord identified any issues or switched the gas off at this October 2022 visit or any subsequent visits.
10. However, the landlord delayed significantly in addressing the compensation request. The first action it took to engage the resident and discuss her concerns was when it raised a complaint on 24 May 2023. It then declined to offer any compensation via email on 6 June 2023. There is no justification for this delay within the records. In the absence of any evidence to explain it, we consider it was unreasonable and delayed a resolution.
11. In its 6 June 2023 email the landlord advised the resident’s that her bills did not indicate any unusual increases for the November 2022 to April 2023 period. It noted that she had not made payments from November 2022 to April 2023, and that this was the reason for the outstanding debit on the account. On this basis it declined to offer further compensation. We have seen the energy bills for this period and they corroborate the landlord’s position. Ultimately, there is no evidence of a failure by the landlord which resulted in excess energy bills, or that it switched her gas off at any stage. Therefore, the landlord acted as per its compensation guidance by refusing to reimburse the outstanding bill.
12. However, the landlord missed opportunities from December 2022 to December 2023 to specifically address the resident’s allegations about the events of 12 October 2022. It confirmed in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses that it had not switched her gas off or identified any gas-related issues on 12 October 2022 or at any subsequent inspections. However, it was unreasonable that it took 12 months to meaningfully address the substantive allegation here.
13. The landlord has not acknowledged this omission or its 5 month delay in addressing the resident’s request from 8 December 2022 until 25 May 2023. These delays likely caused the resident some distress, and so we have ordered the landlord pays compensation to put this right.
14. Our compensation guidance sets out that payments of £50 to £100 are appropriate to put right failures which have caused minor or short-term impacts. In calculating the appropriate sum, we have considered:
    1. the length of the delays
    2. that the resident incurred some inconvenience given she chased a response on 2 occasions
15. Having considered this, we have ordered the landlord to pay a sum at the top end of our scale.

16. The landlord’s complaints policy in place at the time of these events explained that it would first attempt to informally resolve expressions of dissatisfaction within 20 working days. When it was unable to do so, it would log a formal complaint and acknowledge this within 3 working days. There are no explicit timescales for when it would issue a response by. It would acknowledge requests for a review of this first complaint decision within 3 working days. It would then investigate this and issue a response within 40 working days of the acknowledgement.
17. This procedure was not in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in place at the time of the complaint. Our Code set out that landlords should operate a 2 stage complaint process. It explained that they should issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of acknowledgement, and stage 2 responses within 20 working days. The Code also set out that landlords should update residents in case of delays and provide updated timescales. The landlord’s policy did not align with this procedure.
18. We note, however, that the landlord’s current complaints policy is in line with the current procedure set out in the Code.
19. The resident raised an expression of dissatisfaction on 8 December 2022. The landlord first discussed this with the resident on 24 May 2023, at which point it raised a formal complaint. This was 93 working days past its informal resolution timescales. It then met with the resident on 6 June 2023 and discussed her concerns with her. This was not in line with its policy which set out that it should have investigated a formal complaint at this stage.
20. Following the informal discussion the resident reiterated her complaint on 23 June 2023. On 3 July 2023 the landlord advised her it would investigate this but failed to follow through on this. It emailed the resident on 31 August 2023 and asked if she would like to raise a stage 1 complaint. It is unclear why it sought further confirmation at this stage given it had already agreed to investigate her concerns as a formal complaint over a month prior. Its failure to follow through here further delayed any resolution to the complaint.
21. The resident confirmed she would like a stage 1 response on 1 December 2023, and the landlord issued its response 10 working days later. This was a reasonable timeframe. On 31 January 2024 the resident complained she was unhappy with the stage 1 decision. She chased a response from the landlord on 3 further occasions until it acknowledged her request on 5 March 2024. This was 21 working days past its timescales. The landlord then issued a stage 2 response 8 working days later which was within its timescales.
22. Ultimately then, the landlord delayed in:
    1. informally addressing the complaint
    2. raising a formal complaint
    3. raising and acknowledging the resident’s request for a complaint review
23. These omissions together contributed significantly to an unreasonably drawn out complaints process spanning over 12 months. This likely caused the resident distress, and we can see she incurred repeated inconvenience in chasing responses. The landlord has yet to acknowledge these omissions.
24. With this in mind, we have ordered it to pay compensation at the top end of our scale.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord’s record keeping was adequate. It recorded each instance of the resident’s contact. However, we note that it did not appear to make good use of these records to inform and update its handling of the resident’s complaint. For example, it repeatedly failed to raise complaints in response to the resident’s requests.

Communication

26. The landlord’s overall communication was poor. Of particular note was its failure to meaningfully address the substantive allegation at the core of the resident’s request for reimbursement until its stage 1 response. We would encourage the landlord to reflect on how it might have resolved the complaint much sooner by doing so.