Southern Housing Group Limited (202006745)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006745

Southern Housing Group Limited

22 March 2022

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 response to:
1. The resident’s reports of various repairs namely:
  1. A fault with a dimmer switch in the lounge of the property.
  2. Wooden panels being removed in the communal area.
  3. A boiler repair.
2. The resident’s concerns about:
  1. The colour of gas pipes and marks near those pipes.
  2. The communal lights.
  3. Pigeons.
  4. The landlord’s delayed response to his letter of 5 February 2020.
3. The resident’s concerns about its response to:
  1. A request for a gas safety certificate.
  2. His assertion that he had not spoken to a named person with regard to the fire door replacement.
  3. The quality of its service centre and its opening hours.
4. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord that started in 2003. The property is a one-bedroom flat in a block.
Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible to keep in good repair and working order installations for, among other things, the supply of gas and electricity including the central heating and switches and sockets. The landlord is also responsible for keeping the outside of the property and any common parts in a good state of decoration in accordance with its regular maintenance programme.
The landlord’s repair policy says that a repair will be treated as an emergency if there is an immediate risk to safety, security or health. It will repair or, if that is not possible, make safe as soon as possible and always within 24 hours of it being notified. Emergency repairs include no heating or hot water between 31 October and 1 May.
The repairs policy also says that that it will manage any infestation of pests which cause a serious risk to health and safety.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure. At stage one it aims to respond to complaints within 10 working days. If this is not possible then the landlord will let the customer know what steps are being taken to resolve the matter and a likely timescale. The landlord’s complaints policy permits it to decline to escalate complaints to its final stage complaint review panel if the only reason for this is a request for compensation or if it decides that it is not appropriate to do so.
The landlord has restricted the resident’s contact with it and he submits a letter of complaint each month.
The landlord’s compensation framework sets out what compensation it will pay where it recognises there has been a service failure. It said that, in recognition of poor service, failure to follow policy/procedure or act in a reasonable manner a goodwill payment up to £25 can be made and this can be given in vouchers, money or flowers. Where there are multiple service failures and/or the customer is requesting compensation for an unquantifiable loss such as inconvenience and distress caused by the failure(s) a payment of between £25 – £50 can be made.
For loss of heating, the compensation framework says that the landlord will pay £10 + £2 a day starting two days after the defect being reported to it between 31 October and 30 April. Payment will continue until the heating is restored. For partial loss of heating the landlord will use the same calculation but it will be capped at £50.
On 23 March 2020 the UK government announced a national lockdown due to the pandemic. This was eased from June 2020 when schools and non‑essential retail outlets re-opened. The government introduced new restrictions from 22 September 2020 and a second full national lockdown was announced on 31 October 2020 that came into effect from 5 November 2020. While restrictions were lifted slightly over Christmas, there was a new national lockdown from 6 January 2021. During lockdown the landlord operated an essential repair service only inside properties.

Summary of events

On 9 November 2020, 5 December 2020, 2 January 2021, 4 February 2021 and 2 March 2021 the resident wrote letters of complaint to the landlord about various issues (which are outlined, below) and requested compensation.
The resident contacted the landlord on several occasions expressing his concerns about the length of time the sensor lights came on for in the communal area.
On 7 January 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to report pigeons making a mess on the fire escape. The next day the landlord sought permission to fit spikes on the building to deter the pigeons (as this was an improvement, not a repair). The landlord subsequently obtained quotes to clean the area. In mid-February 2020 the landlord met with the cleaning contractor on site to discuss the work that was required and the work was booked in to take place on 18 March 2020.
In an internal email dated 16 November 2020, the landlord noted that the wooden panels in the communal area related to boiler replacement work at a different flat to the resident’s. It noted that pipework needed re-routing and the panels were removed by the gas contractors during this work. The landlord further noted that the ground floor panel had been replaced but the second one had not.
On 5 December 2020 the resident told the landlord that the second wooden panel in the communal area had been replaced.
There are notes of calls from the resident to the landlord on 29 January and 1 February 2021 in which he raises the question of having an electric boiler rather than a new one and says he hopes the old back boiler can be repaired.
The repair log evidences several reports from the resident about a defective back boiler from mid‑2020. On 4 January 2021 the resident reported a defective boiler saying he had no heating and had to keep re-setting the back boiler. The repairs log evidences that a new boiler was to be installed on 18 January 2021 but this was cancelled as “incorrect details entered”. An appointment was made to repair the back boiler on 3 February 2021; however, the contractor did not have the correct part. The log notes that the back boiler was repaired on 8 February 2021 some five weeks later.
The resident subsequently received a letter from the landlord on 26 January 2021 which offered a repair to the back boiler, which it said might only be a temporary fix.
On 9 March 2021 the resident reported that his dimmer switch in the lounge was hot to touch.
On the same day, the landlord issued its stage one response to the resident. It covered fifteen issues. In brief, it offered £75 for the delay in answering his three complaint letters dated 9 November and 5 December 2020 and 2 January 2021. It also offered £25 for its contractors failure to cancel the appointment of 6 November 2020 explaining it could not explain why this did not happen but surmised that it was because of entering a period of restriction as a result of the pandemic. Other issues covered in this complaint response included:
1. The landlord could not find a specific reason why the second wooden panel had not been replaced soon and suspected that it had been “simply overlooked”. It added that that was not the sort of service it expected from its contractors and apologised for that and noted they had returned to replace the panel. The landlord said it did not consider that any significant inconvenience caused had been caused to the resident and refused his request for compensation of £25.
2. The landlord said the contractor’s opinion was that the current back boiler would soon be at the point where it was beyond repair and would require a replacement. It apologised that it did not tell the resident sooner it had had a “change of direction” relating to the repair, rather than the installation of the new boiler on 18 January 2021. It also said that, when the wrong part was provided on 3 February 2021, the contractor offered an appointment the following day, but it understood the resident had asked for the repair to be done on 8 February 2021. The landlord apologised that the resident had been inconvenienced on two occasions and said it believed that the overall delay in rectifying the boiler repair was down to the decisions the resident had made on repair rather than replacement. It said it did not feel there had been a significant failure and was unable to agree to his requests for compensation.
3. The landlord appreciated that the resident believed the pipework in the communal area should be boxed in for aesthetic reasons, it confirmed that it would not undertake that work.
4. The landlord said that its estate care team visited the block each fortnight and made reasonable efforts to remove clearly visible marks. It added that at the most recent visit on 24 February 2020 they took photographs to demonstrate the standard of the work undertaken. It said it had corresponded about marks on walls on many occasions with the resident and it’s position was that he receives a reasonable standard of cleaning which represented value for money.
5. The landlord’s gas contractor sent out gas safety certificates automatically and they were printed daily. The contractor believed the resident’s certificate would have been sent out immediately after the gas service was completed. The landlord said that, if he did not receive it, that was outside of its control adding that it might have been lost in the post. The landlord acknowledged that there had been a delay in getting the certificate to the resident after he had raised this issue and had offered compensation which he had accepted. It added it could retrospectively generate a copy of the certificate from July 2020 if he required a copy for his records.
6. The landlord said it had a note that a named member of staff had spoken to the resident on 30 October 2019 and she noted that he was very unhappy and did not want the fire door installed and “would call police” if it attempted to install it. The landlord said that it had sent out a standard letter on 3 February 2020 as it had not managed to get access following three attempts to do so in around October 2019. It added that this letter suggested the resident had not responded to these contacts which was incorrect. An appointment was made for 28 February 2020 but the resident subsequently cancelled this.
7. The landlord explained that the door replacement programme had been an extensive undertaking and would improve the safety of its customers living in blocks. It noted that the resident’s resistance to this work had “been unhelpful and potentially reduced [residents] safety in the event of fire”. The landlord did not consider there had been a service failure and refused compensation. It added it would be recommencing its door replacement programme soon and hoped the resident would agree access.
8. The landlord acknowledged that the service it was delivering at that time was not to the standard it aspired to and agreed wait times were too high. It explained it was receiving far more calls than usual and due to the pandemic had fewer team members available. It added it was working extremely hard to get its phone service back to the expected standard as quickly as it could.
9. It said it was sorry that the resident was finding its temporary opening hours unhelpful which had been brought in to help it cope with the additional pressures that the pandemic had brought in terms of demand from customers and resource issues associated with working from home and, in some cases, staff illness. It explained it had reduced the hours of the service centre so that it also had time to respond to customer emails. It added that, when lockdown restrictions eased, it would revert to normal opening hours of 8am to 6pm. The landlord refused compensation as it did not believe there had been an unreasonable reduction in service.
The landlord added that, going forward, the resident should direct his monthly complaint letter to the customer services team, rather than the Head of Home Management (South) as this would ensure that issues were picked up quickly and responded to.
On 15 March 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord accepting the compensation offered. He raised fifteen points in relation to the stage one response and asked the landlord to escalate his complaint.
On 10 May 2021 the landlord issued its final response to the resident under its formal complaints procedure. The main points made by the landlord were:
1. It apologised that it had said that an electrician had visited to inspect the dimmer switch, when that appointment had not taken place. It confirmed an appointment had been arranged for 25 May 2021 to ensure the switch was safe to use or advise if a repair or replacement was required. The landlord offered £25 compensation for the impact on the resident.
2. It apologised for the delay in providing the gas safety certificate for the period July 2019 to July 2020. It confirmed that this had been provided.
3. It gave an update on the pigeon deterrent saying it had got a quote for netting but that was not viable or cost effective. It said it had asked another contractor to give a quote to block the axis area where the problem was and fit spikes as necessary. It also confirmed it was organising a clean of the area which should be completed by 14 May 2021and it hoped that would resolve the issue.
4. It said, while the fire door project manager stood by his claim that a named member of staff had spoken to the resident on 30 October 2019, it was unable to draw any firm conclusions. It gave a timeline of events and said that it was unable to find any evidence to substantiate that its records were incorrect and it was therefore unable to offer any compensation as it could see no evidence of wrongdoing.
5. It confirmed that the gas pipes had been painted on 27 April 2021.
6. It apologised for the delay in the replacement of wooden panels; it said compensation was not appropriate in this instance in line with its compensation framework as it was a communal repair.
7. It had adjusted the sensitivity of the sensor, the timing mechanism and the brightness of the lights in the communal area. It confirmed that lights did come on one at a time as the steps were climbed which indicated the system was working as it should and lights were coming on when triggered. It explained that the LED lights were more cost effective and energy efficient than the previous bulbs and, therefore, even if they were on for longer, they should not cost anymore to run. It added that, unless there was any evidence that these bulbs/lights caused an increase in electricity costs, it would not be making any further changes to the lights in the communal area.
8. It confirmed the pencil marks around the pipework were removed on 27 April 2021 adding that the building and walls should be cleaned of marks, dust, graffiti, and cobwebs as part of each clean.
9. It confirmed its gas contractor did work Saturdays and therefore its offer on Friday 5 February to come the next day to repair the boiler was possible. It said compensation was not appropriate as it could not identify any wrongdoing.
10. It acknowledged that service it delivered in terms of telephone waiting times at its service centre during the pandemic had not been up to the standard it aspired to. It explained it had had more calls than usual and had fewer staff to deal with the calls. It said it had changed its opening hours to either 10 to 5 or 9 to 4, which it said it considered reasonable. It added it had offered a call-back service for anyone who had phoned and did not want to wait for long periods in a queue. It acknowledged its service centre had been impacted by the pandemic and waiting times had increased but it did not consider compensation was appropriate.
11. It acknowledged it had not responded to a letter from the resident dated 5 February 2020 until 10 September 2020 and could not see any reason for that delay. It offered £25 for the inconvenience caused.
The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to reports of a repair relating to the dimmer switch in the lounge of the property

In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complainant’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
It appears that there was some misunderstanding about the complaint about the dimmer switch. The stage one response was issued on the same day as the report of the faulty switch and referred to an earlier problem with the dimmer switch. This mistake was picked up at the stage two complaint response. The landlord acted reasonably in apologising and awarding compensation of £25 for the inconvenience caused by this miscommunication about the dimmer switch. The landlord also arranged for its electrical contractor to attend the property to inspect this switch.
As set out in the stage two complaint response, the landlord apologised, offered compensation in line with its compensation framework and arranged an inspection. This was an appropriate and proportionate response to put matters right.

The landlord’s response to reports of wooden panels being removed in the communal area

The landlord apologised for the delay in replacing the wooden panels in the communal area which had been removed to facilitate a repair. It is not evident that this caused a significant detriment to the resident and therefore the apology alone is proportionate redress.

The landlord’s response to reports of a boiler repair

The repair log evidences that the resident reported a defective boiler on 4 January 2021 and that he had no heating and had to keep re-setting the back boiler. Under the repairs policy this should have been treated as an emergency repair and resolved within 24 hours. However, it was repaired on 8 February 2021 some five weeks later. The landlord refused compensation for the length of time this repair took saying that it felt this was due to the decisions the resident had made on repair, rather than replacement.
The landlord is responsible under the tenancy agreement for the keeping the central heating in good repair. While the resident might have opinions about the type of heating he would prefer in the property; ultimately, such decisions are the responsibility of the landlord who are guided by the expert opinions of its contractors.
It is therefore not reasonable for the landlord to say that any delay was due to the actions of the resident. Compensation is appropriate here because the resident had five weeks where the back boiler did not work properly and this would have affected the amount of heat in the property causing inconvenience and distress to the resident; further frustration would have been caused to him by the contractor not having the right part when the repair was due to take place on 5 February 2021. An order is made, below, which reflects the impact of this on the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the exposed gas pipes and marks on the walls near those pipes.

While the landlord is obliged to keep in good repair the installations for the gas supply, it is not obliged to ensure they are aesthetically pleasing. However, it also has a responsibility to ensure the block is in a good state of decoration and agreed to paint the pipes in question. This was appropriate action by the landlord.
In its final response, the landlord acknowledged that the marks on the wall “were unsightly” and had arranged for them to be removed. That was an appropriate step to take. It is not evident that these matters caused a significant detriment to the resident and therefore the apology alone is proportionate redress.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the communal lights.

The Ombudsman has previously considered the communal lighting issue (case reference 201915929) and determined that the landlord’s decision not to install light switches was reasonable given it had not identified a problem with the lighting and would not be good value for money; however, compensation was ordered for poor communication.
The issue here was different in that the resident wanted the lights split so they did not come on all at one when climbing the stairwell. The landlord’s obligation is to ensure that the installation of light switches is in good repair and working order. The landlord took steps – as outlined in the final complaint – to satisfy that the lights were working as intended. The landlord has discretion as to the lighting systems it uses in the communal areas of its properties. In this case the landlord has also given assurances to the resident as to the low cost of this system. Overall this was a reasonable response.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about pigeons

The landlord is obliged to manage any infestation of pests which cause a serious risk to health and safety. It is not clear how serious a health and safety risk the pigeons in this case were; however, the landlord acted reasonably in organising the cleaning of the area in question as well as getting permission to fit spikes to deter the pigeons. At the time of the final response, it was seeking a contractor to fit these spikes. This was a reasonable and proportionate response to the concerns raised by the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its delayed response to his letter of 5 February 2020

The landlord acknowledged its error here in not responding to his letter within a reasonable time. It acted reasonably by offering compensation of £25 in line with its compensation framework. This was an appropriate and proportionate response to put matters right.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a gas safety certificate

The landlord has acknowledged that there was a delay in providing the gas safety certificate when the resident raised this in November 2020. The landlord has acknowledged that there was a service failure here and paid compensation which was accepted by the resident. That was a reasonable and proportionate response to the resident not receiving a copy of the gas safety certificate.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s assertion that he had not spoken to a named person with regard to the fire door replacement

While the landlord has internal communication noting that the named staff member spoke to the resident on 30 October 2019, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of that conversation. It is possible that the landlord has evidence of that call that is not in the logs of contact with the resident, however, that seems unlikely. The evidence therefore suggests that the landlord has got matters wrong here which would have caused the resident some frustration. An order has been made, below, for the landlord to apologise to the resident for this service failure. An order for compensation has not been made because it is not evident that this matter caused a significant detriment to the resident and therefore an apology alone is proportionate redress.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the quality of its service centre and its opening hours

The landlord took appropriate steps during the pandemic to ensure it maintained a reasonable level of service during times when it had increased contact from its customers combined with increased staff absences due to illness and isolation. These steps were similar to what many organisations took during period of lockdown. The landlord’s decision to refuse compensation was reasonable because it is not evident that the reduced level of service caused a significant detriment to the resident.

Complaint handling

There was a delay by the landlord in responding to three complaint letters from the resident dated 9 November and 5 December 2020 and 2 January 2021 until 9 March 2021. The landlord acknowledged this delay in its response and offered total compensation of £75. The landlord implemented a different way for the resident to provide his monthly letter in order to prevent such delays happening again. This was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to learn from outcomes. The compensation offered was proportionate and in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.

The landlord had discretion under its complaints policy to decline to escalate the complaint to the stage two panel if it decided that such an escalation was unsuitable. Therefore, the landlord acted in line with its complaints policy in providing a final response in writing rather than escalating to the panel.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of:
1. Its response to reports of a boiler repair.
2. Its response to the resident’s assertion that he had not spoken to a named person with regard to the fire door replacement
In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint with respect to:
1. Its response to reports of a repair relating to the dimmer switch in the lounge of the property.
2. Its response to reports of wooden panels being removed in the communal area.
3. Its response to the resident’s concerns about its delayed response to his letter of 5 February 2020.
4. Its response to the resident’s request for a gas safety certificate.
5. Complaint Handling.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
1. Its response to the resident’s concerns about the exposed gas pipes and marks on the walls near those pipes.
2. Its response to the resident’s concerns about the communal lights.
3. Its response to the resident’s concerns about pigeons.
4. Its response to the resident’s concerns about the quality of its service centre and its opening hours.

Reasons

The landlord offered reasonable and proportionate redress to the resident for the misunderstanding about the dimmer switch repair.
The landlord apologised for the delay in replacing the panels. That was a proportionate response.
There was delay to the boiler repair. It was not reasonable for the landlord to refuse compensation as it is responsible for decisions about the boiler, not the resident.
While the landlord was not obliged to paint the gas pipes, it acted reasonably in agreeing to do so to keep them in line with the surrounding décor. It also acted appropriately by ensuring that the marks on the wall were removed.
The landlord took appropriate action to ensure that the communal lights were working as intended.
The landlord took appropriate action by ensuring the area affected by the pigeons was cleaned and by starting to seek quotes to install spikes in the area as a deterrent.
The landlord acknowledged its mistake in not responding to the resident’s letter of 5 February 2020 and paid proportionate redress.
The landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging it had delayed resolving the issue of the lost gas safety certificate and paid redress that was accepted by the resident.
The lack of evidence supports the resident’s assertion that he had not spoken to a named person with regard to the fire door replacement.
The steps the landlord took to maintain an acceptable level of service during the pandemic were reasonable.
The landlord acknowledged it had delayed responding to three letters of complaint and paid proportionate redress.

Orders

The landlord shall take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence to the Ombudsman of compliance with this order:
1. Apologise to the resident for its mistaken assertion that the resident spoke to a named member of staff on 30 October 2019.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £150 to reflect the inconvenience and distress caused by the delay in repairing the back boiler.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the compensation offered in the complaint responses totalling £150 (if this has not been paid already).