Southern Housing (202426389)

Background

1. In June 2024 the resident reported that the bin store door had been broken and was hanging from one hinge. At the time the repair was reported, repairs were managed by contractors on behalf of the landlord. By the time the repair was completed at the end of October 2024, the landlord had moved to an in-house system for managing repairs.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the residents:
   1. Reports concerning the communal area bin door repairs.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that:
   1. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning communal area bin door repairs.
   2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord did not proactively provide repair updates to the resident. In addition, it did not adequately address the resident’s safety concerns or show that it considered the impact to the him from repeatedly chasing repair updates over a period of several months.
5. The landlord complied with the complaint handling timeframes set out in its own policy and the Code.

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.

6. The landlord is responsible to keep common parts in reasonable repair. Its repair policy does not specify a target timeframe for communal repairs but says it aims to complete repairs as quickly as possible. However, in its correspondence with the resident, the landlord said that it aimed to resolve repairs within 28 days.
7. The landlord initially booked a repair within the 28 day timeframe, but the contractor did not attend. The resident was not told that the appointment had been cancelled, so he made several calls to contractors to find out what had happened. The repair was rebooked for 9 August 2024 but was then rearranged to 19 August when the contractor attended and ordered a new door hinge.
8. As the repair was still outstanding, the resident again chased for an update and told the landlord that he had spent over an hour on the phone to the contractor but had not been able to get through. The landlord then told him that the repair was scheduled for the 2 September, but the replacement hinge was not fitted until 30 October 2024.
9. The resident raised safety concerns about the door as it was heavy and he was worried it could fall on a child or tenant. The landlord apologised for the distress and frustration caused from the potential risk. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide some reassurance that his concerns had been considered and explain what action it had taken to assess or mitigate any potential safety risk.
10. In August 2024 the landlord said it would oversee an action plan for the outstanding repair and let the resident know if more time was needed. Therefore, the landlord should have contacted the resident when the repair was not completed as expected. We have not seen any evidence to show that it proactively provided updates. Instead, it only provided updates when requested by the resident which caused him inconvenience. In addition, the resident had to repeatedly chase for updates between July and September, which took time and trouble.
11. The landlord told the resident that it did not offer compensation for communal area repairs. However its compensation policy says it may consider a discretionary payment for the impact and overall effort personally made to ensure the repair is carried out.
12. Although the landlord apologised for the delays and acknowledged the stress the delays would have caused, this was not sufficient. The landlord did not adequately reassure the resident about his safety concerns or show that it had considered the resident’s time, trouble and effort in pursuing the repair. Taking this all into account, £100 compensation is appropriate. This amount is in line with our compensation guidance for failings which adversely affect a resident, but which have no permanent impact.

13. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) April 2024 requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the timescales in the Code.  
14. The landlord extended the stage 1 response by 10 working days. It provided a reasonable explanation for this decision to the resident. This was compliant with the Code and the landlord’s own complaints policy. Aside from this, there were no delays in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication

15. During the landlord’s investigation into the resident’s complaint, it identified a lack of record keeping. Maintaining accurate, detailed records of its decisions will help to improve transparency and accountability. 
16. We have found the landlord’s communication to be lacking. However, it is positive that the landlord also identified this as a learning need and was taking steps to improve this. Effective communication builds trust between landlord and tenant and shows that the resident is being listened to.