Southern Housing Group Limited (202204109)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204109

Southern Housing Group Limited

15 January 2024

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:
1. Handling of repairs to faulty kitchen cupboard doors.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a housing association landlord. The property is a 3 bedroom ground floor flat in a low rise block. The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The property was built in approximately 2011/2012.
Evidence provided by the landlord appeared to suggest that it had experienced issues in another block with the quality of the kitchen units from the same supplier.
The landlord was unable to provide a copy of the resident’s signed tenancy agreement.

Summary of events

On 13 April 2021 the resident reported that the laminate on the front of some of her kitchen cupboard doors was peeling off. The landlord arranged for a carpenter to inspect the doors when they visited to carry out some other repairs in the kitchen.
The carpenter attended the property on 10 May 2021 and noted that the laminate was peeling off some of the doors. They noted that this was an ongoing problem in ‘these properties’, by which the Ombudsman assumes they meant the block of flats, and that the landlord was aware of the issue.
An internal email dated 3 June 2021 explained that the resident was angry that the cupboards in her kitchen were mismatched. It added that she had explained that part of the laminate had fallen on a visitor to her home. The resident said that she wanted all the kitchen cupboard doors replaced. She explained that she did not want a surveyor to visit as the landlord already had enough photographs of the issue described.
The landlord has provided evidence showing that on 4 July 2021 a job was raised in relation to the kitchen cupboard doors.
The resident submitted a formal complaint on 23 July 2021. She explained that she had reported the melamine peeling off the kitchen cupboards doors on 13 April 2021. She added that some of the doors had been replaced, but that the replacement doors were not the same colour match and that this had resulted in the landlord making multiple visits to the property. The resident said that a carpenter visited the property on 10 May and 24 May 2021 but only made the cupboard safe. In addition, she said that the carpenter said that the issue would be escalated to a manager.
In her complaint the resident said that she had contacted the relevant team again on 3 June 2021 and was told that it would be dealt with, but she had not had a response. The resident added that she logged into her repairs online account on 4 July 2021 and noted that the repair was showing as being open without a date for completion. The resident explained that she subsequently raised it as an incomplete job but did not receive a response. She reported that she logged into her repairs account again on 12 July 2021 and noticed that the repair had been removed so she subsequently reported it once more.
On 28 July 2021, the resident sent photos to the landlord to highlight the issue with the mismatched cupboard doors, which the landlord acknowledged the same day.
The following day the landlord acknowledged the complaint and told the resident to expect a response within 10 working days. Also, the same day an internal email showed that the team dealing with the repairs had been asked to provide an update and comment on the issues described.
On 11 August 2021 the landlord contacted the resident to apologise for the delay responding to her complaint. It explained that it would need additional time until 25 August 2021 to complete a thorough investigation.
On 15 August 2021 the landlord contacted the developer and the kitchen supplier regarding the issue with the kitchen cupboard doors. It explained that it believed the kitchens were the same as supplied in another block that also experienced issues 3 years prior. It asked the developer to arrange for a representative of the kitchen company to meet with the landlord and the resident at the resident’s address.
An internal email the same day detailed the action that had been taken up until that point in response to kitchen repairs the resident had reported. As well as its attempt to arrange a joint visit to the property with the kitchen supplier and developer, it explained that when the resident reported the repair she said that she did not want a surveyor to attend. The landlord believed that this may have added to the delay, explaining that a surveyor could have progressed the job. We have not seen any evidence to suggest that the landlord explained this to the resident when she reported the repair. It added that when the resident reported the issue again on 4 July 2021, she did not select the option to specify an appointment which left the job pending. Nevertheless, the landlord accepted that there had been unnecessary delays and that it had not proactively progressed the job.
The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 25 August 2021. It explained all the points mentioned in the internal email dated 15 August 2021 and stated that the resident’s refusal for a surveyor to visit may have contributed to the delay.
Nevertheless, it accepted that the work had not been progressed proactively. The landlord explained that it was in contact with the developer and kitchen supplier and was attempting to arrange a joint visit to inspect the kitchen units. The landlord said it would notify the resident when the appointment was confirmed.
The resident responded the same day. She explained that she did not recall having been offered a surveyor’s appointment and consequently could not have refused one. Nevertheless, she said that the landlord had still not fixed the cupboards. The resident also questioned why the landlord needed an additional 2 weeks to provide a response to her complaint, yet it failed to provide a comprehensive action plan. The resident asked the landlord to confirm receipt of her email and to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaint’s process.
On 1 November 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that repairs were still outstanding and asked the landlord to acknowledge her stage 2 complaint sent on 25 August 2021. The landlord responded 2 days later and apologised for its failure to acknowledge the stage 2 request sooner. It confirmed that the complaint had been escalated that day and a response would be given in due course.
An internal email exchange on 18 November 2021 confirmed that a surveyor had inspected the property the previous day and explained that the landlord had sent another email to the property developer asking it to take appropriate action. Alternatively, it said it would contact the kitchen supplier directly to ask it to resolve the issue as a matter of urgency.
On 23 November 2021, the developer emailed the landlord to advise that it had spoken with the kitchen supplier who advised that they would not accept the issue with the kitchen cupboard doors as a defect, as the product was 10 years outside of its warranty period. In response the landlord asked for contact details for the kitchen supplier so that it could engage with them to arrange repairs, and the supply of replacements so that it could maintain the cupboard door components.
On 25 November 2021 the surveyor who inspected the resident’s property on 17 November 2021 reported that some of the kitchen unit doors had lost their melamine skin or had cracked. He explained that some of the unit doors had been replaced but that the replacement doors were not the same shade of white as the original ones. He added that some of the kitchen drawers were defective and in need of repair.
The same day the landlord contacted the kitchen supplier directly. It explained the issue with the kitchen unit doors and asked for a representative to meet with the landlord so that it could agree a way forward.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 response on 1 December 2021. It understood the resident’s complaint to be about the faulty kitchen unit doors and the subsequent repairs. It also understood that the resident was unhappy with the delay escalating her stage 2 complaint.
In its response the landlord set out the timescale of when the resident first reported issues with the kitchen cupboards and the subsequent repairs that took place. It also detailed its delays responding at stage 1 and stage 2 of the complaint process.
The landlord explained that it had not been able to confirm a plan of action with the developer that had originally installed the kitchens and that it was investigating alternatives. The landlord added that the issue affected other flats with the same kitchen units and that it was important it had a plan in place to resolve the issue described. The landlord confirmed that it would keep the resident informed of progress.
With regard the delay in responding at stage 2, the landlord accepted that there had been a delay of 51 days between the 25 August 2021, when the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated and 3 November 2021, when the escalation request was acknowledged.
The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint relating to the issues with the kitchen units and the delay acknowledging the stage 2 complaint. In recognition of the service failure and as a good will gesture the landlord offered £75 in compensation. The compensation was set out as follows:
1. £50 in recognition of the delays repairing the kitchen units, and as compensation for a separate repair that has not been included as part of this complaint.
2. £25 for the delay acknowledging the stage 2 complaint.

Post internal complaints process

An internal email dated 11 April 2022 showed that the resident contacted the landlord for an update on the replacement kitchen cupboard doors.
The landlord emailed the kitchen supplier on 25 July 2022 to request a quote for replacement kitchen cupboard doors and drawer fronts. It isn’t clear from the evidence provided if the landlord received a response at that time.
The resident contacted the landlord again in December 2022 for an update on the replacement kitchen cupboards.
The landlord has shown that it was in contact with the kitchen supplier again in December 2022 and sought to arrange replacement of all cupboard doors and drawer fronts at the resident’s property. An internal email dated 29 December 2022 confirmed that it had obtained a quote for replacement frontals from the original kitchen supplier, but it was expensive. The landlord proposed that the alternative would be to use its usual kitchen supplier and make alterations.
The resident has confirmed that the kitchen cupboard doors were replaced on 3 February 2023.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s policies and obligations.

The landlord’s latent defect procedure sets out how to deal with a latent defect and includes each team’s responsibilities. Section 5 of the procedure explains the process when the developer has refused to accept responsibility. In such cases, the repair is passed to an in-house team and the landlord notifies the resident of this.
In its responsive repairs policy, the landlord states that it aims to complete all repairs first time and as quickly as possible. If a resident is unhappy with the repair then they can make a complaint in line with the landlord’s complaint’s policy.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It aims to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and provide a formal response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. In the event it cannot provide a response within that timescale, the policy states that the landlord will contact the resident and agree a response date. If the resident is unhappy with the stage 1 request they can escalate to stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord will acknowledge a stage 2 complaint within 5 working days and formally respond within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
The landlord’s compensation policy allows for discretionary compensation payments to recognise the inconvenience caused by its failure to deliver a service. This includes delays completing repairs and poor complaint handling.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to faulty kitchen cupboard doors

The resident reported an issue with the laminate peeling off the kitchen cupboard doors on 13 April 2021. The repairs log noted that 3 of the kitchen cupboard doors had previously been replaced. The resident reported that the landlord attended on 10 May and 24 May 2021 and made the doors safe. It was reasonable for the landlord to make the doors safe. This was an appropriate response to the resident’s report.
However, notes on the landlord’s repairs log showed that the landlord was aware that there were ongoing issues in other properties with the melamine peeling off the front of the kitchen cupboard doors. Consequently, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have taken further steps to find a more permanent solution to the issue raised.
The resident reported the issue again on 3 June 2021 and 4 July 2021 and submitted a formal complaint on 23 July 2021. In its response the landlord explained that the delay in progressing the repair could have been partly caused by the resident who failed to specify an appointment when she reported the issue for a third time. It also explained that it was in contact with the developer and kitchen supplier to arrange a joint visit to the property and the resident would be notified of the appointment was it was arranged.
The resident reported the issue on 3 different occasions and the landlord accepted, from the resident’s first report, that there was a known issue with the kitchen cupboard doors. It is therefore unacceptable that the resident had to report the issue on 2 further occasions and unreasonable that the landlord failed to provide an update until the resident had made a complaint.
In its stage 1 response the landlord stated that the delay in resolving the issue could have in part been caused by the resident failing to accept an appointment from a surveyor. Nevertheless, a surveyor didn’t inspect the cupboard doors until 17 November 2021, which was approximately 3 months later. The Complaints Handling Code is clear that the Ombudsman encourages early and local resolution of issues. Where the landlord had recognised that the work could have been expedited, the landlord should have taken the opportunity to do so. This would have demonstrated the landlord’s desire to find a resolution. However, the landlord failed to do this, by delaying the surveyor’s visit, the repairs to the kitchen cupboards were also delayed.
This Service understands that the landlord had encountered similar issues with kitchen cupboard doors provided by the kitchen supplier at another development, and on that occasion it had worked with the supplier to resolve the issue through its latent defect procedure. Therefore, we understand that the landlord sought to resolve the issue in the same way on this occasion. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to attempt to resolve the issue in the same way, evidence showed that the landlord did not contact the property developer until 15 August 2021, which was 87 working days after the resident first reported the issue. The evidence provided appears to suggest that the landlord only contacted the developer after the resident had submitted a formal complaint. It was not acceptable that the landlord delayed its communication with the developer and kitchen supplier. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy is clear that repairs should be dealt with as quickly as possible. However, on this occasion it failed to do so and therefore failed in its service delivery.
On 23 November 2021, the developer advised the landlord that the kitchen was 10 years out of its warranty and consequently the kitchen supplier did not accept the issue described as a latent defect. The landlord’s latent defect procedure is clear that if the issue is not accepted as a latent defect, the landlord should pass the repair to its in-house team and notify the resident.
However, in its stage 2 response on 1 December 2021 the landlord explained that it had been unable to confirm a plan of action with the developer and it was investigating alternatives. This is not in line with the landlord’s latent defect procedure. The Ombudsman understands that the issue affected other properties and was not just individual to the resident. However, the latent defect procedure and the landlord’s responsive repairs policy is clear on the course of action to take. The repair should have been treated as a routine repair and dealt with as quickly as possible, and by failing to do so the landlord failed in its service delivery.
It is not clear to us why it took the landlord until July 2022 to request a quote from the original kitchen supplier for replacement door and drawer fronts. Nor is it clear why it then took the landlord until December 2022 to request a quote for the replacement door and drawer fronts from its usual kitchen supplier. However, the delays impacted on the resident, who waited approximately 22 months for the landlord to find a solution and carry out the repair. This is unacceptable, the repair was not completed as quickly as possible and the landlord failed in its service delivery.
This Service acknowledges that in its stage 2 response the landlord recognised there was a delay completing repairs, for which it offered an apology and £50 compensation. In addition, it promised to keep the resident updated on its progress to resolve the issue. However, the landlord was aware prior to responding at stage 2 that neither the developer nor kitchen supplier accepted the issue as a latent defect. It should therefore have taken appropriate steps to resolve the issue through its own responsive repairs policy, which states that repairs should be completed as quickly as possible. There is little evidence to show that the resident was kept regularly updated of the progress, nor does there appear to have been any attempt to complete the repairs before February 2023. This Service finds that there has been a service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to faulty kitchen cupboard doors.
The landlord has explained to this Service that it was unable to provide a copy of the resident’s signed tenancy agreement. This did not impact on the handling of the matters in this case or cause any detriment to the resident. Nevertheless, it is concerning that the landlord does not appear to have a copy of the signed agreement. The landlord is reminded that the tenancy agreement is a legally binding contract and as such should be afforded the importance it deserves.
The Knowledge and Information spotlight report published in May 2023 is very clear that information must be stored and maintained appropriately. We acknowledge that landlords may hold paper copies of important documents, such as tenancy agreements and that over time systems will be updated to store digital versions of those paper documents. It is imperative that these documents aren’t lost. They must be appropriately stored and retained to ensure they can be recalled should the need arise.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident raised a formal stage 1 complaint on 23 July 2021. The landlord acknowledged the complaint within 4 working days and told the resident to expect a response within 10 working days. However, on 11 August 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to explain that it needed to carry out further investigations and it would respond by 25 August 2021.
It was appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident to let her know that it would need additional time to respond to the complaint. However, it would have been preferable if the landlord had contacted the resident prior to the date she was expecting a response and not the day after. It is not clear why the landlord needed an additional 10 working days to carry out investigations, but given the evidence provided, it appears that it was awaiting a delayed internal response regarding the actions taken up until that point. It is important when responding to a complaint that landlord’s respect the timescales given, failure to do so without good reason causes resident’s further inconvenience.
In its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to progress the repairs. However, it did so in an accusatory manner seemingly blaming the resident for the delays that occurred. This is not an appropriate or reasonable response to a resident’s complaint and caused the resident further distress.
In addition, the response failed to provide an adequate plan to progress the repair. Effective dispute resolution requires a process designed to resolve complaints. Where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right. While we accept that the landlord told the resident it was in contact the developer and the kitchen supplier to arrange a joint visit, it did not give the resident any indication of how long she would have to wait for an appointment, nor did it indicate how often it would keep in contact with the resident. This was not acceptable, the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations and consequently failed in its complaints handling.
The resident escalated her complaint on 25 August 2021 and asked the landlord to acknowledge receipt of her escalation request. However, it took the landlord until 3 November 2021 to acknowledge the complaint, which was 50 working days after the resident had submitted it. This far exceeds the timescale given in the landlord’s own policy and the timescale suggested in the Complaint Handling Code. This was an unreasonable and unacceptable delay and caused the resident further distress and inconvenience. In addition, the landlord’s acknowledgement failed to give a timescale for a response. The landlord’s own policy advises that it will provide a response within 20 working days from the date it acknowledges the stage 2 request, and it should have made this timescale clear to the resident when it acknowledged her complaint. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge the complaint within the timescale provided and its further failure to tell the resident when to expect a response demonstrates that the landlord has failed to manage the resident’s expectations and therefore failed in its complaints handling.
The landlord’s stage 2 response set out its understanding of the complaint. However, it failed to provide adequate resolutions to the issues identified. With regard the issue with the kitchen cupboard doors, it failed to offer the resident a timescale for the repair and although it promised that it would keep the resident updated on progress. There is very little evidence that the landlord kept its promise. Resolution does not end once the final complaint response has been sent. The Ombudsman is clear that landlords must monitor progress of any plan of action detailed in a complaint response.
We acknowledge that the landlord offered the resident £25 as compensation for the delay in acknowledging the stage 2 complaint. However, this does not go far enough to recognise the inconvenience cause to the resident. The Complaints Code is clear that complaints should be resolved as quickly as possible, and a response should not be unnecessarily delayed. This Service finds a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to faulty kitchen cupboard doors.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to carry out repairs within a reasonable timescale and failed to keep the resident adequately updated on progress.
The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint in a timely manner and failed to manage the resident’s expectations.

Orders and recommendations

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 in writing to the resident for the failings highlighted in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident £275, which comprises of:
  1. £75 offered by the landlord to the resident as part of the landlord’s stage 2 response. If this has already been paid to the resident, it should be deducted from the total.
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in repairing the kitchen cupboards.
  3. £100 for the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
In accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to investigate how many other residents may be affected by the faulty kitchens as described in this report and ensure repairs are completed as necessary. The investigation should:
1. Be completed within 12 weeks of the date of this report.
2. Provide an action plan and timescale for necessary repairs to take place.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with this order within 12 weeks of the date of this report.