Southern Housing (202318574)

Background

1. The resident lived with her family in a cul-de-sac estate where the streetlamps were the responsibility of her landlord. She complained to her landlord regarding their response to her request for some non working lamps to be repaired as she was unhappy with the length of time it was taking which made her felt unsafe at night.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlords handling of:
   1. Repair request to streetlamps
   2. The associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. The was maladministration in the landlords handling of repairs to the streetlamps
   2. There was reasonable redress offered in the landlords handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. Reports of faulty streetlamps

The landlord failed to respond in a timely manner, keep accurate records or update the resident regarding any delays.

5. The associated complaint

The landlord failed to adhere to its own published complaints policy on several occasions, however it identified its own failings and made a reasonable offer of redress to the resident as a result.

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.

6. The resident first contacted he landlord regarding faulty streetlamps on 11 April 2023 although the landlords records show that they were already aware of the issue having raised a job for these following a report by a neighbour on 19 January 2023.
7. The landlords contractor did not attend to this repair until 03 May 2023 and then found they had the wrong bulbs and needed to order the correct ones. Whilst this was within 30 days of the resident reporting the fault it was over 4 months since the landlord was first aware. The landlords records show that these bulbs were eventually replaced on 09 August 2023, 8 months after the first report.
8. During this time, the resident has informed us that on 01 June 2023 a contractor came to her door, despite having been told she did not need to be at home as it was a communal repair and disturbed her non English speaking mother who was looking after the residents poorly child. This caused the mother significant distress and she called her son so he could talk to the contractor on the speakerphone. The contractor then said that they were not going to do the job as the estate belonged to the council and it was their responsibility plus he’d need a cherry picker to do it.
9. The landlord had already accepted responsibility for the job and raised the repair with its contractor evidencing this information to be incorrect and misleading.
10. The landlords repairs records show that whilst the 8 bulbs were replaced in August 2023, there were also records showing 3 broken lamps in September 2023 said to have been faulty for over 12 months. There is also an entry on the repairs log dated November 2023 saying the job is still outstanding to replace the 8 bulbs as they “had not been working for at least a year” and showing a completion date of 04 December 2023.
11. These records clearly conflict with each other making it impossible to know when the 8 bulbs were actually replaced.
12. The landlords records are confusing and contradictory. It is unclear when exactly the repair to the initial 3 bulbs or the 8 identified as needing work was carried out. What is clear is there was poor communication with the resident as she was continually asking for these works to be done and not being responded to. She reverted to using the complaints system as a means to raise these issues.
13. It is noted that the landlord raised a job to replace these 8 bulbs with new LED bulbs in February 2024 and to overhaul the streetlamps in an attempt to avoid this happening in future.
14. Irrespective of whether the bulbs were replaced in August 2023, September 2023 or another time, this repair clearly took longer to arrange than the 20 working days the landlord allocates for routine non emergency repairs in its repairs policy.
15. It is accepted that when parts have to be ordered there can be delays, and arranging specialist equipment such as a cherry picker or scaffold tower can also take time. However the landlord did not keep the resident informed of the reasons for any delays, if they had they may have avoided the 2 extra complaints and the associated confusion that came with them.
16. The landlord promised to put in place action plans to ensure the works were done, but these were either not put in place or not monitored as evidenced by the number of different jobs raised and conflicting information.
17. The resident informed her landlord that crime seemed to have increased on the estate since the streetlamps failed, with shed break ins, car break ins, car theft and a mugging and that she feared for her own and her families safety once it became dark. There is no evidence to directly link the failure to repair the lamps to the spike in crime levels, however the resident advised that the worry about this was affecting her stress levels and ability to sleep.
18. Despite upholding her complaints at all stages, the landlord advised the resident in its complaint responses that its policy was not to award financial compensation for communal repairs. We have made orders for the landlord to pay the resident £250 for its failings in keeping the resident informed and for her time and trouble in having to continually report these issues to them.

19. The landlord had a 2 stage complaints policy at the time of the complaint. Stage 1 complaints were to be acknowledged within 5 days of receipt and responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints were to be contacted within 5 working days and a response issued within 20 working days. Both stages allowed for a 10 day extension with the residents agreement. This was in line with The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
20. The landlord acknowledged the residents complaint 10 working days after it was received. This did not adhere to their policy.
21. The landlord issued its Stage 1 response 10 days after the acknowledgement. They summarised the issues and resolution sought and explained their findings and conclusion. They advised that they were putting in place a plan to monitor the works to ensure they were completed and apologised for the delays.
22. The resident emailed the landlord on 27 September 2023 asking to progress her complaint beyond Stage 1. Whilst the email did not specifically request a Stage 2, the landlord recorded the incoming email but failed to follow this up or clarify with the resident what she was requesting. They did not action the request and missed the opportunity to respond in a timely manner. This did not adhere to their complaints policy.
23. Having had no response to her request to escalate her original complaint, the resident logged a duplicate Stage 1 complaint with her landlord on 01 November 2023.
24. The landlord then responded to her on 17 November 2023 advising that they were rejecting the complaint request as it was a duplication of the previous complaint, and instead offered to escalate the original Stage 1 to Stage 2. This was in line with the Code.
25. The resident did not respond to this until 15 May 2024 when she requested the complaint be reviewed at Stage 2 as the issues were still not resolved. However the landlords service team incorrectly refused this request.  This is evidence of poor complaints handling.
26. Having had her request for a Stage 2 refused, the resident logged a further Stage 1 complaint on 15 May 2024. This time the landlord accepted it, investigated and responded. This complaint should have made the landlord aware that the original complaint had still not completed their internal complaints process and is evidence of poor record keeping and staff awareness.
27. The landlord issued its Stage 1 response on 28 June 2024 upholding the complaint, this was 31 working days after it had been received. This was not in line with their complaints policy.
28. The resident then asked for this to be reviewed at Stage 2. The landlord did not acknowledge or action this request. This was not in line with their complaints policy.
29. The resident requested assistance from the Ombudsman and we wrote to the landlord on 04 November 2024 requesting them to investigate and respond to the original complaint at Stage 2.
30. The landlord issued its Stage 2 response on 06 November 2024, 284 working days since the resident had first asked for a Stage 2 review. It summarised the issues and resolution sought. Apologised that the repair was still outstanding. Provided a chronology of events up to that date for both the repair and the complaints process. Put in place an action plan to monitor the repair. It also explained the lessons learned and identified its failings. This was a comprehensive response and in line with the code. It was unfair that the resident had to wait such a long time for this and make repeated attempts to get a response.
31. The landlord offered £130 redress for failings in its complaint handling. This was reasonable in the circumstances and we are not ordering any further compensation for these issues.
32. If this offer of redress had not been made it is likely that we would have found some level of maladministration due to the impact these failings had on the resident.

Learning

33. The landlord failed to identify any learning from the repairs issues despite upholding the complaints. It did identify it’s failings with its complaint handling, apologising and offering redress for this.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

34. The repairs records the landlord provided to us were incomplete. The resident had details of calls to the landlord and repair numbers (for this issue) which were not included on the information provided to us by the landlord. Whilst there is no evidence to show this was a deliberate omission, it is evidence of poor record keeping and information management.

Communication

35. The landlords communication with the resident was poor throughout this process with the exception of its complaint responses which were detailed and thorough.