Southern Housing (202332868)

Background

1. The resident moved into a property in a newly built block of flats in June 2023. The original developer went into administration the same month. The resident told the landlord the intercom system, including the video doorbell feature and the fob access to the lifts were not working. The landlord instructed a number of contractors to resolve these issues. The resident made 2 separate complaints about the landlord’s delay in completing these repairs and its communication with him during this time. The resident’s second complaint did not exhaust the landlord’s internal complaint procedure.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the intercom system.
3. We have also looked at the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of repairs to the intercom system.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Repairs to the intercom system

6. The landlord delayed repairing the intercom system and its communication with the resident was inconsistent. However, it made attempts to resolve the issue, recognised its failings, and its compensation was fair in the circumstances.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord responded to the resident’s first stage 1 complaint in line with its policy and procedure. This includes agreeing an extension. However, it delayed responding to the resident’s stage 2 complaint and did not do so within its published timescales. It did not identify this failure.
8. We have not assessed the landlord’s handling of the resident’s second complaint because the resident did not further escalate those issues.

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.

9. The landlord acknowledged it delayed completing repairs to the intercom system. It also acknowledged it could have provided better communication. Where the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and put things right.
10. The landlord has not provided a copy of the resident’s report of the repair to the intercom system, but said it was made aware of the issue when the resident moved into the property in June 2023. On 19 October 2023, it said its contractor had previously attended but could not complete the necessary repairs. The landlord’s records lack detail, and it is unclear when this was. It then said its contractor attended on 23 October 2023 but again, the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence of this visit.
11. The landlord said that its contractor failed to attend as planned on 7 December 2023. It is unclear when they returned but the resident reported that his video doorbell was working on 20 December 2023 and his intercom on 21 January 2024. This meant it took 7 months for the landlord to resolve these issues. This was an unreasonable delay and during this time, the resident missed deliveries and could not allow access to visitors without going down to the communal entrance door.
12. The resident was then inconvenienced by having to raise a new complaint due to the remaining repairs to the fob system of the lift being outstanding. It appears the landlord’s contractor carried out repairs to the system in July 2024. It then told us all issues with the intercom system were completed by September 2024 and provided evidence of its contractor confirming this. This meant it took the landlord a further 8 months to fully resolve all issues.
13. During this time, the landlord did not always respond to the resident in a timely manner. This caused him inconvenience and distress, and he had to chase it on a number of occasions. It was positive that the landlord agreed to contact the resident every fortnight with an update as part of its stage 2 response in December 2023. However, it has not provided sufficient evidence it always did so.
14. The landlord said the intercom repairs were complex because the original developer, who had gone into administration, left inadequate diagrams and technical information. It said this contributed to the delay. In July 2024, the contractor confirmed the system had been wired in a loop and would never have worked properly, and that the cables were poorly labelled. They spent several days rectifying these issues which supported the landlord’s statement.
15. The landlord provided an access control commissioning certificate dated 21 April 2023 (several months before the resident moved in), signed by the original installer, confirming the system met relevant standards. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to believe the system was working when the resident moved in and that it was not aware of any issues before they were reported.
16. The landlord offered the resident a total of £480 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to him by delays in completing repairs to the intercom system and for its poor communication during this time. This includes the £100 it credited the resident’s rent account in May 2024 and the £115 it offered in its more recent stage 1 response.  This was a meaningful step to by the landlord to acknowledge its failures.
17. Considering the impact caused to the resident by the overall delay in completing these repairs and the inconvenience caused by raising a new complaint along with the complexity of the repairs and the landlord’s attempts to resolve them during this time, we have determined that the amount offered by the landlord was fair and proportionate. The amount offered by the landlord was also in line with our remedies guidance for cases where there were failures which adversely affect the resident but had no permanent impact.

18. The landlord’s complaint policy sets out a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. If the landlord cannot respond within these timescales, it will agree an extension of a further 10 working days for stage 1 complaints and 20 working days for stage 2 complaint.
19. The landlord agreed an extension to its stage 1 response 10 working days after it acknowledged the complaint. It then took a further 10 working days to issue its response, meaning it took 20 working days in total. This was in keeping with its complaints policy.
20. It delayed responding to the resident’s stage 2 complaint, doing so in 33 working days. This was not in keeping with its published timescales and it did not identify this delay or attempt to put things right.
21. Our remedies guidance sets out that payments up to £100 are appropriate where there was minor failure by the landlord and it did not acknowledge this. In ordering £50 compensation, we have considered the inconvenience caused to the resident by its delay at stage 2.

What we have not considered

22. We have not considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s second complaint. This is because the resident did not exhaust the landlord’s internal complaint procedure as he did not escalate his concerns regarding its handling of intercom repairs, but of a separate matter regarding repairs to the communal door which falls outside the scope of this investigation. Should the resident be unhappy with the landlord’s handling of this separate matter at stage 2, he may be able to refer the matter to us for consideration.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord provided this service with limited evidence in relation to its handling of intercom repairs which at times, made it more difficult for us to assess its handling of the matter. The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate repair records.

Communication

24. The landlord failed to communicate with the resident appropriately. Had it done so, it may have been able to reduce the amount of distress and inconvenience caused by its delays in repairing the intercom system.