Southern Housing (202329249)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329249

Southern Housing

20 January 2025

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s:
1. Boiler.
2. Kitchen appliances.
3. Door entry system.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. Her tenancy at the property began on 17 September 2012. The property is a 1 bedroom first floor flat within a residential block. The landlord records that the resident has mental health conditions and “is deemed as vulnerable”.
On 5 December 2022, the resident reported that she had no heating or hot water in the property. The landlord’s gas contractor attended the following day but was unable to access the property.
On 31 August 2023, the landlord’s gas contractor capped the gas supply at the resident’s property. This was due to the annual gas safety check being overdue and it having been unable to gain access to complete this.
The resident reported that the handset for the door entry system in her flat was not working on 8 November 2023.
On 21 November 2023, the resident contacted the Ombudsman. She expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of multiple issues with the property including boiler issues, broken buttons on her washing machine and cooker, and her door entry handset not working. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 22 November 2023 asking it to raise a stage 1 complaint.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 11 December 2023. It said that:
1. Its gas contractor needed to attend the property to carry out her gas safety check. It asked her to contact them and arrange this.
2. It was not responsible for repairing the resident’s appliances. It could find no record of her previously discussing this with it.
3. It believed the door entry system fault was isolated to her flat. Its contractor had been unable to gain access to inspect or repair this.
On 21 February 2024, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on the resident’s behalf asking it to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 18 March 2024. It said that:
1. It had been “very active” in trying to complete the gas safety inspection and repairs to the boiler, but unable to gain access on multiple occasions.
2. Its gas contractor had attended the property on 26 February 2024. It had found a fault with the boiler and determined it needed replacing.
3. It had since been unable to gain access to replace the boiler. A further appointment was scheduled for 20 March 2024.
4. It was not responsible for repairing the resident’s appliances and she would need to arrange this.
5. Its contactor had attended the property in June 2022 and provided a quote to repair her damaged door entry system handset. This quote had expired, so the contractor had reattended on 30 September and issued a new quote.
6. A new works order for the door entry system had been raised on 8 November 2023. Its contractor had attended on 8 January 2024 but been unable to gain access to the property.
7. It was offering her £60 compensation for failing to carry out the door entry system repairs in a timely manner. This was due to its “delay in picking up the original quote which led to this being reattended”.

Events since landlord’s stage 2 response

The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint on 5 April 2024. She said the landlord had still not renewed the boiler in the property.
The landlord’s records indicate that its gas contractor renewed the boiler in August 2024 and the door entry handset was repaired at some point prior to this.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

As well as the matters outlined in paragraph 1 of this report, the stage 1 complaint raised by the Ombudsman on the resident’s behalf also concerned damp and mould in the property and external window cleaning. The resident did not express continued dissatisfaction with those elements of the complaint after the landlord’s stage 1 response. They therefore did not feature in the stage 2 complaint raised by the Ombudsman on her behalf and will not be included in this investigation.
When referring her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident claimed that the landlord had agreed to renew her kitchen in January 2024 but had not done so. She said that this was one of her desired outcomes of the Ombudsman’s investigation. Renewal of the kitchen in the property was not included in either the resident’s stage 1 or 2 complaint and so cannot form part of this investigation. If the resident wishes to pursue the kitchen renewal further, she may wish to raise a new complaint with the landlord about this.

Boiler repairs

The landlord’s repair records show that the resident reported an issue with the boiler, leaving her with no heating or hot water, on 5 December 2022. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it treats this as an emergency repair at all times of the year for vulnerable residents. The landlord’s gas contractor attended the property on 6 December 2022, in keeping with this, but was unable to gain access.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said to the resident that following it not being able to gain access “you were advised to contact us to rebook this, however I’m unable to see any further contact from yourself”. Considering the landlord classified the resident as vulnerable, it would have been appropriate for it to be more proactive in following up on the repair. The landlord has a duty under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to ensure that it keeps the boiler in the property in repair and working order. Its failure to do this meant the resident was left with no heating and hot water in winter.
On 8 June 2023, the landlord raised an order for the annual gas safety check at the property. The landlord’s gas safety policy says that it is “obliged to make reasonable attempts to gain access to carry out the gas service and safety check”. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord detailed 8 failed attempts to access the property. Its gas contractor had notified the resident of at least 3 of these by letter and had agreed a further one with her over the phone.
The gas safety check became overdue, and the landlord’s gas contractor capped the gas supply to the property on 31 August 2023. Its gas safety policy allows that it will do this when it is unable to gain access.
However, the policy also says “We will take reasonable steps to track all properties where we know there is a capped gas supply. We’ll consider any special needs or vulnerabilities should this become necessary.” There is no evidence that the landlord adopted this approach in this case, despite classing the resident as vulnerable. After its contractor capped the resident’s gas supply on 31 August 2023 the landlord’s records do not show any further contact with the resident about this prior to her logging her complaint.
Within the information provided for this investigation, the landlord said it had previously found “signs of neglect, a lack of cleanliness, and unreported repairs at the property”. Considering this it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider taking legal action to obtain an injunction to access the property and reinstate the gas supply. The landlord’s stage 2 response said that “As we were unable to gain access to your home after multiple attempts, we began the legal process to access your home to complete the check.” However, it has not provided any evidence of it commencing a legal process and it evidently did not complete one.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord asked the resident to contact it to arrange an appointment for a gas safety check. It provided an email address for her to do this through, despite the fact that the resident does not use email. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to arrange an appointment to reinstate the gas supply and restore the boiler to working order as part of its stage 1 resolution. This represented another missed opportunity to try and proactively resolve the issue.
After the resident escalated her complaint, the landlord arranged for its gas contractor to attend the property on 26 February 2024. During this visit, the contractor diagnosed a fault with the boiler and determined it needed replacing. The gas contractor made 3 appointments to survey for a new boiler, however it was unable to access the property for any of these. In its stage 2 response, it made a further appointment for 20 March 2024.
The Ombudsman notes that the boiler in the property was not replaced until several months after this appointment. However, the reasons for this delay are unclear from the information available for this investigation. Considering the established pattern of difficulties in accessing the property, it would be unreasonable to assume this delay was due to failings on the landlord’s part.
In summary, whilst the Ombudsman appreciates the difficulties posed by the resident’s repeated failure to allow the landlord’s contractor access to repair and service the boiler. However, the landlord has a legal obligation to ensure it keeps the boiler in the property in repair and working order. The landlord failed to appropriately follow up with the resident after being unable to gain access for the boiler repair appointment, despite being aware of her vulnerabilities and that she was without heating and hot water. The landlord similarly failed to follow up again, after it capped the gas supply to the property. This represents maladministration.

Appliances

The landlord’s repairs policy says that residents are responsible for “repairing items you have installed yourself” and “repairs to your own cooker, fridge and other white goods (including those that we have gifted to you).” The landlord’s position in both its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses was in keeping with this.
The landlord told the resident it had no record of her reporting issues with her appliances to it. The records provided by the landlord for this investigation corroborate this. As such, there is no evidence that the landlord ever gave the resident the impression that it would repair her kitchen appliances. There is no evidence of maladministration by the landlord.

Door entry system repairs

The landlord’s complaints policy says that “you can complain about our standard of service, actions or lack of action by us or anyone working for us (e.g. contractors) within 12 months of the issue happening or of you becoming aware of the issue.” It adds that “If the problem is a reoccurring or ongoing issue, we’ll consider any older reports as background to the investigation.”
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response said that, whilst it was unable to investigate events dating back to 2022, it had included a timeline of these “for clarity”. This was in keeping with its complaints policy. However, the landlord then confused matters by offering compensation for its failure to follow up on its contractors quote provided in June 2022. This was above and beyond merely considering the events as background, however it was reasonable for the landlord to identify this failing and make an offer of compensation.
The landlord said that its contractor had then provided a new quote on 3 September 2022. Whilst the landlord did not clarify whether it had approved this quote, and the contractor had works completed, the works order is marked as having been invoiced on its repair logs. It would therefore appear that the repairs were carried out.
The resident reported an issue with the door entry system handset again on 8 November 2023. The landlord’s repairs contractor attended on 8 January 2024 but was unable to access the property. Whilst the landlord’s repairs policy does not establish a timescale for it to attend to routine repairs, its repair logs set a target date of 18 December 2023 for this works order, which it failed to meet.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord claimed that its contractor had been unable to access the resident’s property to repair the door entry system. However, the landlord’s stage 1 response was dated 12 December 2023, at which point its contractor had not attempted to attend to the most recent works order, made on 8 November 2023.
In both of its complaint responses, the landlord referred to the door entry system repair as forming part of an ongoing legal disrepair case. In its stage 2 response the landlord said that “If you have any questions about the progress of this work, please speak to your solicitor who will communicate with our legal team”.
The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will exclude matters from its complaints process “where legal proceedings have started. This is defined as details of the claim, such as the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim, having been filed at court”. The landlord has provided no evidence that this was the case here. As such it would have been appropriate for the landlord to attempt to resolve the door entry repair as part of its complaints process by offering an appointment for this within its stage 2 complaint response, as it had for the boiler.
Due to this, and the unreasonable delay in the landlord’s contractor attending after her report of 8 November 2023, the Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the resident’s boiler.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen appliances.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the resident’s door entry system.

Orders

Within 5 weeks of the date of this determination, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £450 composed of:
  1. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its handling of boiler repairs.
  2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure in its handling of door entry system repairs.
2. Apologise to the resident for the maladministration identified by this investigation.
3. Review its procedures for dealing with vulnerable residents after:
  1. No access for repairs where a loss of heating and hot water is reported.
  2. Their gas supply has been capped due to failure to arrange access for the annual gas safety check.

The review should include, but is not limited to, consideration of:

Ensuring it appropriately records resident vulnerabilities on its systems and shares details of these with its gas contractor where relevant.
Making appropriate attempts to contact vulnerable residents to check on their welfare and identify any reasons behind the no access.
How best to “track” properties with a capped gas supply and share details of these with its housing management team for further investigation.
Establishing guidance for when it is appropriate to consider legal action to enforce its right to access for heating/hot water repairs and gas safety checks under the tenancy agreement.

The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this service.