Southern Housing Group Limited (202108023)

 

 

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108023

Southern Housing Group Limited

5 July 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

1. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Various repairs to the communal areas, in particular to the lobby door, windows and the lift.
   2. Delays responding and its level of care and service.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 3-bedroom flat. The lease commenced on 14 June 2019.
3. On 28 April 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to report leaking windows on the stairwell. She explained that despite flagging this in October 2019, the issue still remained. As a result this was causing damage to the paintwork. She also mentioned that another window started leaking in the hallway. She stated that despite reporting in early April that the main entrance’s firefighters switch had been vandalised, it had not been fixed.
4. Between 15 July 2020 and 21 October 2020, the resident had been in communication with the landlord about various issues. As she did not feel the landlord’s responses to her concerns were satisfactory, she wrote to the landlord on 11 November 2020 to break down the issues. She explained that she felt her property was vulnerable to potential burglars and wanted a fob lock fitted to the lobby door to improve security. She also complained about the leaking windows and the length of time it was taking for the repair to be completed. In regard to both issues she expressed her dissatisfaction about the landlord’s lack of responses and found this to be highly frustrating.
5. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 11 November 2020 and resent it on 25 November 2020 concerning various matters which was responded to on 8 December 2020. This was concerning the following issues:
   1. Leaking windows on the stairwell.
   2. Lift service being unavailable.
   3. Lobby door security.
6. The landlord explained that it was aware of the leaking windows and the issue was a potential defect caused by design, workmanship, or materials. It had been in touch with the developing contractors to investigate this further.
7. In response to the lift services, it noted that it had previously been reported on 9 September 2020 that the lift doors slammed randomly. It visited the property on 14 September 2020 to investigate but was unable to resolve the fault. As a precautionary measure, the lift was taken out of service whilst the faults were investigated. Following this on 22 October 2022 a repair was attempted, however the fault continued. It was found that further parts from the lift manufacturer were required. Subsequently a further visit was made on 28 October 2020 and the lift was repaired.
8. In response to the resident’s request for alterations to the lobby door, the landlord explained that alterations would not be possible as any change to the internal lobby doors becomes a fire safety consideration.
9. On 12 March 2021, the landlord issued its stage one response. It acknowledged the resident’s security concerns but reiterated that a fob lock could not be installed to the lobby door as access was always required.
10. Regarding the leaking windows, the landlord identified that the matter was a latent defect which means that the cost of repairs would be the responsibility of the contractors or designers of the building. It explained that the contractor had since completed repair works on the windows and subsequent damage to the wall and paintwork surrounding the window.
11. The resident had mentioned that the lobby door was in need of repair following a visit from the contractor on 12 November 2020. The landlord confirmed that the lobby door was repaired on 5 March 2021.
12. On 18 March 2021, as a result of the resident being unhappy with the landlord’s response, the complaint was escalated. Consequently, the landlord issued its stage two response on 15 April 2021. It apologised for its lack-of clear communication from the onset, and delays in service explaining that the covid-19 pandemic impacted its staffing levels significantly and contractors involved. The landlord proceeded to comment on the resident’s concerns, including the following:
    1. The landlord was unable to confirm if the lobby door had been repaired, however noted that it had been reported as being completed. It recommended a post inspection to inspect the work and meet with the resident.
    2. The landlord explained to the resident why a fob lock cannot be fitted to the lobby door. It apologised for being over-technical in its previous explanation to the resident which resulted in confusion.
    3. The landlord confirmed that the cost would not affect the resident’s service charges. It acknowledged that it could have been clearer communicating this to the resident.
    4. The landlord confirmed that drainage issues had been sorted.
    5. The landlord acknowledged that action to resolve the issues only began once the resident had raised a formal complaint, which should not have been the case. It acknowledged that it should have solved the issue much sooner.
13. In response to the above, the resident explained that she had sent proof that the lobby door had not been repaired and she never received an over-technical reason as to why the door could not be fitted with a lock. She acknowledged that the costs or repairs would not be a part of her service charges but explained that this was the first time it had been confirmed, as previous conversations were not clear. It was agreed that repairs to the drainage had been completed.
14. Regarding the landlord’s complaint handling, the resident explained it had been time consuming, and she was unhappy with the service which she had received to resolve the matter and have her questions answered.
15. As the resident remained unsatisfied with the landlord’s response, the complaint was referred to this service for adjudication.

Assessment and findings

16. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, Section 11 implies repair obligations for landlord tenants. It states the following:

‘In a lease to which this section applies (as to which, see sections 13 and 14) there is implied a covenant by the lessor— to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house’.

17. This is also stipulated in Section 7 of the landlord’s responsive repairs policy, which states that the landlord has a duty to carry out repairs pertaining to the structure and exterior of the property.
18. As the lobby door, leaking windows, and lift service are considered part of the structure, the landlord would be responsible for ensuring a suitable repair of the property under the act.
19. This service has therefore considered the landlord’s actions when the resident informed it of the issues, and whether its response was reasonable.

The landlord’s handling of various repairs to the communal areas, in particular to the lobby door, windows and the lift.

Safety and repairs to lobby door

20. Section 3.1 of the landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that a repair will be treated as an emergency if there is an immediate risk to safety, security or health. It will repair or make safe as soon as possible and always within 24 hours of it being notified.
21. The landlord had been made aware that the lobby door was in need of repair, as on 12th November 2020 contractors had come and prised the doorframe away from the wall.
22. The evidence shows that the resident had contacted the landlord on several occasions to report repairs needed for the lobby door and it is apparent the door was in need of repair for a period of time. Following a meeting with the landlord and resident on 30 April 2021, an appointment was made for works on the lobby area to be completed on 12 May 2021, however this was delayed due to unforeseen circumstances.  A repair was carried out on 20 May 2021 and a further repair was conducted on 6 June 2021.
23. There has been no evidence to suggest that the internal lobby door posed a health and safety risk. However, it is clear that the resident had chased for repairs on several occasions and the landlord delayed in fixing the repairs. In view of the landlord’s repairs policy, it states It will aim to complete communal repairs as quickly as possible, however in this instance it took the landlord over five months to make a full repair. This was an unreasonably protracted length of time.
24. The resident expressed that as she has a separate lobby to the rest of the building, she felt her home was vulnerable as her front door was obscured. Due to safety concerns the resident had asked the landlord if it could put a fob lock on the lobby door.
25. Following advice from its safety team, the landlord explained that the alterations could not be done due to fire safety considerations and, as the internal doors are part of fire safety measures, it was not designed to include a fob locking mechanism. It also explained that a metal screen or grill could not be added.
26. Whilst this service acknowledges the resident’s concerns regarding safety and wanting alterations made to the lobby door; the landlord’s decision has been made after it reviewed the issue and sought further advice. It is entitled to rely on the advice of fire safety guidelines and overall the landlord’s response of the matter seems fair.
27. This service has noticed that this had been an ongoing topic of conversation between the resident and landlord for nine months. The evidence shows that the landlord also acknowledged it could have mitigated a complaint by dealing with the issue quickly and clearly when the matter was initially brought to its attention. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord could have handled the resident’s concerns in an efficient manner, however it has acknowledged its failings and apologised to the resident. In this circumstance the landlord’s apology is sufficient, as there is no evidence to suggest this caused a significant detriment to the resident.

Leaking windows

28. Section 5 of the landlord’s responsive repairs policy is in reference to communal repairs. It states the landlord is responsible for the following.
    1. Repairs to the communal areas and facilities that you have shared use of with your neighbours. It aims to complete these repairs as quickly as possible.
    2. Communal repairs include repairs to entrances, halls, stairways, lifts, passageways, rubbish chutes, paths, grounds, roadways, parking areas, communal gardens.
29. The resident reported leaking windows in the stairwell during October 2019, April 2020 and on numerous occasions. The leak often happened after there was heavy rain.
30. When the resident informed the landlord of the issue, it was already aware, but as it was concerning a potential defect caused by design, workmanship, or materials, it was the responsibility of the development contractors to make repairs. The evidence shows the landlord had already made the contractors aware of the issues and that a visit was due on 7 December 2020 to investigate the matter, however there is no confirmation if this was done.
31. The evidence shows that repairs to the window had been completed on 8 March 2022 and the landlord informed the resident of this on 12 March 2021 via a letter which confirmed the contractor had attended the property and made repairs on the window and subsequent damage surrounding it.
32. This service understands the resident’s frustration in the length of time it has taken the landlord to make repairs. However, It is understood that during the time of being made aware of the issue the landlord and contractors resources had been affected as a result of the covid-19 pandemic which resulted in delays to the service. As the fault posed no immediate risk to residents and required the landlord to rely on developing contractors to repair the fault, this service has not found that there was service failure by the landlord. The landlord was positive in keeping the resident informed once repairs had been completed and also confirmed that the costs of repairs would not be passed onto the resident as the defect has been ongoing since the building was first built.
33. Furthermore, looking at the landlord’s compensation framework, it does not cover for delays and failures for completing a communal repair. It does however states that residents who pay service charges can be compensated for failure of communal amenity.
34. The policy states, ‘Compensation can be considered when there is a failure of a communal amenity such as a lift, or door entry system. Whilst there is no prescribed payment calculation for communal repairs, the officer should consider how much the customers pays each week for the service and the reason for the failure (i.e. fault due to vandalism), and the reasonableness of the delay (waiting for parts).’
35. In this instance the landlord has confirmed the resident will not pay for the cost of repairs for the leaking windows in service charges, therefore this service has not given consideration to this.

Lift service

36. Regarding the lift being out of service, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord acted appropriately in taking precautionary measures when the faults were first reported in September 2020. Whilst this service recognises the frustration it would have caused the resident to not have an operating lift, we have seen evidence to suggest the landlord had made arrangements for the lift to be fixed and this was completed in October 2020. Given the circumstance that additional materials were needed from the lift manufacturer, the length of time taken to repair the lift is not considered unreasonable.

The landlord’s delays in responding and its level of care and service.

37. The landlord’s complaints policy entails two stages. At stage one its aim is to response to the resident’s complaint within 10 working days. If it is unable to do so, this is communicated to the resident, and it shall not exceed a further 10 working days. During stage two the landlord aims to provide the resident with a response within 20 working days.
38. In this instance the resident raised a formal complaint in November 2020 and received a stage one response in March 2021. This exceeded the expected timeframe and was not in accordance with the landlord’s guidelines. The significant delay was at stage one of the complaint. The landlord then proceeded to issue its stage two response on 15 April 2021. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord’s compensation policy should be considered for delays in complaint handling.
39. The landlord’s compensation framework states, ‘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. For 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.’
40. Whilst this service acknowledges the landlord has acknowledged its failings and apologised to the resident, there was a failure in the landlord’s complaint handling in that it did not consider compensation in recognition of the protracted delay in sending its stage 1 response and the time and trouble the resident spent pursuing the matter. In line the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should compensate the resident £100, which equates to £25 per month for delayed response.

Determination (decision)

41. In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of various repairs to the communal areas, in particular to the lobby door, windows and the lift.
42. In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about delays in responding and its level of care and service.

Reasons

43. Whilst this service acknowledges that the landlord was delayed in making some repairs, there were circumstances outside of the landlord’s control which resulted in delays. This service has seen no evidence to suggest that the delays caused a significant detriment to the resident. Furthermore, the landlord has now made repairs and confirmed the residents service charges will not be affected.
44. The landlord did not adhere to its guidelines when responding to the resident’s complaint, which caused further upset. It is fair for the landlord to compensate the resident in line with its compensation policy.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

45. The landlord to pay compensation of £100.

Recommendations

46. The landlord to do a post inspection of the repairs to ensure the issues are resolved.