Southern Housing Group Limited (202200250)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200250

Southern Housing Group Limited

5 August 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 the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports of a leak in her bathroom
    2. Complaint handling (including the level of compensation it awarded)

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a first floor flat.
  2. On 5 October 2021, around 6am the resident called the landlord’s out of hours service (which is managed by its repairs contractor) to report a leak in her bathroom. As nobody had attended by 11.30am, she called the contractor again and was told the request would be raised again. At around 3.15pm she called again and was told the repair had not been registered as an emergency and that somebody would now attend within the hour. When nobody arrived, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord and said that she wanted the leak, and the damage it had caused, to be fixed. She called the contractor again at around 6pm and was told a plumber would attend within four hours. The resident cancelled the visit as she had to be up early for work and a neighbour had now managed to stop the leak. At 12.15am the plumber arrived but the resident refused access as it was too late at night.
  3. In its stage one complaint response on 21 October 2021, the landlord apologised that the out of hours service had not passed on the resident’s report of a leak to the “day-to-day team” and that this had resulted in a delay in attending. It also apologised that the contractor had not called the plumber to gain more information to reassure the resident during any of her calls, and that it had fed this back to the contractor.  It explained that emergency appointments can involve late night attendance. It confirmed that the job had been completed on 18 October 2021 and the “damage rectified”. It offered £50 in recognition of its service failure, comprising £25 for the delays and £25 for the “lack of communication”.
  4. On 28 October 2021 the landlord attended another leak in the bathroom and in a follow–on appointment to assess damage caused, on 16 November 2021 it raised work orders to replace the bathroom door and bath panel, and to repair the wall and sub floor ready for new lino to be laid (the landlord’s record show that these repairs were completed 11 and 13 December 2021). The resident escalated her complaint on 26 November 2021 as she was unhappy with the £50 compensation offer and wanted to know why it had taken so long for the emergency callout and felt that “Offering compensation with no explanation or improvement of service is pointless.” In its stage two complaint response on 8 February 2022 the landlord reiterated the points it had made in its previous response and explained how it monitors the contractor’s performance with monthly meetings to discuss residents’ complaints or any performance concerns, and meetings every two months to discuss performance and targets. It said the latest performance statistics showed that the contractor’s out of hours service responded to 87% of calls within the 24 hours and 81% of calls within 2 hours. It did not increase its compensation offer. 
  5. The resident contacted this Service in April 2022 as she was not happy with the amount of compensation offered and said she was waiting for the bathroom floor to be replaced.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak in her bathroom.

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that “a repair will be treated as an emergency if there is an immediate risk to safety, security or health” and that it “will repair or, if that is not possible, make safe as soon as possible and always within 24 hours of [it] being notified”. It says “Emergency repairs include…burst pipes or other major plumbing repairs”. It states “If further repairs are required after we have made everything safe we will arrange another appointment.” Regarding routine repairs it says “We aim to complete all other repairs as quickly as possible and at a time that suits you. We aim to finish the work the first time, whenever possible.”
  2. When the resident reported the leak at her property to the out of hours service, on 5 October 2021, the repair should have been booked as an emergency and attended to as soon as possible (and within 24 hours maximum). However, the repair was booked as a routine repair, which it then failed to pass on to the day-to day-staff until the resident called again, and the fact that it wasn’t booked as an emergency repair was not identified until the resident’s third call to the contractor at around 3.30pm, by which time the resident had been waiting around 9 hours. Once the error had been identified the contractor acted appropriately by updating the repair to an emergency repair and advising the resident that somebody would attend within the hour. However, nobody did attend within the hour. Although the plumber did attend within the landlord’s 24 hour target for emergency repairs (by which time the resident refused entry due to the late hour and the fact that her neighbour had already contained the leak), as the contractor failed to initially record the repair as an emergency and failed to pass on the correct information to the day-to-day team there was service failure by the contractor. Once the error had been identified, as the contractor failed to send somebody out within the one– hour timeframe that they’d advised the resident they would attend in, and then sent a plumber to the resident’s property after she had cancelled the request due to how late it would be, there was further service failure by the contractor.
  3. The landlord took appropriate steps to inspect the bathroom on 18 October 2021, and acted appropriately by replacing the waste pipe behind the toilet. On 28 October 2021 there was a further leak in the bathroom and the landlord took appropriate action to resolve the leak that day. It also acted appropriately by arranging a follow–on appointment on 16 November 2021 to assess the damage that had been caused by the leak, so that it could arrange another appointment to carry out the remedial repairs. The repairs were completed on 11 and 13 December 2021. As the appointments on 18 October, 16 November and 11-13 December 2021 were routine appointments, the timeframe for them was reasonable, as, although the landlord’s complaints policy does not specify a timeframe for routine appointments, it is common practice amongst landlords for these to be completed within 20 working days.
  4. Although there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s report of a leak in her bathroom, in its stage one complaint response the landlord made an offer of £50 compensation for these failings. The Ombudsman considers this to be reasonable redress for the failings, as it is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy which states “In recognition of poor service, failure to follow policy/procedure or act in a reasonable manner a goodwill payment up to £25 can be made… for multiple service failures and/or the customer is requesting compensation for an unquantifiable loss such as inconvenience and distress caused by the failure(s) a payment of between £25 – £50 can be made.”. It is also in line with the £50-£250 range in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which can be used for instances “where we recognise that there has been service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant.” The impact experienced by the complainant could include distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved.
  5. The resident has told this service that she is still awaiting the bathroom floor to be replaced, following the leak on 28 October 2021. The landlord’s internal emails from June 2022 say that this was completed in December 2021 and that it has received no call backs about this. The work records for 11-13 December 2021 state that work to repair the subfloor was completed but it is not clear whether new lino was laid. Therefore, this Service considers it appropriate that the landlord arrange an inspection of the bathroom to ascertain whether the lino has been laid and, if it has not then the landlord should arrange for this to be done as soon as possible and should discuss with the resident whether she would like to make a further complaint about this.

The landlord’s complaint handling (including the level of compensation awarded).

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it aims to respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days and if it is not possible, it will contact the tenant to explain why and when to expect a response. And that this will not exceed a further 10 working days. At stage two its aim is to provide a response within 20 working days and if that is not possible it will contact the tenant to explain why when they should expect a response and that this will not exceed a further 10 working days.
  2. In its stage one complaint response on 21 October 2021, which was issued within the 10–working day timeframe, the landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging and apologising for its service failures and the delay they caused. Its offer of compensation of £50 for those failings was also reasonable as it was in line with its compensation policy as outlined above.
  3. Once the resident emailed her complaint escalation request on 26 November 2021, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to issue its stage two response within the 20 working days stated in its complaints policy. However, the landlord did not add it to the complaint file till 17 January 2022 and, as the stage two complaint response was not issued until 8 February 2022, which is far outside the timeframe specified in its complaint policy, and, as there is no record of the landlord explaining the reason for this delay to the resident or apologising or compensating for it, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling. This Service believes that compensation of £100 for this failing would be reasonable, which is in line with the £50-250 range suggested in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant.  

 

Determination

  1. In respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak in her bathroom, in accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this part of the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this letter the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 for its complaint handling service failure.

Recommendations

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this letter the landlord is recommended to inspect the resident’s bathroom to confirm whether new lino has been laid, and to arrange to do as soon as possible if it has not.