Southern Housing Group Limited (202116592)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116592

Southern Housing Group

28 July 2023

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 handling of repairs at the property.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling approaches.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a two-bedroom flat on the top floor of a low-rise block. It is unclear from the information received by this Service when the resident’s tenancy began. The landlord’s records do not show that the resident has any known vulnerabilities.
The landlord’s records state that on 14 February 2021, a major leak from a mains water pipe within the block occurred and this led to water flooding through the floors and into the resident’s flat. As such the landlord took steps to move the resident in to a temporary property whilst the damage was repaired through its insurers. It is understood that the resident stayed in temporary accommodation for around six months following the leak, returning to the property in August 2021. It is also understood that the landlord provided the resident with details of its insurers so that he could pursue a claim for damage caused to his personal items.
The resident has explained to this Service that the outstanding issues are:
1. Pigeons still entering the loft space via the roof of the building and the associated nuisance.
2. Damage to the communal front door meaning that it is often insecure.
3. The communal lift is not working.

Summary of events

On 31 August 2021, the resident sent an email to the landlord, outlining a number of repairs and issues within the property which were unresolved since he had returned to the property following the major leak in the block:
1. Leaking bathroom sink, causing damage to cupboards.
2. Leaking balcony door which hasn’t been sealed.
3. Pigeons in the loft space.
4. Paint and plaster missing from some walls and doors, and damp had returned in some areas.
5. Oven had been left in an unusable condition due to dirt left by contractors.
6. The doorbell doesn’t work.
7. Broken window handles.
8. Newly installed flooring had cracked at the joints.
The landlord responded to the resident via email that same day and acknowledged his complaint. It confirmed that it had logged his complaint at stage one of its complaints process. It did not provide a date on which it would aim to respond to his complaint but stated that it aimed to resolve complaints “as fairly and efficiently as possible”.
Also on 31 August 2021, the resident sent a further email to the landlord in which he raised further concerns relating to issues within the communal areas of the block:
1. The exterior of the building was in a poor condition, and he believed that a leaking gutter may be responsible for some of the issues he was experiencing in his property.
2. The lift was regularly breaking down.
3. The lock and fob-entry system on the communal front entrance door was damaged and had not been working correctly for at least one year.
4. There was a bad smell coming from the bottom floor of the block and he believed it may be from dog faeces.
Following internal emails between the landlord’s teams on 14 September 2021, its customer relations team sent an email to the resident. It acknowledged his complaint and confirmed that it would provide its stage one response by 28 September 2021.
In internal emails between the landlord’s teams on 16 September 2021, its surveyor confirmed that he had managed insurance works following the major leak in block. He stated that an agreement had been made to carry out kitchen replacement and additional decoration works in the resident’s property. It further stated that the resident had raised further repairs and wanted them included within those works.
The landlord provided the resident with its stage one complaint response on 28 September 2021 in which it stated:
1. It outlined the list of repairs within his property which he had reported as requiring attention.
2. It confirmed that the following repairs had been booked on its systems and provided dates of when the works would take place:
  1. Leaking bathroom sink, causing damage to cupboards; appointment arranged for 4 October 2021.
  2. Leaking balcony door, appointment arranged for 4 October 2021.
  3. Pigeons in the loft; appointment booked for 10 October 2021 with an estimate of two days required to complete the works.
  4. Paint and plaster missing from some walls and doors, and damp had returned in some areas; appointment arranged for 8 December 2021.
  5. Oven had been left in an unusable condition due to dirt left by contractors; the landlord stated that would be dealt with by its insurance team and a clean would be booked in.
  6. Broken doorbell: appointment booked for 29 September 2021.
  7. Broken window handles: a job had been raised with its contractor who would contact the resident to arrange an appointment.
  8. New flooring cracked at the joints; a job had been raised with its contractor who would contact the resident to arrange an appointment.
  9. The exterior of the building was in poor condition including damaged guttering; it stated that the brick work of the building was being renewed but did not provide a date for this.
  10. Lift breaking down frequently; it stated that it had raised a job with its servicing team to investigate.
  11. Communal door lock and fob damaged; a job had been raised with its contractor who would contact the resident to arrange an appointment.
  12. Bad smell, possibly dog mess, on the bottom floor; it stated that this was an anti-social behaviour issue and not for its maintenance team. It had made the relevant staff aware.
  13. It directed the resident to pursue a claim through his contents insurance regarding any damage caused to his personal items as result of the major leak in the block.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 29 September 2021 and explained his unhappiness with the landlord’s approaches to resolving the repairs.
The landlord’s repairs logs state that on 30 September 2021 it raised works to address:
1. A leaking bathroom sink which was causing damage to the cupboards.
2. The balcony door was not sealed and was allowing water into the property.
3. Its records state that these repairs were completed on 21 October 2021.
The resident contacted his local councillor on 19 October 2021, to request assistance in getting the landlord to complete the outstanding repairs at the property. He outlined that some repairs had not been completed following the major leak within the block. The resident stated that he had recently escalated his complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process. The councillor forwarded the resident’s email to the landlord on 25 October 2021 and asked for updates on the repairs.
On 27 October 2021, following contact from this Service, the landlord sent an email to the resident stating that they were aware of his dissatisfaction with its stage one complaint. It informed him that they would escalate his complaint to stage two of its complaints process.
The landlord’s repairs logs state that on 4 and 5 November 2021 it raised jobs for the following:
1. Bathroom extractor fan to be replaced.
2. Kitchen and hallway extractor fan required attention.
3. The shower screen was leaking.
4. A replacement exterior vent cover required replacement via access from balcony.
5. To unblock bathroom sink.
6. The above works were listed as completed between 6 November 2021 and 10 November 2021.
In late November 2021 and early December 2021, the landlord was chasing its contractors for progress updates on the numerous repairs at the property and to include updates in its stage two complaint response.
On 8 December 2021, the landlord provided the resident with its stage two complaint response. It provided a table in the response which outlined the status of all repairs which the resident had reported:
It stated that all of the following issues had been resolved and the required works completed to:
1. Doorbell
2. Window handles
3. New flooring
4. Lift
5. Leaking bathroom sink
6. Pigeons in the loft
7. New plastering and painting
8. Extractor fans
9. Communal door and door fob
Its table highlighted the outstanding issues and actions required as follows:

Issue	Action
Leaking balcony door which has not been sealed	A further follow up appointment had been booked for the 14 December 2021; a letter would be sent to the resident to confirm availability
Exterior of the building in poor condition including damaged guttering	This matter is being investigated by our surveyor and planned maintenance team, to determine if any maintenance needs to be done on the exterior brick work of the building ahead of the maintenance schedule
Smell, possibly dog mess, on the bottom floor	The Home Service Manager is aware of the issue regarding the smell on the ground floor and is following our internal procedures to address this with the individual concerned. We are unable to provide details of actions taken due to data protection; however, I can assure you that We are actively engaged in tackling this issue through the appropriate channels
Balcony cover – ripped off broken again	A new job has been raised and we are awaiting a quote from the contractor to replace the balcony netting
Oven has been left in an unusable condition due to dirt left by contractors	£100 compensation was offered to the resident towards a professional oven clean.

The landlord stated that it upheld all aspects of the resident’s complaint and it apologised to the resident for its service failings in relation to the repairs. It offered £350 in compensation to reflect the inconvenience he had experienced, making a total offer of £450 in compensation. It stated that it aimed to provide the compensation payment within ten working days of the resident’s confirmation that he would accept it.

Post complaints process

The resident contacted the landlord on 10 December 2021 and requested a call back to discuss its stage two complaint response as he stated there were points in it which were incorrect.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 23 December 2021, to report that there were still repairs requiring attention:
1. The balcony door was leaking water into the living room when it was raining.
2. The bathroom sink was leaking water into the cupboards.
3. The kitchen sink waste pipe was leaking.
4. A ventilation cover on the balcony had been replaced but it had broken again, and a squirrel was entering through the hole and was ripping out insulation.
5. Issues with pigeons were continuing and the resident outlined that droppings were filling up the external gutters causing blockages. He requested that netting was reinstalled on his balcony which the contractors had removed and not replaced during works to address the major water leak within the block.
6. He had been informed that the loft area was full of pigeon droppings and required cleaning. He had heard pigeons in the loft despite mesh being installed to stop them gaining access.
7. He requested that extractor fans in the kitchen and hallway were replaced as they were not working correctly.
8. Painting and plastering works were incomplete.
9. Mould issues which he felt was due to the blocked drains and gutters caused by pigeon droppings and poor exterior brickwork.
Within internal emails between the landlord’s teams on 5 January 2022, it stated that its contractors had provided incorrect information which had been included in its stage two complaint response to the resident. It also stated that its contractors had refused to provide information or take action to remedy the repairs before and after its stage two response.
The landlord’s repairs logs show that on 10 January 2022, it raised works for the balcony door to be overhauled. Its records state that this was completed on 7 April 2022.
On 15 February 2022, the resident sent an email to the landlord requesting an update on its progress as he stated he had not received any contact from it in over one month. The landlord responded to the resident that same day and advised that it had escalated his concerns to its head of property on 6 January 2022, but had not received any update. It advised that it had passed his concerns to a member of staff and requested that they contact the resident directly. It apologised for any inconvenience caused.
On 9 March 2022, the resident called the landlord to chase it for updates on the outstanding repairs which he had outlined in his contact with it on 23 December 2021. He also confirmed that he accepted the offer of compensation detailed in its stage two complaint response. The landlord raised the compensation payment on its systems with an additional £25 and an apology due to the further delays the resident had experienced. It also escalated the residents’ concerns around the numerous repairs being incomplete.
In internal emails between the landlord’s staff on 8 June 2022, it was confirmed that the resident had received the compensation payment however the outstanding repairs reported to the landlord on 23 December 2021 were still incomplete.
The resident has confirmed to this Service in July 2023 that whilst most of the repairs are now complete, the following matters are not resolved:
1. Pigeons still entering the loft space via the roof of the building and the associated nuisance.
2. Damage to the communal front door and lock mechanism, meaning that it is often insecure.
3. The communal lift is not working.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s obligations

The terms of the tenancy agreement between the resident and the landlord outline the following in relation to repairs obligations which are also detailed in section 11 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985;
1. The landlord will keep in in good repair the structure and exterior of the property including:
  1. drains, gutters, and external pipes.
  2. the roof.
  3. outside walls, outside doors, windows, including external painting and decorating where necessary.
2. To keep in good repair and working order any installations it provides for space heating, water heating and sanitation and installations for the supply of water, gas, and electricity, including:
  1. basins, sinks, baths, toilets, flushing systems, waste pipes and overflow systems except blockages caused by resident’s misuse.
3. With regards to the landlord’s obligations in relation to communal areas:
  1. To take reasonable care to keep the common entrances, halls, stairways, lifts, passageways, rubbish chutes, paths, grounds, roadways, parking areas, communal gardens and such other facilities that we provide from time to time (including their electric lighting, time clocks, entry phones and glazing to communal windows) in reasonable repair, clean tidy and fit to be used by residents or other people who live in or visit the property or the scheme.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out the repairs it is responsible for, and repairs which residents are responsible for. Its policy confirms that it is responsible for repairs to the internal and external structure of its properties. It also confirms its responsibility for the repair and maintenance of any installations for heating and sanitation within the property. Its policy outlines resident’s responsibilities regarding repairs which are of a more minor nature. Apart from emergency repairs, the landlord’s responsive repairs policy does not set out estimated times scales for day-to-day repairs that it will carry out.
The landlord’s complaints resolution policy outlines the following:
1. It will acknowledge stage one complaints within five working days.
2. It aims to respond fully to stage one complaints within ten working days.
3. It aims to provide a response within 20 working days of a complaint escalation after stage one.
4. If these response times are not possible it will contact the resident to advise why and give a new response date which will not exceed a further 10 working days.
5. At stage two (review) of its complaints process, residents can select one of the following options:
  1. A review including involved residents and its staff or
  2. A review consisting only of its staff.
6. Following the review, the landlord will provide its response within 10 working days.
7. In “exceptional” cases, the landlord will defer the decision if further advice is needed, or if it needs to consult a specialist or take legal advice.
8. It will advise residents of any need to extend the response time.
9. It outlines an appeal process should residents wish to challenge a decision.
The landlord’s compensation policy outlines that in cases where it has taken reasonable steps to resolve any failure in service, it will consider a discretionary payment. It outlines that it may offer this to recognise distress or inconvenience caused for example, it may have taken repeated attempts to resolve an issue. Discretionary payments may be cash payments, gift vouchers or items such as flowers. It further states these payments are not admissions of liability.

The landlord’s handling of repairs at the property.

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy and the tenancy agreement confirm that it is responsible for the upkeep and repair of the communal areas in the block and the structure of the building. Whilst the resident does not dispute that the landlord acted appropriately by moving him to temporary accommodation following a serious water leak in the building, he is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of repairs once he had moved back into the property. Despite moving back into the property in August 2021, and reporting repairs needed to the communal areas of the building, the resident has advised this Service that they are incomplete. This Service therefore finds that the landlord has not acted in line with its repairs responsibilities of communal areas which is a failure in its service.
It is noted that the landlord questioned the validity of the information provided by its contractors when challenged by the resident after he received its stage two complaint response. The landlord is ultimately responsible for the repairs carried out on its behalf by its contractors. Where necessary, landlords should quality check the standard of repairs work provided on its behalf by its contractors. As the landlord was aware throughout and following the complaints process that the resident remained unhappy with the repairs, it should have made more thorough checks with its contractors before marking them as completed on its systems.
This Service finds that the landlord did not provide the resident with a quality repairs service which meant that some repairs were not carried out to a decent standard, or not completed at all. The landlord therefore informed the resident incorrectly that some repairs were complete. This resulted in the resident experiencing further inconvenience by having to challenge the information provided in its stage two complaint response. The landlord is responsible for managing its communications with contractors and its failure to keep or have access to clear and updated records significantly impacted on the service it provided to the resident.
It is evident that the resident had to frequently chase the landlord for updates on repairs. In turn the landlord was then chasing its contractors for updates as it did not have access to its contractor’s information and systems. This Service finds that the landlord’s information management on its own systems was poor. Its own staff stated in an email dated 2 March 2022, that they were confused by the notes held on its systems and sought clarity from other colleagues. Landlord’s should ensure that the information held on their systems is clear and correct in order to provide a customer-focussed service without causing unnecessary delays to its residents and to effectively manage their expectations. This Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management sets out how effective record keeping can greatly assist landlords in providing their resident’s with the best possible services. The recommendations within the spotlight report detail that landlord’s staff should be able to easily access the information they require. This is essential for evidence-based practice and informed decision-making.
Following the resident informing the landlord that some of the information it had provided in its stage two complaint response was incorrect, he experienced poor communication from it as he had to wait over a month with no contact and then chase it for updates. The landlord’s communication with the resident did however improve somewhat following contact from this Service and the resident’s local councillor. This Service finds that the landlord’s actions here were not customer-focussed and fell short of what would be reasonably expected. The landlord’s poor communications with the resident, providing unclear and incorrect information to him led to him experiencing frustration, distress and inconvenience. The landlord did not provide the resident with a clear action plan outlining what works were needed within identified timescales. The resident felt that the landlord was not listening to him and was left having to frequently chase it for updates. Due to its failings, this Service therefore finds that the landlord did not adopt a customer-focused approach to resolving the reported repairs which constitutes maladministration.

Complaint handling

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s formal complaint on 31 August 2021, but did not provide any estimated timescale in which it would respond. It did not refer to the timescales outlined in its complaints policy. As such, it incorrectly informed the resident on 14 September 2021 that it would provide its stage one complaint response by 28 September 2021. In line with its policy, it should have provided him with its stage one complaint response by 13 September 2021, which was ten working days after he made his formal complaint on 31 August 2021.
It is further noted that the landlord had already acknowledged his formal complaint on 31 August 2021. This Service finds that the landlord’s actions meant that it missed the opportunity to resolve the resident’s complaint at the earliest opportunity.
The landlord acted appropriately by providing the resident with a time-based action plan regarding repairs within its stage one complaint response. It then however failed to provide the resident with accurate information on the status of the repairs within its stage two complaint response.
Whilst it is positive that the landlord itself escalated the resident’s complaint to stage two of its complaints process following contact with this Service on 27 October 2021, it then took 31 working days to provide him with its stage two response. This was outside of its 20-working day timescale listed within its complaints policy.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage two complaint response which contained incorrect information provided by its contractors on the status of repairs. The landlord stated in its stage two response that it had called the resident on 19 November 2021, so it should have known at that point which repairs were still incomplete. This could have given it a clearer picture of what was outstanding and gone some way to ensuring that it provided the correct responses to the resident at stage two, instead of relying on incorrect information from its contractors. Landlord’s should have all the correct and up to date information to hand when providing their formal complaint responses to resident’s.
The landlord acted appropriately by recognising its further failings in its delays in responding to the resident after its stage two response where it offered an additional £25 in compensation. This Service finds that the landlord’s offer of compensation does not accurately reflect its failings and the detriment experienced by the resident in its handling of his case.
It is however unclear why the landlord did not pay the resident the compensation within the timescale it had stated in its stage two complaint response. This meant that the resident had to chase it to make the payment. This Service finds that the landlord’s delays in making the compensation payment caused further inconvenience to the resident which was unreasonable.
In light of the findings above this Service therefore determines that the landlord’s complaint handling approaches amount to maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling approaches.

Reasons

The resident had to frequently chase the landlord for updates on the repairs he had reported. From its own admissions, the landlord did not provide a good service to the resident with regards to its handling of the repairs.
The landlord’s complaint handling approaches were poor and due to its failings in information handling and updates from its contractors, it provided the resident with incorrect information on the status of repairs in its stage two complaint response.
The landlord’s complaint responses were not provided to the resident in accordance with the timescales outlined in its complaints policy. This left the resident within the complaints process for longer than necessary.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to;
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for its failures outlined in this report.
2. Contact the resident directly regarding the outstanding repairs to the communal areas. It is to provide the resident and this Service with a time-specific action plan on how it aims to resolve them.
3. Pay the resident a total of £700 further compensation which is comprised of:
  1. £500 in relation to its poor handling of repairs.
  2. £200 in relation to its poor handling of the resident’s associated complaint.
4. If it has not already done so, the landlord is to consider the findings of the Ombudsman’s spotlight on knowledge and information management (housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf – The landlord is to share the findings with relevant staff, including training where appropriate and to incorporate the findings of this report in its management of such cases in future.
5. Provide this Service with evidence confirming compliance with the above orders.
Within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to;
1. Provide this Service with a time-specific action plan detailing;
  1. How it will improve its communications and recording of information with its contractors.
  2. How it captures information on its systems once repair works are completed by its contractors.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord is to consider updating its responsive repairs policy to include estimated timescales of day-to-day repairs for which it is responsible.