Southern Housing (202347354)

Background

1. The property is a 2-bed house. Following a job to renew the bath on 7 February 2024, the resident reported issues with damp and mould and damage to the walls in the bathroom. The resident reported a bathroom leak, the source of which was repaired that same day, had caused damage to the kitchen ceiling below. The resident also reported that exposed screws had been left in the bathroom following works by the landlord. The resident had private works done later in February and March 2024 to make good the damage in the bathroom, including the screws, and the landlord reimbursed the resident for these in June 2024. The landlord completed works to the kitchen ceiling between July and August 2024.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of repairs related to leaks and damp and mould in the bathroom.
3. The landlord’s handling of reports of damage to the kitchen ceiling.
4. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

5. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of reports of leaks and damp and mould in the bathroom.
6. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damage to the kitchen ceiling.
7. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Leaks and damp and mould in the bathroom

8. The landlord acknowledged that it should have raised an emergency repair for exposed screws in the bathroom, and offered compensation to remedy this. While the landlord did initially refuse to reimburse the resident for the private bathroom works, it later paid the resident in full, demonstrating a continued focus on resolving this issue.

Damage to the kitchen ceiling

9. The resident reported the kitchen ceiling repair in her complaint submission, but the landlord did not raise a job for this for almost 3 months. There were further delays in the landlord progressing repairs to make good the damage to the kitchen ceiling, but none of this was addressed in its stage 2 response.

The landlord’s complaint handling

10. The landlord recognised and offered compensation to account for all the delays in the complaint progressing at stage 1, as well as the way a former complaint handler had communicated with the resident. The overall compensation the landlord offered for complaint handling was a sufficient remedy for this, and additional minor failings we have identified related to proposing an extension at stage 1, and acknowledging the complaint at stage 2.

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.

What we have not considered

11. The resident advised that there were reports of damp and mould going back to 2022. However, she did not raise a complaint until 8 February 2024 following works being done to her bathroom. We expect residents to raise a complaint within a reasonable time of an issue becoming apparent, and when evidence is still live. While we do not doubt the historical reports of damp and mould, we have considered in this investigation the events leading to the resident’s formal complaint.

What we have considered

12. The landlord accepted repair responsibility (as set out in the tenancy agreement) for the maintenance of internal walls and ceilings, as well as installations for the supply of water, such as baths and water pipes.
13. The landlord’s repairs policy (that was in place at the time) explains that it will aim to attend to repairs that it considers as an emergency within 6 hours. It does not give specific timescales for repairs not considered to be an emergency, but that it will measure the length of time taken to complete from when the repair is reported, to the date the job is finished. The landlord did later change this, and its current repairs policy says it will aim to carry out routine works within 20 working days.
14. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider paying compensation for quantifiable losses, including paying for repairs where it has failed to meet its obligations.
15. The resident reported damp and mould to the landlord on 8 January 2024. The landlord’s records state that an appointment was given for 30 January, but that the resident later called back to ask if this could be rescheduled. An appointment was offered for 6 February but the resident instead asked if this could be cancelled.
16. When attending to a job to renew the bath on 7 February 2024, it was discovered that the waste pipe was not connected, and that this had been causing leaks. This pipe was renewed and connected on the same day as part of these works, which was an appropriate step.
17. During this same job, the operatives called for a supervisor to attend and inspect damage to the bathroom walls. What was discussed between the resident and the supervisor on this day is disputed. The resident said that the supervisor told her that the plasterboard behind the bathroom tiles should have been waterproof, and that they would proactively raise works with the landlord to repair this damage as a matter of urgency. However, there is no documentary evidence to support this.
18. The supervisor emailed the landlord on 8 February 2024 to say that they had advised the resident she would have to either call the landlord or use her online account to raise these works. This email does not comment on the type of plasterboard used. They also said that they had submitted a report about the bathroom walls in case the landlord wanted this contractor to do the work. This report was then picked up by the landlord on 15 February.
19. It is unclear from the evidence when exactly the private works were done to make good the damage to the bathroom walls, though the resident said this had started in late February 2024, and was completed by late March 2024. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that it had been completed by the time it had picked up the supervisor’s report referred to above. The resident emailed the landlord on 4 March 2024 and said she had already paid for the works to be done. While we cannot see that the landlord contacted the resident from mid February to late March to advise the resident on any processes that needed to be followed before the works could be done, or to arrange any works itself, the resident also did not give the landlord a reasonable amount of time to carry out these works.
20. The resident first sent the landlord evidence for her request for reimbursement in mid April 2024. After a small and inconsequential delay, the landlord gave a decision on this in the stage 1 response where it refused. It confirmed this position at stage 2. Regardless of the reasons it gave for refusing at this time, it soon after decided that it would have been ultimately responsible for these bathroom works, and reimbursed the resident in full for these costs (which we have seen evidence of). As such, it continued to focus on resolving the complaint, and making the resident whole for costs she had incurred in returning the bathroom to the position it had been in before. Despite its initial refusal, this payment of £2,400 is a sufficient form of redress, and an appropriate use of its compensation policy.
21. The resident said that when the private bathroom works were done it was discovered that an extractor fan was not wired in, and complained that the visiting supervisor on 7 February had not identified this as a contributing factor to the damp and mould. However, we have not seen any evidence that the supervisor had been tasked to assess damp and mould on that day. We are not disputing that the bathroom was impacted by damp at this time, but the photos submitted from that day do not show this clearly as the plaster from the walls had already come away.
22. The resident phoned the landlord on 8 February 2024 and reported that exposed screws had been left in the bathroom following the works a day earlier. The landlord did offer an appointment to make good, but it was not made clear what kind of timescale would be given. The resident refused, and had this rectified as part of the private works. The landlord later identified this as a failing in its stage 2 response, stating that this should have been raised as an emergency. Its apology and offer of £50 compensation for this were appropriate remedies in line with our compensation guidance for a service failure with short duration.

23. The resident did clearly state that the kitchen ceiling had been damaged in her complaint submission of 8 February 2024. The landlord should have considered this as a service request and raised this repair itself, either by the maintenance team the resident was in contact with in February and March 2024, or by the complaints team from early April onwards. This repair was not raised until 2 May 2024, which is 59 working days after the issue was reported in the complaint. Neither the stage 1 or stage 2 responses acknowledged these delays.
24. Once this repair was raised, there were further delays in the kitchen ceiling being made good. The evidence does not confirm exactly when this was completed, but it does say that a surveyor recommended some works in June 2024 and the job was invoiced on 7 August 2024, more than 3 months after the repair was logged by the landlord. These delays were unreasonable given the scope of the works.
25. The landlord could not demonstrate learning about its handling of the kitchen ceiling repairs as it did not acknowledge the delays in this job being logged in its stage 1 response. Furthermore, it did not address at all the issue at stage 2 despite the resident’s escalated concerns. It also did not consider compensation once the works were completed. We have made a finding of maladministration, and in line with our compensation guidance have ordered a total of £200 compensation to reflect the length of time the resident was adversely impacted by the ceiling repairs.

26. The landlord’s complaints policy mirrored the Code in that it gave 5 working days to acknowledge a complaint, and a further 10 working days to respond at stage 1. At stage 2, the landlord had 5 working days to acknowledge, and then a further 20 working days to issue the final response. The Code allows for a 10 day extension with good reasons.
27. The complaint was raised on 8 February 2024, but not acknowledged at stage 1 until 5 April 2024, which was 35 working days outside of the landlord’s timescales. The landlord then proposed an extension to issue the stage 1 response, but this was not appropriate given that more than 15 working days had already elapsed from the complaint being raised. The stage 1 response was then issued on 2 May 2024, 19 working days after it was acknowledged, contributing to an overall delay of 44 working days.
28. In its stage 1 response, the landlord recognised that there had been delays in the complaint progressing from when it was acknowledged on 5 April to when the stage 1 response was issued. It also accepted that a member of staff had acted unprofessionally in a phone call on 25 April, and had not returned the resident’s calls. This member of staff contacted the resident separately to apologise, and the resident accepted this. In its stage 2 response, the landlord further acknowledged the delays in acknowledging the complaint at stage 1.
29. The resident requested the complaint be escalated on the same day of the stage 1 response. While the landlord has not provided a copy of the stage 2 acknowledgement, its records state that that this was sent on 15 May 2024, 3 days outside of its timescales. However, this was a minor delay which did not have an impact on the substantive issue handling or on the resident.
30. The landlord offered a total of £215 compensation for its complaint handling. This is consistent with a finding of maladministration by our service, reflecting the significant impact on the resident both of the additional weeks of delays and the way the first complaint handler had communicated with her.
31. While the landlord did not recognise the small delay in the complaint being acknowledged at stage 2, and that it did not fully comply with the Code when proposing an extension at stage 1, the compensation it offered is a sufficient remedy for these additional minor failings. We have not made any recommendation for the landlord to reoffer the compensation as we have already seen evidence of payment.

Learning

32. We have asked the landlord to complete a learning review. The landlord failed to retain an oversight over its staff, contractors and procedures to ensure that it could meet its obligations. In particular when raising repairs, identifying the urgency of repairs and updating residents on the progress of works. The landlord needs to know why these failures occurred.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

33. The landlord has not been able to provide important evidence relating to this complaint, including the resident’s original complaint submission, the landlord’s written acknowledgement of the complaint at stage 2, and records to confirm the date that the kitchen ceiling repair was completed.

Communication

34. Following it being raised on 2 May 2024, there is little evidence of either the landlord or its contractor contacting the resident to provide updates on the kitchen ceiling repair. We also cannot see that the landlord provided the resident with any meaningful advice on how the bathroom repairs could be resolved in February and March 2024.