Southern Housing Group Limited (202201095)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201095

Southern Housing (now Southern Housing Group)

30 October 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of complaints about a contractor.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of creaking floorboards.
3. This Service has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling and the level of compensation offered.

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(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the contractor (specified at paragraph 1(a) above is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states:

“42. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion(a) are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaint procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”

From the records this Service has seen, the resident did not raise this as part of their complaint or escalation to the landlord. This Service can only consider matters that have completed the landlord’s complaints procedure.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident lives at the property under a shared ownership lease with the landlord. The landlord is a majority shareholder under the terms of the lease. The property is a 3-bedroom semi-detached house which was built in 2017. The resident’s lease agreement commenced on 13 March 2018 and the new-build defect period ended on 21 November 2018.
The landlord is a housing association. In December 2022, the landlord completed a merger with Optivo and is now known as Southern Housing Group. The landlord’s policies and procedures referred to within this report were correct during the timescales outlined within the case and all events took place prior to the landlord’s merger.

Scope of investigation

Although it is noted that the resident’s concerns date back to November 2018, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s case from early 2021 onwards which has been considered in the landlord’s complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records show that on 21 November 2018, its building contractor attended the property as it was the end of the defect period. An end of defect report inspection notes that the resident reported that the floorboards on the first-floor landing area were making a squeaking noise under load. No other items were listed as possible defects within the report.
In May 2019 the resident contacted the landlord’s aftercare team regarding concerns about noisy floorboards in the property. In June 2019 the landlord advised the resident that if its building contractor would not accept the noisy floorboards as a defect, it would need to refer the matter to the NHBC.
The landlord contacted the resident via email on 28 January 2021 and stated that it had contacted the NHBC to assist in opening a new case with them. The landlord sought to clarify the resident’s concerns with the flooring at the property. The resident responded the following day and provided copies of emails he had previously sent to it which outlined his concerns.
On 1 February 2021 the landlord’s aftercare team responded to the resident and advised the following:
1. It believed that the resident’s emails from 2020 had been sent to a member of staff who was no longer employed by it and had therefore not been received.
2. Emails that the resident had sent to its customer service team had not been forwarded to the relevant members of staff.
3. Its aftercare and housing teams had discussed his case.
4. It had previously provided him with information on how to open a new resolution claim with the NHBC about the flooring issues.
5. It agreed to open a new resolution claim with the NHBC on his behalf. The NHBC would then contact him directly to discuss his concerns. The aftercare team would not lead on his NHBC claim but they would provide any information as necessary.
On the same date (1 February 2021) the landlord contacted the NHBC via email and provided information to enable the NHBC to open a new resolution case on the resident’s behalf. The landlord confirmed that it was happy for the NHBC to contact the resident directly and confirmed the resident’s concerns with the flooring at the property.
The landlord’s records show that it was contacted by the NHBC that same day which stated:
1. They had contacted the landlord’s building contractor who advised:
  1. They had not received any further contact about the resident’s concerns since attending the property on 1 November 2019.
  2. During that visit, the contractor had assessed the creaking floorboards as being within tolerance.
2. If the resident and the landlord were reporting that the noise had become worse, they should contact the contractor so that they had the opportunity to attend and investigate.
3. If the contractor was to then dispute the claim, the NHBC may be able to offer its resolution service.
On 19 March 2021, the landlord contacted its building contractor and advised that the NHBC would be approaching them about the resident’s claim. It advised that the resident was still reporting creaking floorboards and it asked for them to attend the property to investigate. The contractor responded the same day and stated that they would not attend the property for the following reasons:
1. It had confirmed in November 2019 that it did not consider the creaking floorboards to be a defect.
2. Because its defects liability had expired, it asked the landlord or the NHBC to attend the property to carry out an inspection.
The landlord’s aftercare team contacted the resident via email on 22 March 2021 and provided an update with the above information. It advised that permission had been granted for the NHBC to contact him directly about his claim
On 15 April 2021 the resident called the landlord and requested that a formal complaint be opened. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request via email on 16 April 2021 and outlined its understanding of his complaint as follows:
1. A lack of support from the landlord in relation to repairs at the property.
2. He was unhappy with the landlord’s poor communication with him, and he felt ignored.
3. The resident had been informed that he would be reimbursed £400 due to loss of earnings, but the landlord’s investigations show that the case was not logged and there was no mention of any sort of compensation in relation to loss of earnings.
4. The resident stated that staff from its aftercare team were shouting at him on the phone and became very agitated after stating they had no responsibility for this situation.
It understood that the resident’s desired solution was for the landlord to:
1. Ensure that he was supported with any repairs (communal)
2. Ensure all his emails were responded to and logged
3. Conduct an investigation into the way he was spoken to by its aftercare team.
On the following day (16 April 2021), the landlord’s records show that it contacted the NHBC about the resident’s claim. It asked if the resident could be contacted directly about the claim and it provided his contact details.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 29 April 2021 in which it informed him that it required more time to provide its stage 1 complaint response. It stated that it required further information before issuing its response. It said it would respond by 13 May 2021.
The landlord provided the resident with its stage 1 complaint response on 14 May 2021 in which it stated:
1. It had made a request for a surveyor to attend the property to carry out an inspection of the communal areas.
2. It stated that it had completed works to rectify the issues with the floorboards at the property.
3. It confirmed that the property was now out of the defects period and any communal repairs would need to be logged with its repairs’ service.
4. It advised that as a shared owner, he would need to resolve any repairs within his property himself.
5. It had explained the need for him to contact the NHBC with regards to the issues he had previously reported as he had an insurance warranty for the property.
6. It would keep his complaint open with an action plan to ensure that all communal issues are dealt with.
7. It referred to his concerns that its aftercare team had shouted at him during phone calls but did not address this within its response.
8. It did not say whether it did or did not uphold his complaint.
On 1 June 2021 the resident contacted the landlord via telephone and outlined his dissatisfaction with the complaint response. The landlord’s records state the following:
1. The resident felt that it had not taken his complaint seriously.
2. He felt ignored by the landlord.
3. He believed that the stage 1 response had been “copied and pasted” which he felt was inappropriate.
4. He felt that the landlord had not followed its procedures which had been an ongoing issue since 2019.
5. He named a member of staff who had been very helpful and explained he was considering seeking advice from an external agency regarding his situation.
The landlord contacted the NHBC on 2 June 2021 regarding the resident’s claim and asked for confirmation that they had spoken to the resident. The landlord also highlighted that the resident had recently replaced the downstairs flooring at the property but still wished to pursue a claim for the upstairs flooring making a noise when under load. In the NHBC’s response to the landlord, they advised that they could not confirm any issues with the ground floor. They asked for further clarity from the landlord and stated they would contact the resident also.
On 7 June 2021 the resident chased the landlord for an update following his phone call on 1 June 2021. The resident received a response on 10 June 2021 and was advised that it aimed to provide its stage 2 complaint response within 5 working days.
The resident’s stage 2 complaint was allocated to a member of the landlord’s staff on 15 June 2021. The landlord’s records show that within internal emails it noted the resident’s reasons for being unhappy with its stage 1 complaint response. In in reference to him believing that the response had been copy and pasted it stated “it’s likely that this was the case due to volumes so this is probably going to be upheld”. The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 18 June 2021 to acknowledge his complaint and that it would provide its stage 2 response by 13 July 2021.
On 30 June 2021 the landlord’s aftercare team wrote to the resident and provided a report from an inspection visit to the property on 1 November 2019 as per the resident’s request. The staff member was very apologetic and advised that whilst she did take notes during that visit, she had not sent them to the resident. The staff member explained that this would form part of the stage two complaint response.
The landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 complaint response on 13 July 2021 in which it stated:
1. It had now provided a copy of a report from the landlord visiting the property with its building contractor on 1 November 2021.
2. It confirmed that the building contractor had refused to accept that the noisy floorboards in the property were a ‘defect’.
3. It advised that as a leaseholder, the resident’s recourse to get the floorboards fixed was through the NHBC.
4. It had started a case with the NHBC on the resident’s behalf and provided the case reference number. It stated that the NHBC would contact him directly.
5. As his case was with the NHBC, the landlord would not need to visit the property to inspect the flooring.
6. It asked the resident to provide evidence of loss of earnings and receipts for works to the property he had paid for himself. It confirmed that its compensation policy limited payments for loss of earnings to £65 per day however as a goodwill gesture, it offered a total of £500 compensation in reflection of the following:
  1. Loss of earnings.
  2. The cost of a phone call the resident had made to one of its staff.
  3. Costs incurred to rectify defects in the property.
7. It stated that its systems did not allow it to record all the resident’s interactions with its aftercare team therefore it was not able to establish why the resident had not received responses in the previous 2 years.
8. It acknowledged the resident’s considerable frustration regarding its communications with him in the past, and that he wanted assurances this would improve in the future. It stated that it understood he had a good relationship with a member of its housing team who had been supportive in resolving some outstanding matters.
9. It apologised to the resident for any inconvenience he had experienced.
10. It stated that every complaint it handles is reviewed by its customer relations improvement team and its findings and learning are passed to the relevant senior managers to ensure that situations do not happen again.

Post complaints process

The resident accepted the landlord’s offer of £500 compensation via email on 14 July 2021. The landlord’s records show that the resident had to chase it to make the payment which was made on 25 August 2021.
On 7 January 2022 the resident received an email from the NHBC in which it confirmed what had been discussed via telephone call earlier that same day. It confirmed that its resolution service would assist with the remedy of the creaking upstairs floorboards in the property which were first reported in July 2019. The email also confirmed that the NHBC would investigate creaking ground floor floorboards. The email confirmed that the NHBC had contacted the landlord’s building contractor to contact the resident within 10 working days to establish if repairs were needed.
The landlord responded to an email from the NHBC on 23 December 2021 in which it stated:
1. It confirmed that it agreed for the NHBC to investigate the resident’s concerns at the property.
2. It confirmed that it agreed that the resident should be the main point of contact regarding the NHBC claim.
3. It confirmed that it had previously been in communication with another member of NHBC staff about the resident’s claim.
In January 2022, the resident expressed further dissatisfaction in that he believed the landlord had not spoken with the NHBC to authorise his claim. The landlord’s records state that any error with the resident’s claim was likely due to an admin error at the NHBC. The landlord stated that it had approved the resident’s claim numerous times but would do so again.
The resident has advised this Service that during Easter 2022 the landlord and its building contractor attended the property and the issues with the flooring were addressed and resolved.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s obligations

As the resident is a shared owner he is responsible for the repairs in his home, whilst the landlord is responsible for repairs to the building and common parts. This is what the parties agreed to when they signed the lease.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy outline a defect liability period which states:
1. In the first 12 months after a home is built or refurbished the contractor may be responsible for the repairs required to a property.
2. It states that a referral should be made to its aftercare team if the repair is during the defects liability period.
The landlord’s complaints policy (December 2020 to December 2023) outlines the following:
1. It will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within five working days.
2. It aims to respond fully to stage 1 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 2 (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 it will make goodwill and compensation payments when there is evidence that there has been a service failure which it is responsible for that has caused loss, damage, or inconvenience. It lists service failures as:
1. Missed or failed appointments.
2. Not delivering services in line with published standards.
3. Not following policies and procedures.
4. Failure and delays in undertaking repairs.
5. The quality of repairs
It outlines that the landlord aims to make compensation payments with 14 working days of approval.
The landlord may offer compensation to recognise distress or inconvenience caused but payments will not be an admission of liability. The policy further states that discretionary payments may be cash payments, gift vouchers or items such as flowers.
The resident has raised specific concerns about the landlord’s handling of his reports of creaking floorboards and these are covered below.

The accuracy of the information provided by the landlord to the resident regarding the status of a case raised with National House Building Council (NHBC).

It is noted from the landlord’s records that it contacted the NHBC in January 2021 at the resident’s request. It provided written confirmation via email to the NHBC on 1 February 2021 that it agreed for the NHBC to contact the resident directly and asked for it to open a new resolution case.
From the evidence reviewed by this Service, a referral to the NHBC is mentioned in the landlord’s records as early as May 2019. The landlord refers numerous times in its internal communications to the resident needing to contact the NHBC himself to open a new claim.
There is no evidence on who the NHBC policyholder was or that the resident had been provided with the relevant details to contact the NHBC. It appeared that the landlord had assumed that the resident had contacted the NHBC himself and should have been more proactive in checking this with him and ensuring he was given the correct information. Had the landlord also provided the resident with the NHBC contact details earlier in the case, this could have assisted the resident in resolving the matter at the earliest opportunity.
The landlord’s records show that it had informed the NHBC to contact the resident. When the resident contacted the landlord about the delays to his NHBC claim in January 2022, it stated in internal emails that it had provided the NHBC with the required permissions. It also stated that any delay was due to administrative errors by the NHBC, not due to its own lack of action. This Service has not reviewed any evidence to show that the landlord specifically explained this to the resident or provided evidence of its communication with the NHBC. Had it done so, this could have reassured him that it had done what it had stated in its complaint responses. This Service cannot make a finding on actions taken by the NHBC therefore it cannot be determined whether the NHBC were responsible for the delays experienced by the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a report following a visit to the property with its building contractor in November 2019

The landlord’s aftercare team were very apologetic for the delays in providing the resident with the report from its visit to the property on 1 November 2019. It acknowledged its mistake in writing and stated that this would be reflected in its stage 2 complaint response. This was a positive step. However, its stage 2 complaint response only makes a minimal reference to this point. The landlord should have further considered this in its award of compensation. This may have reassured the resident that it had fully considered this element of his complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of defective flooring

The resident first highlighted concerns with the flooring at the end of the new-build defect period in November 2018. Had the resident reported this earlier to the landlord, it could have investigated the matters sooner, within the defect period. However, the landlord and the building contractor could have taken steps to repair the flooring as its records outline that these were “fairly straightforward repairs”. The resident has advised that due to the landlord and its developer not resolving the issues with the flooring, he eventually resolved the issue himself.
As is outlined in the lease agreement, the resident is responsible for rectifying internal damage unless it amounts to a defect or “snagging” issue, for which the developer would be required to rectify, within the defect period. The landlord ought to have reasonably known in May 2019 that the property was outside of the defect period therefore a referral to the NHBC at that time would have been appropriate. The landlord could have carried out its own inspection of the flooring to determine if it was a latent defect or snagging issue and raised a dispute directly with the developer if needed.
The landlord’s building contractor’s end of defects inspection report from 21 November 2018 confirms that the creaking first floor landing was reported as a defect and it stated it would “arrange for the defects below to be rectified within the next four weeks”. This Service has not viewed any evidence to suggest that this was completed.
The contractor did then later decide the creaking floorboards were not a defect and would not take steps to resolve it. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident to contact the NHBC. It was also reasonable that the landlord also contacted the NHBC on the resident’s behalf, although it could have done so sooner in the case or confirmed that the resident understood what he needed to do himself to instigate a new case with the NHBC. It is also unclear whether the landlord provided the resident with information regarding the NHBC at the start of the lease. It also did not ask the developer to comment on the latent defect/snagging.

The landlord’s communications with the resident.

From the evidence reviewed by this Service, the communications between the landlord’s teams were not always effective. In turn, this led to delays in resolving the resident’s concerns. It is noted that the landlord did however acknowledge this point within a letter to the resident dated 30 June 2021.
Throughout this case, there were frequent occasions when the landlord’s internal teams were unclear on who should have responded to the resident regarding different issues. The resident himself stated that he at times felt “stuck in the middle” between the landlord’s teams. The resident outlined his frustrations in being passed between the landlord’s departments when seeking updates on his case. The landlord could have considered providing the resident with a single point of contact to reduce the frustration caused by being passed between departments and potentially being given incorrect information.
The resident has also outlined his dissatisfaction that when a housing services manager was off sick in late 2020 his case was not assigned to another member of staff. This led to further delays in resolving the resident’s concerns and caused further inconvenience and frustration to the resident, leading him to feel ignored. This caused inconvenience to him as he had to spend time and trouble chasing for updates.

Complaint handling and the level of compensation offered by the landlord.

The resident stated to the landlord that he felt it’s stage 1 complaint response was poor and that it had “copy and pasted” information within the response. The landlord accepted this was likely to have happened and that this aspect of the resident’s complaint would be upheld. The resident also stated that its complaint responses did not cover all the concerns that he had raised.
Paragraph 5.6 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons any decisions. The landlord did not address all the resident’s concerns, including his complaint about its staff allegedly shouting at him during telephone calls.
Had the landlord provided the resident with a comprehensive stage 1 response, covering all the resident’s concerns, it could have resolved the resident’s complaint much sooner. This may have caused the resident to not feel compelled to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process and experience further delays.
The landlord should have provided its stage 2 response to the resident by 21 June 2021. Instead, it provided its stage 2 response on 13 July 2021, some 22 working days late. The landlord did not acknowledge this in its stage 2 complaint response. This Service finds that the landlord did not follow its complaints policy in this regard, nor did it provide the resident with an explanation or apology for its delays.
It is noted that the resident accepted and receivedthe landlord’s offer of £500 compensation, although the resident had to chase the landlord for it to make the payment. It did therefore not fulfil its aim of making the compensation payment within 14 working days as is outlined in its compensation policy.
The £500 awarded was a reasonable amount given the landlord’s acknowledgment of the resident’s loss of earnings, defect rectification work and for a telephone call. However, this Service finds that the landlord did not consider the time, trouble and inconvenience experienced by the resident in pursuing his complaint or explain this was included in the award. Additionally, it does not appear that the landlord offered redress for its poor communications with the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of creaking floorboards.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling approaches and the level of compensation offered.

Reasons

Whilst the landlord did approve the resident’s claim with the NHBC in February 2021, it should have considered doing this sooner, given that both it and its building contractor had inspected the property at the end of the defects period in November 2018. This may have enabled the resident to resolve his case much sooner.
The landlord was apologetic for its delays in providing an inspection report and admitted its mistake. It did not however fully consider this in its stage 2 complaint response.
The landlord’s communications with the resident were often poor or delayed and this caused detriment to the resident who had to chase it for updates on his case. The resident felt ignored by the landlord which is not acceptable.
The landlord’s complaint responses did not fully consider all the resident’s concerns which further compounded his feelings that it was not taking his complaint seriously. Whilst it did provide the resident with compensation in relation to its identified failings, it did not fully consider the time, trouble and inconvenience he experienced in seeking a resolution to his concerns.

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. Pay the resident directly an additional £500 compensation which is comprised of:
  1. £50 in relation to its response to the resident’s request for a report following a visit to the property with its building contractor in November 2019.
  2. £50 in relation to its response to the resident’s reports of defective flooring.
  3. £300 in relation to its communications with the resident.
  4. £100 in relation to its complaint handling approaches and the level of compensation offered.

Recommendations

The landlord is to review and update its policy, procedure and processes for referring and assisting residents into accessing an NHBC case where disputes arise relating to new-build properties.