Southern Housing Group Limited (202126806)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126806

Southern Housing Group Limited

28 September 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 the:
1. Resident’s reports of mould and ventilation issues within the property.
2. Associated complaint.
3. Resident’s request for a transfer.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a transfer. This is because the Housing Ombudsman has already made a determination in relation to this complaint on 14 May 2020. The Ombudsman will not consider complaints where the complainant is seeking to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a housing association and occupies a 2 bedroom third floor flat with her partner and 5 children. The tenancy started on 25 May 2009.
The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident or her household.
In a previous complaint brought to this Service and determined on 14 May 2020, the Ombudsman ordered the landlord to carry out an inspection of the property in order to assess the severity of the mould, consider whether any remedial works were required or advice can be offered to the resident, and confirm its position to the resident in writing.
The resident’s property was subject to a leak from the property above in December 2020. It is not clear from the information provided when the leak was resolved, but it was sometime between April and May 2021

Scope of investigation

This Service acknowledges that the resident has made previous complaints to the landlord in respect of damp and mould. However, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaint’s procedure. Whilst the historical information relating to the previous complaint about mould in the property will be reviewed for context, it will not form part of the investigation. The report will consider the formal complaint brought to the landlord from 1 November 2021.
This Service acknowledges that the resident has raised concerns regarding the impact the mould and overcrowding in the property has had on her household’s physical and mental well-being. However, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one). This is a legal process, and the resident should seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records showed that on 8 June 2021 a job card was issued to supply and install a Flat master extractor fan (also known as a positive Input Ventilation system (PIV)) at the resident’s property. The job was listed as a day to day repair with a target date of 22 June 2021. The job was later cancelled (although it is not clear when this happened) with the reason that it had been issued in error.
On 16 June 2021, the resident confirmed to the landlord that surveyors had visited the property on 26 May 2021 but that she had not received an update on the outcome from that visit. The landlord responded the same day that it would ask the property team to provide an update within the following 5 working days.
The landlord’s records showed that the following day, a job was raised to apply a mould wash to the bedroom and kitchen, and to touch up the paint in the hallway and living room corner. The job was listed as a day to day repair with a target date of 27 June 2021.
In an internal email dated 28 June 2021, the landlord acknowledged that although follow on works were required at the property following a leak from an upstairs flat, an action plan had not been agreed or communicated with the resident. It was suggested that the action plan should be agreed with a surveyor and the resident made aware.
On 2 July 2021, the landlord confirmed to the resident that an appointment had been made for a ventilation system, which would assist with managing damp and mould in the property, to be installed at the property on 22 July 2021.
According to the landlord’s notes, the resident telephoned the landlord on 22 September 2021 for an update of the installation of a PIV.
The resident submitted a formal complaint on 1 November 2021. She explained that an operative from a ventilation company had visited her property in June and said that they would be in contact with an update. Having not heard anything the resident telephoned the landlord on 22 September 2021 and was advised that she should receive an update within 5 working days, but up until that date she had not heard anything.
The resident further explained that there were constant issues with mould in the property and although the landlord had attended on various occasions to treat it, it would reoccur. She explained that the property was overcrowded and lacked adequate ventilation. In addition, she said that the surveyor that inspected the property suggested that improved ventilation would help control the damp and mould. In conclusion, the resident asked for an update on when the ventilation unit would be installed.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 5 November 2021 and advised the resident that she should receive a response within 10 working days. Alternatively, if the landlord needed longer to respond, it would advise of this also within 10 working days.
On the same day an internal email requested a timeline of events in relation to the issues raised, and clarification of the appointment to install the ventilation unit and to treat the mould.
On 10 November 2021 and in relation to the complaint, a job was added to the landlord’s repairs sheet to inspect the extractor fans in the resident’s property.
The landlord contacted the resident on 18 November to explain that it needed more time to gather information, but that it aimed to provide a full response to her stage one complaint within 10 working days.
A note added to the landlord’s repairs sheet on 24 November 2021 indicated that there was no extractor fan in the resident’s kitchen and that she declined the offer to install one as she was waiting for a full ventilation system to be installed.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 2 December 2021. It set out that it understood the resident’s complaint to be about:
1. The delay installing ventilation at the property.
2. Mould in the property due to lack of adequate ventilation, and overcrowding
3. The resident’s request to be rehoused.
The landlord explained that it had carried out an investigation and found that:

An external ventilation contractor had been asked to quote for a replacement ventilation system, which it did, and booked an engineer to attend. On visiting the property, the engineer realised that there was no unit in place and consequently it would have been a new installation rather than a replacement.

The contractor failed to notify the landlord that it had not installed the ventilation unit.

Another contractor had been instructed to visit the resident’s property on 15 November 2021, to quote for the required ventilation works.

In recognition of its service failure and delays, the landlord offered £50 compensation as a goodwill gesture.
The resident responded on 5 December 2021 and rejected the landlord’s offer of compensation. She explained that she did not want the landlord to close the complaint until a resolution had been agreed. In addition, she stated that her family were overcrowded which exacerbated the mould. Furthermore, despite the landlord carrying out mould treatments at the property the issues remained.
The resident maintained that the miscommunication between the landlord and various contractors and sub-contractors had made the matter worse.
The resident also asked the landlord to clarify its comment regarding an appointment on 15 November 2021. She explained that an electrician had attended on 15 November 2021 and advised that in his opinion the property required a full filtration system, to allow air to circulate in each of the rooms.
She explained that on 24 November 2021, she received an apology from a contractor for a missed appointment, to install a filtration system, that she was not aware had been made. The resident said that the contractor advised that the appointment to install a filtration system had been re-booked for 10 December 2021. The resident asked the landlord to confirm the appointment.
On 13 December 2021, after failing to receive a response to her previous email, the resident contacted the landlord again. She said that the appointment that had been booked for 10 December 2021 did not go ahead as planned and that she had been told to arrange another appointment. She also explained that the message she had received cancelling the appointment mentioned that fans were being installed, which was contrary to what she had been led to believe. The resident confirmed that a new appointment had been made for a surveyor to visit on 10 January 2022 to take measurements.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process as she was yet to receive an adequate resolution.
The landlord’s repairs sheet for the same day showed that a job had been added to take measurements for a ventilation system to be built into all rooms.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 request on 26 January 2022 and apologised for the delay. It stated that the resident should receive a response within 20 working days, but that this may be longer if it needed to gather additional information.
On 8 March 2022, this Service contacted the landlord in respect of the outstanding complaint and requested that the landlord provide a stage 2 response by 21 March 2022.
An internal email exchange the same day sought to clarify the situation regarding the ventilation system. It confirmed that the resident had refused an extractor fan as she wanted the full ventilation system installed, but that the contractor was not able to carry out that work, due to the building having listed status.
The following day the landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint. It confirmed that as part of the investigation, it had spoken directly with the resident, reviewed the stage 1 response, repairs timeline and the case notes.
The landlord set out the following timeline of events:

June 2021, a mould wash to the kitchen and bedroom. A contractor was appointed to assess for the installation of the ventilation unit. It established that the job would involve installing a full system rather than simply replacing an existing one, which required drilling through external walls. The contractor was not able to undertake the work but failed to notify the landlord until November 2021.

15 November 2021, a contractor was instructed to attend to assess for the installation of an extractor fan.

January 2021, the contractor attended to install the extractor fan, but it was declined by the resident as she wanted a ventilation system installed. The landlord instructed the contractor to assess for a ventilation system but was told that it would require a specialist trade and it could not carry out the work.

The landlord acknowledged that numerous leaks from the roof had contributed to the damp and mould problem in the property. It also acknowledged that the resident maintained that a surveyor had inspected the property and made recommendations to resolve the issues, but that the recommendations had not been actioned.
The landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint. It advised that it upheld the residents complaint regarding delays in completing repairs and keeping the resident informed of progress of said repairs. It acknowledged that it should have notified the resident of progress, particularly with regard to the external contractor, who failed to communicate its findings to the landlord.
It advised the resident that her property is part of a listed building and as such it was not allowed to drill holes through external brickwork. It apologised that the resident had not been informed of this previously and suggested that had she known, it was unlikely that she would have refused the extractor fan, which would have alleviated some of the ventilation issues in the property. In addition, it offered her the opportunity to reschedule the appointment to install the extractor fan, which it strongly recommended as a means of easing the ventilation issues the resident was experiencing.
The landlord did not uphold the residents complaint regarding her transfer request.
In conclusion the landlord apologised for its poor communication and the length of time it had taken to make decisions about repairs in her home. It said that it would feed back to its property team in relation to complex repairs and external contractors.
It offered £100 compensation, an increase from the £50 offered at stage 1, in recognition of its service failure and as a goodwill gesture. It calculated the compensation as follows:

£50 for the delay to the repair

£25 for poor communication

£25 for the delay in escalating the complaint to stage 2.

Post internal complaints process.

Following the stage 2 response, the resident maintained that she had not refused the installation of the extractor fan in the kitchen and explained that she had been told on several occasions that a filtration system would have been fitted. The resident agreed to have the extractor fan installed and also accepted the offer of compensation.
An appointment was made for an extractor fan to be fitted in the kitchen on 24 March 2022, the electrician attended but failed to install the fan. The resident reported that she was told that the fan would not be a suitable means of ventilation.
The resident chased the landlord for an update over the following months. In August 2022, the landlord instructed an external contractor to inspect the property. A non-destructive survey took place, the outcome of which recommended the installation of a passyfier sleeved de-humidifier vent and to upgrade fans in the bathroom and kitchen to thermostatic humidistat fans.
In April 2023, the landlord realised that it could not install a passyfier vent due to the property having listed building status, then eventually in July 2023 agreed to go ahead with the installation.
To date the vent has not been installed.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

be fair

put things right and

learn from outcomes.

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

Landlord’s obligations

Section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985) implies a statutory obligation on the landlord to ensure that the resident’s property is fit for human habitation at the start of the tenancy, and throughout the term. Fitness for human habitation is measured by reference to the matters specified in S10 LTA 1985. Freedom from damp and ventilation are listed within the Act.
The landlord must ensure that the homes it provides meet the Decent Homes Standard. Section 5 says the landlord must ensure that its properties are free of category one hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) and the existence of such hazards should be a trigger for remedial action. Mould growth is a potential hazard, possible health effects include breathing difficulties, as well as depression and anxiety. The landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying. Preventive measures include damp proof courses, properly installed drainage; and adequate extraction of moisture laden air during peak times, like cooking and bathing and laundry
Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for the structure of the property including internal walls and ceilings. The landlord’s repair policy states it will complete (or make safe) emergency repairs within 24 hours. Routine repairs will be completed as soon as possible.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. The landlord aims to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 3 working days and provide a formal response within 10 working days. At stage 2, the landlord aims to provide a formal response within 20 working days.

The resident’s reports of mould and ventilation issues within the property

The landlord was put on notice of the requirement to increase ventilation due to a previous complaint brought to this Service. Once the landlord had established that additional ventilation was required it should have sought to install this as soon as possible.
It is vital that landlords and its contractors keep comprehensive records of residents’ reports of disrepair and their responses, including details of appointments, any pre and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work carried out and completion dates. Landlords should also ensure that they monitor progress of repairs for its own repairs service and contractor’s. Landlords should be proactive in checking repairs have been completed on the dates proposed and should actively follow up when this hasn’t happened.
The landlord was aware of mould in the property and has provided evidence of its intention to offer a resolution to the mould. It instructed an external contractor to install a ventilation system and told the resident it would take place on 22 July 2021. However, it failed to keep itself informed of the progress of that work and wasn’t aware that the installation had not taken place until 22 September 2021 when the resident asked for an update. It then took the landlord until 5 November 2021, following the resident’s formal complaint to check on the progress of the installation. It did not actively monitor the situation and consequently failed in its service delivery.
The landlord told the resident that a ventilation unit would be installed at the property to combat the mould. It was therefore reasonable for the resident to expect this to happen. As part of the landlord’s stage 1 response, it stated that another contractor would quote for the necessary works. However, between the stage 1 response and the resident’s escalation request on 13 December 2021, the landlord failed to attend 2 further appointments, which the resident understood to be to install the ventilation system.
The landlord booked a further visit to the property on 10 January 2022, to take measurements for a ventilation system to be built in all rooms.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 request on 9 March 2022. In its response it set out a timeline of the events that had taken place since June 2021. It acknowledged that water ingress from the roof had contributed to the mould and that recommendations made by a surveyor to combat the mould had not been actioned.
The landlord partially upheld the complaint and accepted that there had been avoidable delays and that it had failed to communicate effectively with the resident in respect of the outstanding repairs.
In addition, it notified the resident that it would not be able to install the ventilation unit as proposed due to the property having listed building status. Instead it offered to install the extractor fans as previously proposed.
Although the landlord had proposed an alternative method of ventilation, it should be noted that its suggestion was to install an extractor fan in the kitchen and nowhere else in the property. This would not have offered the same level as ventilation gained from a PIV. Whilst it would not be reasonable to expect a landlord to ignore the listed status of the building. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to investigate alternative methods of ventilation that wouldn’t infringe the listed status. In addition, the landlord failed to comply with its own policy, which states that repairs will be completed as soon as possible.
The landlord apologised for the delays and poor communication and increased its offer of compensation from £50 to £100.
This Service acknowledges that the landlord accepted its failures and offered compensation in recognition of this. However, the compensation does not go far enough to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused through the delays and the time and trouble the resident went to chasing for updates. This Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of mould and ventilation issues within the property.
The landlord confirmed to this Service on 15 September 2023, that a Passyfier vent was scheduled to be installed in the property on that day. A further update from the resident informed that the installation did not take place as planned. Whilst this review has not considered the landlord’s handling of this issue from March 2022, this is indicative of a further delay in providing any permanent resolution to the ventilation issue.

Complaint handling

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint within an acceptable time frame. Whilst its response was delayed, it communicated with the resident ahead of time and explained the reason for the delay. This was reasonable and appropriate.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged that as part of the complaint, the resident was unhappy with the time it was taking to be rehoused. However, it failed to respond to that concern or provide any advice on how the resident could increase her chances of being rehoused. The complaint handling Code specifies that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. It was not appropriate for the landlord to ignore this point. The failure to address this aspect meant that it missed an opportunity to demonstrate that it had heard and understood the resident’s concerns.
The landlord’s own policy, and the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling Code is clear that the landlord must respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated and an explanation must be provided if a response will take longer than this.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 13 December 2021. The landlord didn’t acknowledge the escalation request until 26 January 2022, 30 working days after it was escalated. It then took a further 31 working days to provide a formal response. The landlord did not provide a reason for the delay, although it did apologise. The landlord failed to follow its own policy position and in doing so caused the resident further distress. This Service acknowledges that the landlord accepted it had failed in its service delivery and notes that it offered the resident £25 for the delay in escalating the complaint to stage 2. However, given the failures identified, the compensation does not go far enough to reflect the delays incurred or the landlords failure to provide a complete response. This Service finds a service failure in the landlords complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of mould and ventilation issues in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her request for a transfer is considered outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

The landlord failed to complete the required work within a reasonable timeframe. It failed to communicate with the resident. Consequently, leaving the resident in a position of uncertainty.
The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint within the specified timescale, further compounding her distress.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman has recently made a number of orders and recommendations in other investigations to this landlord about reviewing its complaint handling approach, repairs service and record keeping. The Ombudsman has therefore not made further recommendations around these aspects of service in this report but expects the landlord to take all relevant learning points from this case into account in its overall reviews of complaint handling, repairs service and record keeping.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident, the £100 offered in its stage 2 response if it has not already done so.
3. Pay directly to the resident an additional £700 (£800 including the offer made at stage 2) comprising:
  1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident due to the delays to completing repairs and poor communication.
  2. £100 for complaint handling failures.
  3. £100 for the time and trouble to the resident in chasing updates to the repairs
4. Confirm to the resident if the ventilation unit is to be installed. If it is, contact the resident with a date for the installation, if this has not already been done. If the ventilation unit is still to be installed, ensure that it is completed within 4 weeks from the date of this report. If the ventilation unit is no longer a viable solution, communicate this to the resident and offer a suitable solution to increasing the ventilation in the property within 4 weeks from the date of this report. The landlord must also inspect existing extractor fans in the property to ensure they are in good working order and offer the maximum amount of ventilation .
5. Review its repairs procedure to ensure it includes the landlord’s responsibility to monitor any work completed by contractors, including external contractors. Provide training as appropriate to all relevant staff.

Recommendations

Review its repairs policy taking into consideration the recommendations in this Service’s spotlight report on complaint about repairs and in particular consider the section on good practice specifically with regard to monitoring progress of repairs.
Revisit any policies/procedures/agreements in place with external contractors to ensure they are clear on their record keeping responsibilities.