Southern Housing Group Limited (202007148)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007148

Southern Housing Group Limited

24 February 2021


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

  1. The resident complains about the landlord’s decision to refuse her request for the notice period for the property to be reduced to two weeks, following her reports of ASB and communal repairs.

Background and summary of events

  1. On 26 May 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to report that the estate was in an “awful state” with: the bin locker door broken; broken back garden gate; litter in the car park; main entrance door broke; cigarette butts on the floor, and; a constantly running overflow pipe. The resident asked “…how many other flats…are on the affordable renting scheme, as I am? I feel like we are being punished for the choice of lifestyle that other residents choose to lead, I understand that you have no control over this, but it would be great to have a little more oversight and support from SH group regarding the upkeep of the building and area.”
  2. The landlord replied the following day explaining that it had logged the repairs and would attend when it was possible given the current lockdown situation. It said “Please note only emergency jobs are being attended to at present and once the rules change, they will be able to prioritise the issues and attend.” The landlord said that it was unable to provide information on how many properties were social rent or other types of tenures due to data protection laws.
  3. The resident emailed again on 15 June 2020 reporting that the main entrance door was still broken and the overflow pipe was still running “like a tap”. She said that she had complained four times about these issues and they had still not been resolved. She also reported distressing noise from a neighbour. The landlord replied that same day saying that it would chase up the repairs, but it was only running emergency services. Once lockdown was lifted further it would be going through the backlog of repairs, which would take some time.
  4. The resident responded explaining that in fact the landlord had attended for the repairs on 29 May 2020 and these were reported as fixed, but were not. She was concerned that perhaps a tenant was breaking the door on purpose. The landlord replied saying that it would find out what progress had been made and would report back once it had further details. It said that it had informed the service charge department that once the water bill arrived it would need to be recalculated according to the excess water used during the period of disrepair. Regarding the neighbour, it explained that she had suffered a bereavement and was grieving and when alone had been crying and asked for the resident’s understanding.
  5. On July 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to report that the overflow pipe was still running and the main entrance door was still broken.  She highlighted the landlord’s own sustainability strategy, which showed that it took an interest in reducing water consumption. She said that it was unacceptable that the repair had been outstanding for so long, and while she appreciated the Covid restrictions, the landlord had attended the estate to repair other issues while wearing PPE, so it was possible. She’d had no correspondence from the landlord to update her on the issue at all. She asked again for details of the types of tenancy on the estate.
  6. On 18 August 2020 the resident confirmed that she was raising a formal complaint about a lack of action from the landlord in relation to her reports of ASB (for example marijuana use; neighbours arguing and slamming doors and using excessive and offensive language; improper/intimidating behaviour of children, and; throwing cigarette butts). She also complained about mess and fly-tipping in communal areas, infrequent cleaning and lack of support from the landlord. She requested £6,897.00 (25% of the rent paid during her tenancy) for damage to mental health, stress, and a breach of terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement. The resident explained that she had been left with no choice but to move home (and she left the property on 28 August 2020)
  7. On 3 September 2020 the landlord provided its stage one response. In this it explained that it had reviewed the resident’s reports of ASB and estate management issues, and had concluded that no service failures had been identified (other than those already addressed and compensated for in 2018) and so it would not be making an offer of compensation or reduction in notice period.
  8. The resident responded that same day stating that she was very disappointed with the outcome. Due to the issues she had experienced she had moved out of the property on 28 August 2020 and said “…I have been forced out of my home due to SHG’s lack of duty of care for me as a tenant.” She again asked the landlord to reduce her notice period from four weeks to two as a gesture of goodwill. She asked for the complaint to be escalated.
  9. The landlord responded on 8 September 2020 asking the resident to confirm whether she was seeking a full review of the complaint by a panel or senior manager, or just a compensation review. The resident replied asking for a compensation review/review of request for notice period to be reduced to two weeks.
  10. The landlord provided its review response on 22 September 2020, in which it explained that it would not be making an offer of compensation as it had not identified a service failure in relation to the issues raised within the complaint. In regards to the request for the notice period reduction or equivalent compensation of two weeks, it said that this was not something that it was able to alter.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident has explained in her communications with this Service that her only outstanding concern is that she had to pay rent for the four-week notice period, despite leaving the flat empty a week after she gave notice and advising the landlord of this on several occasions. She would like a refund of the rent she paid for the three weeks she was not living at the property.
  2. The resident’s tenancy agreement states “You must give us at least four weeks’ notice in writing expiring on a Monday if you want the tenancy to end.” Therefore, it is not in question that the resident was obliged to provide this notice, and the issue to be considered is whether it was reasonable for the landlord to decline her request to waive this notice period in light of the resident’s assertions that she was forced to leave due to its inaction.
  3. Despite the obligations of the tenancy agreement, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to consider such a request, taking into account all of the circumstances of the case. The landlord’s letter of 3 September 2020 demonstrates that it did so: This set out that it had reviewed the resident’s reports of ASB and estate management issues, and had found that the first was dated 8 June 2017 and was about noise caused by an upstairs neighbour. As the resident had said at the time that she did not wish to make a complaint, none was raised and no action was taken.
  4. In November 2018 the resident made several reports of ASB. These matters had been addressed in a formal complaint made at the time for which the landlord had issued an apology and compensation. A meeting then took place with the resident in January 2019 which had addressed the resident’s concerns and the ASB was reported to have stopped or significantly calmed. The case in relation to these reports was then closed.
  5. The next report was in May 2020 which included some communal repairs as well as reports of issues with littering or fly-tipping in the communal areas. The landlord had responded advising services had been paused or significantly reduced due to the COVID-19 pandemic. A stage one complaint response was provided, and the Estate Care Team completed an inspection during August 2020. While this identified some bulky items in the bin storage area and an issue with the door entry system, no other issues were found, with no sign of any cigarette butts or other litter on site.
  6. Regarding the resident’s concerns about the landlord failing in its duty of care, the landlord explained that it took the safety and welfare of residents seriously. However, it relied on residents making reports of ASB: If it did not receive reports of ASB it was often not aware of an on-going issue. It said “In the case of the issues you have reported since the start of your tenancy, these issues were not reported repeatedly or multiple times and…the issues appeared to have been resolved following the Group’s intervention. In addition to this, I could not see that many of the specific issues raised within the summary of your complaint, for example the throwing of items and behaviour from neighbours, were reported and so I am unable to advise further on these concerns.” It therefore declined the request for compensation and a two-week reduction in the notice period.
  7. In light of the above, the landlord’s conclusion that there had been no service failure was reasonable. It was also then reasonable that it declined to reduce the notice period given that it had not found fault on its part, and especially given that the resident had not reported any ASB issues for over a year.
  8. This Service notes that the resident did not dispute the landlord’s findings regarding ASB in her reply to its stage one response, though did dispute the Estate Care Team’s reports of no issues with littering. However, the resident declined the landlord’s offer of a full case review, and asked it to reconsider reducing the notice period to two-weeks.
  9. In lieu of any further evidence of a service failure on its part, it was understandable that the landlord’s final response reiterated that it would not be paying compensation or reducing the notice period. 

Determination (decision)

  1. In line with section 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration on the part of the landlord.

 

Reasons

  1. The resident was obliged by the terms of her tenancy agreement to provide four weeks’ notice. The landlord considered her request to reduce this, but declined to do so on the basis that there had been no service failure. The Ombudsman considers that this was reasonable.