Southern Housing (202400489)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202400489

Southern Housing Group Limited

31 October 2024

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:
1. Reports of leaks and remedial works.
2. A request for a management transfer.
3. A request for compensation for items damaged by the leaks.

Background

The resident has lived in the property as an assured tenant since December 2019. The property is a 2-bedroom flat.
On 26 September 2023, the resident complained about how the landlord had dealt with reports of water leaking into her flat. She said because of the leaks, her flat smelt of sewage and she had no lighting. She told the landlord the smell was having a harmful effect on her and her son’s health. She complained that a call handler showed a lack of professionalism. She also said the landlord did not provide temporary lighting or move her out while it fixed the leak.
The landlord arranged an inspection of the flat on 9 October 2023 to assess damage from the leak but was unable to gain access.
In its complaint response on 10 October 2023, the landlord said it repaired the lighting within expected timescales. It said only 1 light was not working and there was electricity throughout the rest of the flat. It apologised for the confusion with the appointment on 9 October 2023 and said it had made a new appointment for 17 October 2023. It said it did not provide temporary lighting for the loss of a bathroom light and had no record of the resident requesting a move. It apologised for how the call handler had dealt with the call, and said they would receive training and monitoring.
An inspection took place on 17 October 2023, which found a leaking soil pipe had affected the bathroom. It recommended work to redecorate affected areas and adjust swollen doors.
The resident reported a new leak on 21 October 2023, which she said affected the lighting. The landlord attended the same day and did repairs.
The resident escalated her complaint on 1 November 2023. She said she was still experiencing leaks, and these affected her and her son’s health. She said she wanted to move because of the leaks and the amount of work needed to fix the damage caused. She said she wanted compensation for time taken off work, for damage to her flooring, and a missed appointment. She said although the landlord repaired the light on 18 September 2023, it did not make the electrics safe at that time. She also said she had not received an apology from the call handler.
In its final response on 8 January 2024, the landlord said it fixed the leak in a timely manner. The landlord also said it completed the cosmetic repairs on 12 December 2023 and said the resident’s availability delayed these. It said it was not able to offer a property transfer and provided details of other options. It said it would not arrange for the call handler to contact the resident. It offered £100 for the delay in responding to the escalated complaint.
The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said she had not been able to use the bathroom “comfortably” because of sewage water coming through the ceiling and a lack of lighting. She said the electric was “on and off from September to November because of the leak” and at one point had no light in the whole flat for a week. She said on 2 occasions, the landlord missed appointments. She said she had to replace the flooring in the bathroom. She wanted the landlord to find the root cause of the leak, fix outstanding repairs, and pay compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident referred to the effect the leak had on her and her son’s health. After carefully considering the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.o of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not consider the effect on health. This is because we do not have the expertise to assess impact on health. The Scheme says that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints that concern matters where the resident is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide.
The resident complained the landlord would not move her from the property. In accordance with paragraph 42.j of the Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints about the assessment of housing needs (which usually fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman). This means this part of the complaint is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. However, the Ombudsman can consider whether the landlord responded in a reasonable way to the resident’s request.
The resident complained about damage to her personal property. After carefully considering the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42f of the Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot consider whether the landlord appropriately reimbursed the resident. This is because the Scheme says that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.” This means it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to award damages in the way an insurance procedure or court might. However, the Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord followed proper procedures and behaved reasonably when considering the resident’s request for damages.

The landlord’s handling of reports of leaks and remedial works

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985), the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair and proper working order, the installations for the supply of electricity, and for sanitation. This means the landlord has a general obligation to repair electrical installations and leaks. The occupancy agreement confirms this, and the landlord accepted it was responsible for the repairs.
The landlord’s repairs policy says an emergency repair is anything that causes an immediate risk to health and safety or damage to a property. It says typical emergency repairs include leaks. The landlord says it would do work to make safe the problem within 6 hours of the resident reporting the emergency. It says, sometimes it may need to do other repairs to complete the job. If this is the case, it will arrange appointments as soon as possible and, where possible, at a time to suit the resident. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will pay £20 compensation for each missed appointment.
In her complaint on 26 September 2023, the resident said she had 2 leaks, which started on 14 September 2023. The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord’s records say the resident first reported a leak on 18 September 2023, which related to a shower hose in a neighbouring flat. Because of this difference in dates, the Ombudsman is unable to comment on when leaks first started but will assess the landlord’s actions from 18 September 2023, when a leak was first recorded by the landlord.
Records provided by the landlord show that it responded quickly to the reportedleak on 18 September 2023. It actedthe same day to stop a leak in the neighbour’s flat and disconnected the lighting in the resident’s bathroom. The Ombudsman has found this was a reasonable response, as the landlord acted in line with theemergency response times in its repairs policy.
When the resident reported a second leak on 21 September 2023, the landlord attended the same day andreinstated kitchen sockets, and isolated lights because of the leak. It noted it needed to reinstate the lighting circuit and replace an electrical fitting in the bathroom.The landlord restored the lights on 23 September 2023. In her complaint, the resident said she was without lighting for 2 days between 21 and 23 September 2023. The extent of the effect on the electrics is unclear from the landlord’s report, but the Ombudsman has noted that the landlord again responded quickly to the reported leak.
On Sunday 24 September 2023, the resident reported another leak that tripped the lights. She said she reported this to the landlord’s out of hours service and made 3 follow up calls the same day. She said she then had no lighting until 30 September 2023. It is unclear from the information whether the landlord immediately responded to this report.
In her complaint on 26 September 2023, the resident said the first leak was due to a split pipe in a neighbour’s flat and the second by a blockage in the soil pipe. She said the leaks had tripped a fuse, and she had no lights in her property. She also said she had not been able to use the bathroom properly because of dripping water. She complained the landlord had not given her emergency lighting and she had no support or update from the landlord. She said the whole flat smelt of sewage, and this was making her and her son ill.
The resident reported a further leak on the morning of 27 September 2023. The landlord arranged an appointment for the following day. However, in her complaint, the resident said the landlord did not attend until after 5:00pm on 28 September 2023, which was outside the timescales set for emergency appointments.
Records provided by the landlord show contractors cleared a blockage from the soil pipe on 4 October 2023. A surveyor went to the property at midday on 9 October 2023 to look at damage caused by the leak but could not get access. The surveyor then called the resident, who said she told the landlord the appointment should be after 2:00pm. The resident also told the surveyor that water was still dripping from the bathroom ceiling. The surveyor asked the landlord to arrange a date for another inspection and raised a job for a contractor to look at the reported leak. The landlord arranged a new inspection for 17 October 2023.
In its complaint response on 10 October 2023, the landlord said it responded to the leak on 18 September 2023 within its timescales. It said it was investigating the cause of the leak and apologised for the “confusion” with the appointment on 9 October 2023. It said the appointment on 17 October 2023 would look at what repairs it needed to do and whether compensation was necessary. It said it did not provide temporary lighting for the loss of a bathroom light, and its electrician reported only 1 light was not working on 18 September 2023. It said it had reviewed the original call and agreed the way the call handler dealt with the resident did not meet its standards. It said the call handler would receive additional training.
The Ombudsman has found that the landlord’s response at this time did not adequately deal with the resident’s complaint. Although the landlord correctly said it dealt with the original leak within timescales, it did not acknowledge the inconvenience caused by the failure to attend the appointment on 28 September 2023 within its timescales. The landlord apologised for the “confusion” with the appointment on the 9 October 2023, but did not make it clear that it was at fault for the missed appointment or acknowledge the inconvenience caused. The Ombudsman has found that the 2 failed appointments and a lack of acknowledgement of the inconvenience caused was a service failure by the landlord.
The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord had not resolved the leak at the time it sent its complaint response, and said it was still investigating the cause. This was 17 working days after the resident first reported a leak. In mitigation, the landlord unblocked the soil pipe. However, this did not take place until 4 October 2023 and appears to have not resolved the problem. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to take a more active role to identify the cause of the leak.
The Ombudsman has found that the way the landlord dealt with the complaint about the call handler was reasonable. The landlord listened to the call and found it did not meet its standards. It apologised for this and said the call handler would receive additional training and monitoring. The Ombudsman agrees that it would not be reasonable for the call handler to personally apologise to the resident. This is because the landlord is responsible for the conduct of its employees.
At the inspection on 17 October 2023, the surveyor found the leak was from a soil pipe. This was 22 working days after the resident reported the leak and after the resident said in her complaint that the soil pipe was the cause of the leak. The surveyor recommended redecoration of the bathroom, adjusting swollen doors, and decorating other areas affected by the leak.
The resident reported a new leak on 21 October 2023. She said there was no lighting in the property. The landlord’s records say it attended the same day and made the lights safe.
The resident escalated her complaint on 1 November 2023. She said she was still experiencing leaks and problems with lighting, which were affecting her health. She said the landlord had attended several times but had not made the lighting safe until 21 October 2023 when an electrician found the reason the lights were tripping and made them safe. She said because of this, there was a 6-week period when the lights were not safe.
On 14 November 2023, the landlord noted there was still a leak from a soil pipe coming into the bathroom. This was almost 2 months after the resident reported the leak on 18 September 2023. The landlord agreed quotes for work in the bathroom, kitchen, and hallway to repair damage caused. It arranged to do the work on 12 December 2023 and told the resident on 7 December 2023 that it would check for any sign of an active leak.
In its final response on 8 January 2024, the landlord said it fixed the leak in a timely manner and the resident delayed the cosmetic repairs as she was not able to make dates provided by its contractors. It said it had originally booked the contractor to complete the works in the New Year, but it was able to arrange a secondary contractor to complete the repairs at an earlier date. The contractor confirmed there was no active leak and completed the outstanding cosmetic works on the 12 December 2023.
Overall, the Ombudsman has found the landlord did the cosmetic repairs in a reasonable time. This is because the landlord completed them within 3 months of the original leak and some delays were due to the availability of the resident. The landlord responded to some reports of leaks within its timescales. It also dealt with the complaint about the call handler in a reasonable way.
However, the Ombudsman has noted that the leak had not been fixed almost 2 months after the resident first made a report, and the landlord did not confirm it as fixed until 12 December 2023. This was an unduly long time for the resident to have to live with regular leaks and a smell of sewage. This caused her distress, and she was concerned about the effect it was having on her and her son’s health. In addition, there were 2 missed appointments and the landlord failed to recognise the inconvenience these caused.
The Ombudsman has noted that there was a difference of opinion about the extent to which lights the leak affected and for how long. Because of this the Ombudsman cannot make a clear determination on the effect this had on the resident. However, on the balance of probabilities the resident was affected in a more significant way than the landlord acknowledged in its complaint response. In a situation where lights are affected for a significant time, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to consider the inconvenience caused to the resident. There is no evidence the landlord did this and because of this, the Ombudsman has found a further failure.
The Ombudsman has found that the landlord’s failure to repair the leak in a reasonable time, the 2 missed appointments, and a lack of consideration for the inconvenience caused by faults with lighting, amounted to maladministration. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, there is maladministration in cases where the Ombudsman has found a significant failure. Because of this, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to compensate the resident:
1. £200 for distress caused by the delay in repairing the leak.
2. £40 for the inconvenience caused from 2 missed appointments.
3. £100 for the failure to consider the inconvenience caused by faults with the lighting.

The landlord’s handling of a request for a management transfer

The landlord’s allocations policy sets out when it will provide a housing management transfer. It says there are limited circumstances when it will do this, and these include domestic abuse, antisocial behaviour, and medical needs. It advises residents to join the waiting list with their local authority or another social housing provider.
In her complaint on 26 September 2023, the resident said the landlord did not move her to other accommodation while it dealt with the leak. In its complaint response on 10 October 2023, the landlord said when a resident requests a decant, it will assess the need to do this. It said it could find no record of a request from the resident. It asked the resident to provide details of her request and said it would look at how it dealt with it.
The Ombudsman has noted that the leak was still happening at the time the resident clearly made a request for a decant in her complaint. However, the landlord responded to this by saying it had not received a request. The Ombudsman has found this was a failure to consider the resident’s clear request. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, there is service failure in cases where the Ombudsman has found a minor failure. Because of this, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation for the failure to consider her request for a decant.
When the resident escalated her complaint on 1 November 2023, she said because of the continued leaks and work needed to repair damage, she wanted a permanent move. In its response on 8 January 2023, the landlord said it no longer offered internal transfers. It provided the resident with the details of options it had for exchanges and details of how to register with the local authority. The Ombudsman has found that this response was reasonable as it was in line with its allocations policy, and it signposted the resident to other options available.

The landlord’s handling of a request for compensation for items damaged by the leaks

The landlord’s compensation policy says where decorations or fixtures have been damaged due to repairs or improvements made by the landlord, it may offer decorating vouchers, a decorating pack, or compensation. It says this is subject to investigation once it has completed the repair and only if not covered by the resident’s own contents insurance.
The resident made it clear in her complaint on 26 September 2023 that there was damage to her floor caused by the leak. On 13 October 2023, an internal email said the landlord had agreed with the resident that it would “reinstate” some flooring. In her complaint escalation on 1 November 2023, the resident again referred to the damaged floor. The landlord should have investigated the damage to the flooring after it complete the repairs on 12 December 2023. However, the Ombudsman has noted that the landlord did not refer to the damaged flooring in its final response on 8 January 2024. The resident told the Ombudsman in October 2024 that she had to replace the flooring herself.
The Ombudsman has seen no evidence the landlord discussed the damaged flooring with the resident after 13 October 2023. The landlord had previously agreed to reinstate some flooring. The Ombudsman has found there was a failure to follow through with this commitment, and this was a service failure. Because of this the Ombudsman orders the landlord to contact the resident to discuss the costs she incurred in replacing the flooring and how it will compensate her for this.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports of leaks and remedial works.
2. Service failure by the landlord in respect of a request for a management transfer.
3. Service failure by the landlord in respect of a request for compensation for items damaged by the leaks.

Orders

The landlord is to pay the resident a total of £390 in compensation. This should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
1. £200 for distress caused by the delay in repairing the leak.
2. £40 for the inconvenience caused from 2 missed appointments.
3. £100 for the failure to consider the inconvenience caused by faults with the lighting.
4. £50 compensation for the failure to consider the request for a decant.
The landlord is to contact the resident to discuss the costs she incurred in replacing the flooring. It must then decide on whether it covers the costs incurred by the resident or provides clear information on how the resident can make an insurance claim through its insurance department.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.