Southern Housing Group Limited (202112147)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112147

Southern Housing Group Limited

14 June 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 the resident’s reports about:
1. Communal lighting.
2. An intercom system.

Background

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of a two-bedroom flat. The landlord is the freeholder and manages the property.
The resident complained to the landlord in April 2021 that reported issues with the intercom system and communal lighting had not been repaired despite some problems being ongoing for more than a year.
In its stage one response (21 May 2021), the landlord confirmed that some repairs to the communal lighting had been completed. It apologised for the delay in completing these repairs and asked the resident to report back if additional repairs remained required, as it understood the works it had completed to have already been completed by the time the resident submitted his complaint. The landlord also confirmed that it awaited new parts for the intercom system, which it expected to be installed the following week.
The resident remained dissatisfied. He requested escalation on the basis that the landlord had not checked to ensure that works completed by its contractor had taken place effectively. He also raised concerns from a fire safety perspective and questioned why some lights were on constantly.
The landlord’s final response (7 July 2021) said that it would arrange for its contractor to investigate the issues with both the communal lighting and the intercom and would then issue instructions following this; this would include the issues with the fire safety sign and the communal light sensors. It also confirmed that a post-inspection would take place for any works carried out.
The resident remained dissatisfied and brought his case to the Ombudsman in September 2021. He said that his outstanding concerns related to the ‘general malaise’ in the landlord’s management of repair issues. He gave a history of issues he had experienced since the property was developed back in 2007, including previous complaints that had been raised.
Regarding the issues related to his current complaint, the resident said that the fire safety light was currently not working at all, that some communal lights remained turned on constantly, whilst others didn’t work at all. He also said that issues with the intercom persisted, with a ‘loud, howling noise’ emanating from it during both day and night. He also raised additional issues, relating to contractor actions and communal doors.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is clear from the landlord’s response to the complaint that it accepted that it was responsible for maintaining the communal lighting and intercom system in line with the lease agreement, which was not available to this investigation. This investigation therefore focuses on assessing whether the landlord dealt with the reported issues in a reasonable and appropriate manner and whether its response to the complaint adequately addressed the issues raised.
In assessing the case the Ombudsman has reviewed repair records provided by the landlord. The repair records for both communal lighting and the intercom system identify orders placed but not who reported a fault. This means that the Ombudsman cannot confirm what reports the resident made apart from those referenced during the complaint process. However, the repair records are still considered relevant as the resident’s complaint is that issues had been reported and were not dealt with appropriately by the landlord.
It is noted in the resident’s correspondence with the Ombudsman that he had additional concerns following the completion of the complaints process, including to communal doors, further fire safety issues and contractor actions. The Ombudsman is unable to formally investigate issues that have not progressed through a landlord’s complaints process and, as such, these issues have not been referenced any further in this investigation.
It is also noted that the resident has confirmed that he is concerned with the general standard of service he has experienced from the landlord. The Ombudsman’s remit extends to investigating specific issues raised and responded to through a landlord’s complaints process. Therefore, any adverse findings made against a landlord will only be in relation to these specific reports. The Ombudsman will however look to identify learning from any issues identified and seek to include orders and recommendations designed to provide both a remedy for any failures and learning points to improve overall service delivery.

Communal lighting

In the records provided to the Ombudsman the first repair order raised in relation to the communal lighting was on 27 May 2020. The report confirmed an issue with ‘all lights in the communal building’. An operative attended the following day but was unable to access the circuit intake cupboard as it was locked. Access was provided on 4 June 2020 when three lights were ‘temporary fixed’ to get all the lights working again. The landlord’s repair policy states that ‘no lighting to a communal staircase’ is considered an emergency repair where it will repair or make safe within 24 hours. It is of concern therefore that the landlord did not achieve this service standard here. It is also not clear from the evidence what actions the landlord took to ensure operatives would not experience the same access issue in relation to the locked cupboard if future issues were reported.
The operative who attended on the 4 June 2020 recommended that to locate the fault a full fault-finding investigation should be carried out on the circuit. There is no evidence that this was responded to by the landlord and no reason is identified for not following this technical advice. Having instructed a suitably qualified person to investigate the reported issues, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to act on recommendations made following the site visit, or to at least provide confirmation as to why it did not believe such actions necessary. The landlord’s failure to carry out these actions can reasonably be considered to have contributed to the landlord’s overall delay in resolving communal lighting issues.
An order was raised on 2 July 2020 in relation to the lights not coming on at night. A contractor attended the following day and rectified the problem which related to an emergency key switch being left on. Similarly, following an order on 26 November 2020 to deal with an emergency light not working, this was replaced the following day. The landlord’s repair records here demonstrate an appropriate timescale for actions, with immediate responses to jobs raised and resolution action having been taken on each occasion.
However, there was a failure in dealing with a fault to the external lights and night timer recorded on 3 February 2021. An operative attended the following day but was again unable to access the intake cupboard so could not carry out the necessary investigations. This was made clear in the operative’s feedback, though there was no response from the landlord until 2 March 2021 when the contractor chased for a response and access arrangements were then confirmed. However, there is no indication in the repair records that the contractor then attended to complete this order. The landlord is responsible for monitoring the performance of its contractor and therefore should have followed this up. It is of significant concern that the same access issue occurred as before. This demonstrates a lack of learning from the operative’s previous reports (see 27 May 2020).
As part of its investigation of the complaint the landlord did receive a response from its contractor that it had completed lighting works on 9 April 2021. However, there are no details in the repair records of activity on this date. While the fault recorded on 3 February 2021 was with external lighting, and therefore was unlikely to have fallen into the emergency repair category, the landlord’s repair policy states that it ‘aims to complete all other repairs as quickly as possible’ which was not achieved in this instance.
In the resident’s formal complaint raised on 22 April 2021 he said that the exterior lights on the walkways had not been working for over a year and that a contractor attended to carry out a repair but did not repair the correct lights and unnecessarily changed a light fitting. He added that the contractor also turned off a daytime sensor which meant that two external lights near the front entrance were permanently on. He stated he challenged the operatives regarding these two lights and was informed they had run out of time to address these concerns. He also identified that lights near the refuse bins and over the gas metres had not been working for over a month. He confirmed that all lighting issues had been reported but nothing had been done. He reported that four other internal lights had also recently been found to be permanently on.
The landlord’s stage one response to the complaint stated that its contractor had confirmed that it had completed reported repairs for the communal lights on 9th April 2021. The landlord offered an apology for the delay in this repair. It also noted that as these repairs were completed prior to the complaint being raised, that the resident should let it know if some lights now required further repairs or if some of the lights were not repaired on this date. This was an inadequate response as the landlord was already aware that the resident believed there were a number of repairs outstanding. These should have been checked on-site as part of the investigation. Whilst it was appropriate that an offer of an apology was made for the delay in repair the landlord’s internal investigation did not identify the length of delay or explain why it occurred.
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process on 25 May 2021 stating that communal lights were still not working, that the landlord had been ‘lied to’ by its contractor and that the basis of his complaint was that jobs had not been checked following completion. He reiterated that the external communal lights had not worked for about a year. When escalating the complaint the resident raised a further issue regarding an incorrect illuminated fire safety sign. Although not raised as part of the initial complaint the landlord used its discretion to cover this in its final response grouping it with the other lighting issues. This was a reasonable decision in the circumstances as the new issue amounted to an additional communal lighting issue, albeit a significant one given that it related to a fire safety sign.
There is evidence of the landlord taking appropriate action to resolve the lighting issues following the escalation of the complaint. On 9 June 2021 the landlord raised an order to repair four external lights, two bin room lights, a missing photocell (which turns on the lights when it gets dark) and to investigate internal lights which were permanently on. The operative who attended confirmed some bulkheads were replaced, some new bulbs installed and that a broken motion sensor and photocell were replaced. He confirmed that everything was then working.
A further order was raised on 22 June 2021 to check that all communal lighting was working and that timers were on correct times. An operative attended on 24 June 2021 and reported back that the communal lights inside were permanently on as the photocell was not working as it should. The report also confirmed that there was a circuit error which was keeping the lights on and that further attendance by electricians would be required to rectify the problems.
A different electrician attended the site on 9 July 2021, shortly after the landlord’s final complaint response of 7 July 2021. The operative reported back that the internal lights could not be connected to a photocell as there were some dark areas which needed illuminating in the daytime and that a quote to install motion sensors would therefore be provided. Although the problem was not resolved at this stage the actions do show the landlord was seeking to address the resident’s concerns.
The manager carrying out the stage 2 review called the resident to discuss his complaint on 5 July 2021. This was a positive action by the landlord, although the Ombudsman has not been provided with notes of this conversation. The landlord’s final response sent on 7 July 2021 stated it would arrange for its contractor to clarify external lighting locations and what the issues were. The landlord would then issue instructions for any necessary works which would be inspected to confirm they were completed. The work orders mentioned in the paragraphs above appear to show this process had already commenced by the time this response was sent. This is a reasonable response in terms of taking action to resolve any outstanding faults.
However, the extent of the delay in carrying out the repairs was not properly investigated or explained. The response acknowledged that the works had been ongoing and obtaining clarity took some diagnosis discussion, but the evidence detailed above does indicate that there were significant delays. In addition, the apology offered for the lighting repair delays in the landlord’s stage 1 response was not reiterated in its final response. The final response also did not detail any timescales for any further investigations/works. These shortcomings in the landlord’s response represent a service failure.
Overall therefore, there was a service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the communal lighting. The final response did identify action required to address the lighting issues but did not address the delays that had occurred. It is not known to what extent the lighting issues have been resolved since the completion of the complaints process. With a view to providing a full resolution to this issue, it is ordered that the landlord provide the resident with a written response detailing all works completed to the communal lighting since his formal complaint was first submitted. This report should also detail any works completed sine the end of the complaints process, together with any timescales for outstanding works. In addition, the report should clarify the landlord’s position regarding fire safety, including whether or not the reported issue to the fire safety sign has now been rectified.
In addition to the report detailed above, an amount of compensation payable to the resident is also considered appropriate. This will reflect the inconvenience and distress he has experienced in relation to both the communal lighting, and also his pursuit of the complaint on the same issue.

Intercom system

The evidence provided by the landlord shows that the first record of a problem with the intercom system was an order placed on the 20 March 2021. This order was attended to on 31 March 2021 where the operative found microphones turned off. The operative’s log stated that this was rectified and the system was tested and left working. In this instance the evidence shows the landlord responded effectively to the identified fault. The operative also fed back that the door on the lower level didn’t lock properly and recommended a new magnetic locking system be installed.
The notes from the resident’s initial telephone complaint identified that he said an engineer who attended two weeks ago had not been able to fix the intercom and had not returned since. It is stated the resident said it was not working on the lower level. This appears to contradict the operative’s note in the repairs log. The landlord responded to the resident that the recent appointment for the intercom repair had identified that parts were required and that these would be installed the following week. The repair records identify that a new lock and post were installed the following week on 25 May 2021, though doesn’t mention any further works to the intercom system. However, based on the information available to the landlord at this stage this was not an unreasonable response.
When the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process, he identified that when the intercom rang he had to go to his patio door to communicate with the caller as the volume was switched off. He stated that this had been going on for the last year. The repairs records provided to the Ombudsman do not show a problem with the intercom being reported prior to the report on 21 March 2021 which means the resident’s concern about the length of the delay cannot be verified. The resident escalated his complaint on the same day the new lock was installed so it is unclear if the resident was aware of the completion of this work at the time of the escalation and whether it had any impact on the operation of the intercom system.
The landlord’s final complaint response, which as mentioned above followed a conversation between resident and the manager dealing with the complaint explained that the resident had identified two ongoing issues with the intercom. Firstly, that there was a hissing noise from the system when one of the communal doors was opened and that the contractor had not solved the root cause and had been adjusting the volume up and down instead. Secondly that the handset in homes continuously indicated that the communal door was open. The landlord responded that its contractor would be asked to clarify what the issues were, that instructions would be issued following the inspection and any works would be checked to confirm completion. This was an appropriate response in terms of future actions.
The final response would have benefited from addressing the resident’s concern regarding the time it had taken to address the issue and the timescales for further investigations/works. However, this shortcoming is less significant in respect of the intercom system as at the time of the landlord’s final response there was no evidence of a substantial delay in responding to reported faults.
Overall, there was no maladministration in the way the landlord dealt with the resident’s concerns regarding faults with the intercom system. The evidence shows that the landlord did take action to repair the system following a reported fault and then confirmed further investigations when the resident raised ongoing issues through the complaint process. While the resident’s concerns regarding the delay in addressing the issue were not fully responded to by the landlord the evidence does not show there was a substantial delay.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about faults with the communal lighting.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about faults with the intercom system.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 in recognition of the failings identified in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident concerns about faults with the communal lighting.
The landlord to provide the resident with a written report detailing all works completed to the communal lighting since his formal complaint was submitted on this subject (April 2021). This report to include confirmation of any outstanding works, including expected timescales and the report to also confirm that the issue with the fire safety light has been addressed.
The landlord to evidence compliance with these orders to this Service within 28 days of this report.