Southern Housing (202438858)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom bungalow.  She succeeded the tenancy in 2013.  The landlord has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The resident complained about a fault with her radiator and the repair was not carried out in a timely manner.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a faulty radiator
   2. the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a faulty radiator.
4. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord provided appropriate reasoning and advice relating to the radiator. It obtained advice from the relevant teams and the heating contractor. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
6. The landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint response were late, and it did not acknowledge this in its responses. The resident had to chase a response from the landlord.   This was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code or its own policies and procedures.

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.

7. On 12 July 2024, the landlord’s records show that a gas safety visit was carried out at the resident’s home.  The records state “the tenant wants a new radiator because her radiator has dust on it and it’s not new. I have advised this will not be happening.”
8. On 8 August 2024, the resident emailed the landlord and said, “the engineer explained the radiator is 30 years old and dust burns off and gives off fumes, which can be dangerous to health.” The resident described personal medical details.  She also stated “I desire the radiator to be replaced.  Apart from the accumulated dust it is not energy efficient.” This is contradictory to the landlord’s records from the heating engineer.
9. On 28 August 2024 the resident emailed the landlord asking for a reply to the email she sent “3 weeks ago.” On 29 August 2024 the landlord replied stating the email had been attached to the resident’s case and it was also passed to the Contract Services Team who would respond by 5pm on 5 September 2024.
10. On 9 September 2024, after a further email from the resident, the landlord replied to the resident apologising that she had not received a response to her email, and it had been sent to the Asset Compliance Team.
11. Between 12 September 2024 and 4 October 2024 there were 3 emails from the resident to the landlord.  These all related to the radiator and the resident supplied photographs.  The landlord responded to all these emails.
12. On 23 October 2024 the landlord issued it stage 1 complaint response.  It confirmed the resident had sent photographs.  The complaint response also stated the radiator did not fit the requirements for a replacement as it was fully functional and the resident was required to cosmetically maintain radiators in the home.  It recommended cleaning the radiator and suggested an item to do this, together with recommending rubbing down the radiator and painting it.
13. On 24 October 2024 the resident told the landlord she was not satisfied with the complaint response.  She told the landlord she clearly remembered the engineer telling her the 30-year-old radiators in her home should be replaced.  The resident told the landlord she wanted all the radiators in her home to be replaced.
14. On 28 November 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, and it said it had investigated the resident’s concerns, and the heating company said the radiator didn’t need replacing.  The landlord also contacted its Asset Management Team who advised the radiator would not be changed for it being dirty or dusty.  It also said radiators collect dust over the years and would just need cleaning.
15. The landlord took appropriate steps in relation seeking information from its Asset Compliance Team. It was also entitled to rely on the information from its contractor about the condition of the radiator. The landlord was reasonable in stating the resident was responsible for dusting and cleaning the radiator and provided advice on how to do this.
16. The landlord failed to respond appropriately to the initial response however, when it did respond it apologised and provided the relevant information. The apology was reasonable redress.

17. On 9 September 2024 the resident told the landlord she wished to raise a formal stage 1 complaint.
18. On 4 October 2024 the resident told the landlord she had raised a complaint on 9 September 2024 and now wished it to be handled at stage 2. The landlord responded the same day and apologised that no stage 1 complaint had been raised, and it was being sent to the triage team who would pick it up within 5 working days.
19. On 11 October 2024 the landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint.  This was 6 working days after the resident had emailed on a second occasion. This was 25 working days after the resident raised her stage 1 complaint to the landlord.
20. On 23 October 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response.  This was 9 working days from the acknowledgement and 33 working days from the resident raising her stage 1 complaint.
21. On 24 October 2024 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 as she was not satisfied with the landlord’s response.
22. On 31 October 2024 the landlord’s record’s show it acknowledged the stage 2 complaint.
23. On 28 November 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint. This was 6 working days from the acknowledgement and 26 working days from the resident raising her stage 2 complaint.
24. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was unreasonable in the circumstances because:
    1. it did not follow its own policies and procedures
    2. the resident was inconvenienced having to chase the landlord for a response
    3. it did not recognise the delays in its complaint handling process
    4. it did not follow the Dispute Resolution Principles of:
       1. be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
       2. putting things right
       3. learn from outcomes

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord’s record keeping was sufficient to allow this Service to undertake the investigation.

Communication

26. As mentioned in this report the landlord’s communication with the resident was delayed relating to both the issue raised and the complaints process. There were opportunities to engage with the resident in a more meaningful way earlier in the process.