Southern Housing Group Limited (202118131)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118131

Southern Housing Group Limited

24 February 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 complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when he moved in.
    2. The landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs.
    3. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a one-bedroom flat, which he obtained from the landlord via a mutual exchange. The property includes a wet room, containing both a toilet and shower.
  2. The day after moving into the property the resident reported a fault with the toilet waste pipe, causing waste to flow out into the shower area. He also reported that the shower pump had failed, causing flooding into the hallway that had damaged the wooden flooring. The landlord resolved the issue with the toilet waste and, following an electrical safety inspection where the shower wiring was deemed unsafe, returned to replace the shower unit and pump. However, the resident states that the works were not completed, and he was left unable to use the shower.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint, noting that he had been without bathroom services since the shower was ‘condemned’. He requested compensation for the loss of facilities, stress, and time and trouble he had taken to pursue the repair. He noted that he had lost work due to having to provide access. The resident also requested compensation for the damage to his hallway flooring. He stated that he had considered hiring his own contractor to make the bathroom ‘habitable and safe’ if the landlord did not complete works soon.
  4. A complaint response was provided 1 month after the complaint was raised. The landlord found that there had been no service failure in its handling of the repairs to the shower, as it had organised a repair ‘within a three working day period’. It found service failure for the delay in completing the re-tiling, which it acknowledged had been outstanding for 8 weeks. The landlord offered £75 compensation and an appointment to complete the works. The resident highlighted inaccuracies in the stage 1 response. He felt that the compensation offered was insufficient as it did not consider the damaged hallway flooring and the stress and inconvenience he had suffered. The complaint was then escalated.
  5. The issue with poor shower drainage continued to reoccur and the landlord completed 2 further pump replacements. The resident states that between the time the shower was deemed unsafe and the date a third pump was installed, he was unable to use the shower for fear of causing leaks in the flat below, as the floor was not adequately sealed.
  6. The resident reported further issues with drainage after the third pump was installed. He informed the landlord that he wanted to employ his own contractor to complete works to ‘resolve the matter once and for all’. The landlord’s operative attended and suggested that the pump may have been blocked with cat litter. The resident disputed this, emphasising that debris had been left by previous contractors, which may have been the source of the ‘grit’ observed in the pump. The pump was left working at this visit.
  7. In its final complaint response, the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint about the length of time it had taken to complete a permanent repair to his shower. The landlord also acknowledged that there had been 2 missed appointments by its contractor and that the resident had taken time off work to provide access. It offered a total of £856.87 compensation, and agreed to replace his hallway flooring, ‘as a gesture of goodwill’. The landlord noted that it had given permission for the resident to complete works to the wet-room to convert it back to a bathroom, and so the flooring would be replaced on completion of this work.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord is responsible for maintaining and repairing the installations for sanitation and the supply of water at the property, including the resident’s shower. Under the landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy, it aims to attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours and all other non-urgent or, ‘routine’, repairs, ‘as quickly as possible’.
  2. Under the landlord’s Complaints Policy, it aims to provide a response at stage 1 within 10 working days. Where this is not possible, the resident will be updated and the total time for providing a response will not exceed a further 10 working days. At stage 2, the landlord may conduct a Senior Manager Review, and will aim to provide a response within 20 working days. This timeframe can be extended by a further 10 working days where required.
  3. The landlord’s Compensation Framework sets out the amounts payable as compensation where issues have occurred, and losses arisen. The landlord will pay £10 + £2 per day, up to £50 for failure to complete a repair within a reasonable time. For loss of use of bathroom facilities, compensation will be calculated with reference to the net daily rent divided by 2, times the number of days the room is out of use. Payment would commence 2 working days from the date of inspection.
  4. The landlord may make payments for missed appointments, up to a maximum of £25, and for loss of earnings where there has been a missed appointment if the resident can provide proof of actual financial loss. The maximum payment will be £65 per day and is stated to be instead of a payment for missed appointments. The landlord has discretion to provide compensation for other financial losses if evidence is provided.
  5. The Ombudsman notes that during the works to the resident’s bathroom his contractors discovered further damage to the sub-floor, which increased the cost to the resident of his bathroom remodelling works. The Ombudsman is unable to investigate this matter as part of the present complaint, as these events occurred after the final complaint response and the issue has not been raised with the landlord as a new complaint, giving it an opportunity to respond.

Condition of the property when the resident moved in

  1. The landlord has not provided details of its mutual exchange policies or procedures to this investigation. However, its website does state that properties accepted via mutual exchange are to be taken ‘as seen’. Both the incoming and outgoing tenant are encouraged to take note of any required repairs and to pay close attention to the property’s condition. Some landlords will not complete a full property inspection when a property changes hands by way of mutual exchange, unlike the void inspection that would be completed at the end of a tenancy.
  2. Although it is best practice for a landlord to inspect a property and to complete any outstanding repairs before the property is exchanged, there will sometimes be occasions where this does not happen, for example, where repairs have not been reported by a previous tenant before they have moved out. In such cases, the landlord will rely on the new tenant to report any issues and must then seek to complete any repairs for which it is responsible within a reasonable timeframe.
  3. The landlord is, however, required to ensure a property is safe prior to occupation, including where a tenancy is transferred via a mutual exchange. The Ombudsman would expect as a minimum that a landlord would complete health and safety checks to establish and evidence that it had complied with this duty.
  4. The evidence provided by the landlord indicates that a pre-tenancy electrical inspection was not completed at the property before the resident moved in, nor has the landlord provided evidence that the electrical installations at the property were inspected in the 5 years prior to the resident’s occupancy, as is standard practice. At the electrical inspection on 15 July 2021 the operative found that the shower unit was unsafe. The landlord’s omission resulted in it failing to establish that there was a serious fault with the electrical wiring in a dangerous location before the resident occupied the property. This amounts to maladministration.

Landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs

  1. It is unclear when an operative first attended to inspect the slow draining shower. The landlord has been unable to locate any notes from the initial visit. The resident reported that works were completed to seal the floor on 14 July 2021 but that they were ineffective. Again, the landlord has provided no record of this visit or additional information about what works were completed.
  2. From the available information, including the resident’s account, it does appear that works were initially attempted within a reasonable time to rectify the drainage issues. However, the Ombudsman is concerned by the lack of detailed repairs records and reports from repairs appointments provided to this investigation, raising concerns about the landlord’s record keeping.
  3. Following an electrical inspection on 15 July 2021, the resident was left without washing facilities, at which time he signed up for a gym membership to provide access to alternative facilities. The landlord has stated that works were completed to restore showering facilities on 20 July 2021, although the resident states that the appointment took place on 26 July 2021 and that the job was left unfinished as the area was not retiled and wiring was left covered by bin bags.
  4. The resident has stated that although he was advised that he could use the shower, he did not feel comfortable doing so due to the risk of leaks and, in the first instance, as the electrics were exposed. Again, due to the absence of records, the Ombudsman cannot establish whether the resident reported his concerns to the landlord prior to the formal complaint, during which periods the landlord believed the shower was usable based on the advice of its contractor, or whether the works completed were adequate in the circumstances.
  5. As noted in the landlord’s stage 1 response, it took 8 weeks to complete the retiling in the resident’s shower after the pump was replaced for the first time, which was unreasonable. The newly tiled area then had to be removed each time subsequent works were required to the pump. The second and third pump replacements were completed within the 20-working day target for routine repairs, although it is acknowledged that this caused repeated disruption to the resident, requiring him to take time off work. In some cases, it can be difficult to establish the root cause of an issue and the problem may reoccur, requiring additional works. However, the Ombudsman agrees that the overall time taken to provide a permanent resolution to the issue of poor drainage and the resulting leaks was excessive.
  6. The landlord has acknowledged the unreasonable delays in completing a lasting repair and apologised for missed appointments, demonstrating that it has reflected on how its service could have been improved. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord could have done more to provide the resident with assistance and support, and to keep him updated, whilst the issues were ongoing. Had the landlord maintained better communication with both the resident and its contractor, it may have avoided the need for the resident to raise a formal complaint.
  7. Whilst the Ombudsman agrees that there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the outstanding repairs, it has made a significant offer of compensation, in excess of that prescribed under its Compensation Framework. It has compensated the resident for loss of his bathroom for the entire period between 26 July 2021 to 31 October 2021, although the evidence indicates that contractors advised the resident that his bathroom was usable for at least some of that period. Although the landlord did not explicitly reimburse the resident’s gym membership, the overall amount of compensation is sufficient to cover both the resident’s out of pocket expenses and to recognise the stress and inconvenience caused to him. The landlord has offered compensation for loss of earnings in line with the £65 daily cap and has also offered to arrange for the replacement of the resident’s flooring. The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s offer of compensation to be reasonable in the circumstances and in line with the amount that would be awarded under the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
  8. The resident has noted the costs he has incurred by engaging a contractor to carry out improvement works to the bathroom so the problem will not reoccur. The landlord has given permission for these works, although it has not agreed to cover the cost.
  9. Although the Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s desire to ensure that the issue does not return, the landlord was not required to compensate the resident for the cost of improvement works to his bathroom. The landlord sought advice from professional members of its team about whether it should look to repair the pump and reseal the floor or carry out more extensive works to install a bath. The landlord was advised that it should be possible to complete a permanent repair to comply with its repairing obligations. The landlord was entitled to reach the conclusion that additional refurbishment works were not required to resolve the issues and were not a good use of its resources. It would have been better, however, if this had been clearly communicated to the resident.
  10. Reasonable redress has been provided that satisfactorily resolves this aspect of the complaint, however, the Ombudsman makes orders to reflect the additional service failure identified as a result of the landlord’s poor record keeping.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses were delayed beyond the initial timeframe, although it did provide details of the need for an extension when the resident requested an update, and the landlord did not exceed the maximum timescales. The resident was confused about how to escalate his complaint, which resulted in a delay in him doing so, as he thought the landlord instigated this process. Whilst no service failure has been identified in the landlord’s complaints handling, it may wish to review its policies and guidance to ensure that the process is clearly explained to complainants.
  2. The Ombudsman also notes that the complaint responses were overly focussed on the amount of compensation and resolution of the repairs. The landlord did not provide a response to some aspects of the resident’s complaint in its written responses, such as why issues had not been picked up at a pre-tenancy inspection, and whether the leak had been reported in 2019. Whilst the Ombudsman does not consider that this amounts to service failure, given the lengths the landlord went to in order to resolve the issues, the landlord should ensure all aspects of a complaint are covered in future complaint responses.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when he moved in.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman is satisfied that prior to this investigation the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress to the resident, which satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the outstanding repairs.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks, the landlord to:

a)     Pay the resident £150, in addition to the compensation offered in the landlord’s final complaint response, in recognition of the failure to complete adequate health and safety checks prior to his occupation of the property.

b)     Review its mutual exchange policies and procedures to ensure that processes are in place to establish and evidence the safety of a property prior to occupation by a new tenant.

c)     Review its record keeping policies and procedures to ensure that full and accurate repairs records are kept, including details of all appointments and reports from contractor visits.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to review its complaints handling policies and procedures to ensure that the process for escalating a complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints process is clearly set out for residents.