Southern Housing Group Limited (202211975)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211975

Southern Housing Group Limited

27 February 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 handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of defects in his property.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a shared owner of a 3-bedroom flat; the landlord is the freeholder. The property was a new build when the resident’s lease began in November 2020 and as such it benefited from a 12-month defect liability period.
The resident informed the landlord in early 2021 of defects in his property which included the main bathroom window pooling water from the shower, the patio door rubbing on the slabs on opening, the water softener not working, a lack of fire risk assessment for his flat, and high temperatures in the bedrooms as the window design prevented them from opening.
The landlord asked the builder to attend in February 2021 to assess the patio door which was reported during the defect liability period. The builder confirmed that there was a gap of 13mm on the patio door but as the door sealed, it was acceptable, and the landlord closed the job.
In March 2021, the landlord confirmed that the window openings were not a defect. It had contacted the project manager who advised it was a planning requirement for the windows to remain shut and its “hands were tied.” The resident was asked to record temperatures as a means of providing evidence to support a revision of the planning application.
Some months later, in January 2022, the landlord together with the original building designer put a case forward to planning for window restrictors to be installed on the bedroom windows.
In February 2022 the resident submitted an end of defect (EOD) form to the landlord which he stated was the second time he had submitted a form to the landlord who he said had “lost” the last list.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 14 March 2022 after repairs identified on the EOD report had not been completed. The resident confirmed that he had made multiple attempts to clarify what repairs were required. In a response the following day, the landlord asked the resident to confirm when he initially reported the defects and what was outstanding.
The landlord issued a stage one response on 14 April 2022 and confirmed that it had difficulty scheduling works with its builder due to access and the resident’s availability. It had managed to scheduled works to commence on 19 April 2022. It offered its sincere apologies for the inconvenience caused and offered £25 in recognition of its service failure.
An operative attended the resident’s address on 21 April 2022 without a list of repairs that were required and could only complete some works. The same day, the resident requested that his complaint was escalated.
The landlord apologised to the resident on 29 April 2022 as the works booked in on 19 April 2022 did not go ahead as planned because its contractor had experienced a “breakdown with its contractors.”
The resident sent a further email on 2 July 2022 and said that he was “tired” of highlighting the same outstanding defects/repairs “time and time again” with no resolution over the last 12 months.
The landlord confirmed in July 2022 that planning permission was granted for the window restrictors but did not have a date for works to commence at that time.
On 13 September 2022, the resident asked the landlord to open a new complaint for “exactly the same reasons as the previous stage one complaint.” The landlord emailed the resident on 16 September 2022 and attached a copy of its stage one response dated 14 April 2022. It confirmed that he had missed the 20-day deadline to escalate the complaint and for that reason it would not open a new case.
The resident pursued the matter. Subsequently the landlord acknowledged a new complaint on 17 October 2022. At that point, the resident asked for the complaint to be dealt with at stage two of the complaint process.
The landlord confirmed that it had arranged for an inspection of the patio door on 17 November 2022.
The landlord requested two extensions before issuing a stage two response on 15 December 2022. It acknowledged that the service the resident had received was not what it aspired to deliver, with too many defects taking too long to resolve and significant delays in processing the resident’s correspondence. It offered £350 compensation as part of its stage two response to reflect the inconvenience and delays caused in resolving the defects and £150 compensation for the failings in its complaint handling.
The resident remained dissatisfied and contacted the Service on 23 December 2022. He stated that the problems relating to the bedroom windows (which were his main concern as he was heading for a third summer where his children’s bedrooms regularly reached over 40 degrees), main bathroom window, and patio door remained outstanding.

Events after the completion of the landlord’s complaints process

The landlord emailed the resident on 3 March 2023 to confirm that it was aware of outstanding works which included the openings to the bedroom windows. It had signed contracts with a contractor and works were due to commence in April 2023. It had visited the resident the week before to adjust the patio door which it thought had improved the issue but asked the resident to confirm he was happy with it. It confirmed that the contractor completing the bedroom windows would inspect the pooling water on the main bathroom window at the same time.
In a response the same day, the resident confirmed that he would like a visit by a contractor to survey and detail the proposed remedies prior to repairs being completed as the previous four visits had yielded “nothing.”
In February 2024, the resident advised the Service that the defects/repairs remained outstanding. The landlord confirmed that the bedroom window adjustments were completed in the Summer of 2023.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of defects in his property

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s aftercare procedure confirms that during the defect liability period (DLP), the development contractor is liable to rectify defects. The landlord’s New Build Aftercare Team manages properties during the DLP.
Section 8 of the policy confirms that if the contractor fails to rectify a defect by the target date without an adequate reason, the Aftercare Liaison Manager (ALM) will cancel the original defect and the ALM will contact the resident to let them know the landlord will complete the defect.
The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that it aims to complete routine repairs as “quickly as possible.”
It states that it may have different contractual arrangements for delivering its repairs service in the first 12 months after a home is built.

Assessment

New build properties have a ‘defects period,’ where the original builder is responsible for repairing certain issues; this period usually lasts between 12 months to two years, after the date the property was handed over to the landlord.
During the period where a warranty remains in place, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to act as an appropriate intermediary to coordinate matters between the builder and the resident to ensure that repairs are appropriately managed and completed to a satisfactory standard.
After moving to the property in November 2020, the resident completed the EOD report and gave it to the landlord within an appropriate timeframe of the warranty period. The defects were covered by the builder during the DLP who remained responsible for rectifying accepted defects.

Windows

It is not disputed that the design of the bedroom windows was not a defect and therefore not a responsibility of the builder to rectify under the DLP. The landlord’s response was proactive, working with the builder and the local authority’s planning department to find a resolution for the resident.
The resident explained the discomfort that his family experienced during the summer months and raised it as a health and safety concern rather than a repair. As he was unable to allow air to circulate in the bedrooms, it caused an elevated room temperature and meant his children could not sleep.
The landlord was limited in what action it could take and was reliant on the planning department granting permission for window restrictors. While the Service understands the difficulty the landlord faced in finding a solution quickly, there is no evidence that it considered any action it could take in the interim to provide temporary relief for the family.
The Service understands and acknowledges that the landlord’s response was reliant on planning granting permission to install window restrictors. It made the resident aware of the delays with the planning department, which were compounded by its difficulties in procuring a contractor once permission was obtained.
It would have been a reasonable response from the landlord, to satisfy itself and the resident that there was nothing more it could have done to relieve the discomforting during the summer months, considering the young children in the household. Planning permission was granted in July 2022 and there was a delay of approximately a year before the window adjustments were made which was an unreasonable delay.

Main bathroom window

Soon after moving into his property the resident identified a problem with the shower design which meant water pooled onto his bathroom window.
The landlord confirmed that the problem was not a defect, but a design issue, however, accepted the responsibility to rectify the problem and asserted that it would resolve the issue, as it had done in another flat in the block.
In June 2022 it advised the resident that the matter had been passed to the project manager for advice and a solution. It is unclear what if any advice or solution the project manager gave at this time.
Nine months later, in an email to the resident on 3 March 2023 the landlord confirmed that the contractor employed to install the window restrictors would inspect the issue with the bathroom window and complete any works to resolve the issue. While this appeared a reasonable response, the landlord was unaware when the contractor was attending for the bedroom windows and was not able to give the resident a timeframe for resolving the issue. This would have compounded his frustration due to the significant delays he had already experienced.
Despite the landlord’s assurances, the problem has not been resolved. In February 2024, the landlord indicated to the Service that it was aware the issue remained outstanding and confirmed a visit would be arranged for later this month with the resident and its contractor to ascertain what works would be required.
The matter has remained outstanding for approximately 24 months. This is unreasonable and a departure from the landlord’s repairs policy which confirms that all repairs will be completed “as quickly as possible.” It failed to expedite the repair to mitigate further delays and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Patio doors

There is evidence that the landlord worked with its contractor to discuss proposals to improve the opening of the patio door which was a reasonable approach to take.
The evidence shows that the landlord attempted a repair to improve the opening in November 2022, however the resident remained dissatisfied with the works.
The landlord’s internal correspondence confirmed that the builder’s proposal to notch the slab was not possible without a “risk that the slab would crack, if not at the time, then later. In addition, it was the first slab directly outside of the patio door so would be most used.” Therefore, it agreed to return with a builder/surveyor to lift the slabs, assess the pipe underneath and then form a plan on how best to resolve. The landlord has not provided evidence to confirm that an inspection with a builder/surveyor was completed.
In April 2023, the landlord advised the resident that it would arrange for a glazing company to attend and inspect the patio door. The landlord has not evidenced a report from a glazing company to conclude that this was done.
In correspondence with the Service in February 2024 the landlord indicated that it was aware that the patio door opening was tight, but as the property was “three and a half years old, the resident would need to provide evidence of damage” for it to review the issue. As the defect was brought to the landlord’s attention approximately 36 months ago, it is an unreasonable response to request that the resident provides evidence of damage in order for it to take action.
The Service understands that the builder did not accept responsibility for the defect. However, the landlord provided assurances to the resident that it would agree on a way forward to rectify the issue and accepted responsibility for this. This raised the resident’s expectations that a solution would be found. Despite several inspections that “yielded nothing” the matter remains unresolved which is likely to have eroded the resident’s confidence in the landlord resolving the matter satisfactorily. Additionally, the landlord did not do enough to expedite the matter to mitigate further delays.

Water softener

Not long after moving into the property, the resident requested commissioning and warranty paperwork for the water softener for his property which he did not receive. This was a reasonable request given the resident had indicated that the water softener was not working as it should. The Service is unclear why the landlord did not provide the documents or provide him with a reasonable explanation for not providing the information he requested.
In April 2023, the landlord confirmed that a senior technical manager was helping address the resident’s reports of issues with the water softener. It confirmed that all mechanical appliances needed to be serviced regularly and its maintenance and service team would be responsible for completing services on the water softener appliance.
The resident confirmed to the Service in February 2024 that the landlord has not provided him with the paperwork he requested. The landlord said to the Service that if the resident conducted his own water testing, that showed the water was not being softened as it should be, it would be able to review the matter. As the softener appliance is communal and services the whole block it was an unreasonable response to suggest the resident should carry out his own test. Had the landlord provided a servicing document, or commissioning paperwork as the resident had requested, it would have alleviated his concerns and drawn a line under the matter. That it did not was a failing. Therefore, an order has been made on this below.

Fire safety

The landlord’s fire safety policy states that the landlord is responsible for the general safety of the premises at the start of the tenancy, and then the ongoing safety of the communal areas, depending on the terms of the lease, the maintenance and testing of fixed electrical installations, gas supply and fire alarm. The resident’s service charge documentation confirms that his service charge covers servicing of fire equipment and repairing and maintaining the fire equipment.
The landlord provided the resident with the fire risk assessment that was completed prior to his occupation, as required by building regulations. The Ombudsman has found no service failure in this regard and suggests that if the fire safety in his flat is a concern, the resident may wish to arrange for an independent inspection.

Summary

Overall, the evidence confirms that the landlord experienced difficulties with its builder in resolving some of the defects. The Ombudsman cannot attribute all the delays to the landlord and the evidence shows that the landlord made consistent attempts to work with its builder and its efforts in this regard should be recognised.
However, the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on leasehold, shared ownership, and new build complaints states that landlords should effectively pursue developers on a resident’s behalf to ensure there is effective communication between all parties and be clear how it will respond during and after the defects period. Had the landlord acted in accordance with its defects policy and swiftly taken the defects/repairs inhouse following the continued difficulties it experienced with the builder, it may have minimised some of the delays and inconvenience caused to the resident.
It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge that its communication around the defects had been poor, exacerbated by the landlord having “so many people involved” in the case. This resulted in a lack of accountability on the landlord’s part and an unreasonable amount of time expended by the resident in pursuing updates. Because the updates were not always forthcoming, the landlord missed the opportunity to help to facilitate what was a frustrating situation for the resident.
It was reasonable that the landlord recognised the delays and the time, trouble, and inconvenience this had caused the resident and offered £350, aimed at putting things right for the resident.
However, some of the substantive issues have remained outstanding for a further 14 months after the landlord’s stage two response in December 2022. Despite acknowledging outstanding issues and assuring the resident that it would “endeavour to ensure they [repairs] were completed with minimal disruption to the resident” the resident has continued to experience delays for 14 months after the completion of the landlord’s complaints process.
The Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the defects and orders have been made, aimed at putting things right for the resident.

Complaint handling

Policies and procedures

The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. It aims to respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days and stage two within 20 working days.

Assessment

The landlord issued a stage one response on 14 April 2022. On 21 April 2022, the resident emailed the landlord as he was unhappy with how the repairs were being managed and requested an escalation of his complaint. The evidence confirms that despite the request, the complaint was not escalated due to “significant delays in processing correspondence.”
The landlord’s complaints policy confirms that it records and monitors all complaints that it receives, however, the evidence does not indicate that this was routinely done in the resident’s case. This resulted in an unreasonable delay and time expended on the resident’s behalf pursuing the complaint in July and again in September 2022.
In September 2022, the resident asked that the landlord opened a new complaint “exactly the same reasons” as his previous complaint. As his complaint mirrored that of his previous complaint, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have used its discretion to respond at stage two of its complaint process to prevent further delays.
Despite evidence on the contrary, the landlord advised the resident that he needed to open a new complaint as he had not requested a review in time. The landlord missed three opportunities between April and September 2022 to escalate the matter. As such, it created a protracted process which hampered the landlord’s ability to resolve the complaint swiftly.
The resident requested intervention from the Service to escalate his complaint, after which the landlord issued a stage two response in December 2022. It confirmed that it had “wished to resolve the matter prior to escalation.” The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (Code) confirms that “landlords must ensure that efforts to resolve a resident’s concerns do not obstruct access to the complaints procedure or result in any unreasonable delay.”
The landlord acknowledged the delays caused by its complaint handling and offered compensation of £150 for the inconvenience to the resident.
In line with the Code, the landlord is required to confirm details of outstanding actions and identify remedies to put things right within its complaint response. As the landlord failed to provide the resident with specific information, he was caused further uncertainty about what would be happening next and when. The Ombudsman has therefore made an order to prevent similar errors from occurring in the future and to help the landlord improve in this area.
The landlord’s complaint responses failed to identify what learning it had taken from the delays. It would have been reasonable to do so in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of learning from outcomes.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to:
1. The resident’s reports of defects in his property.
2. The associated complaint.

Orders

Within four 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 the resident £1000 compensation, made up of:
  1. £300 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of the defects to the resident’s property.
  2. £200 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident because of the landlord’s handling of his complaint.
  3. £500 offered at stage two (if this has already been paid, the total payable is £500).
Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a specialist to attend and assess the patio door and provide the resident and the Service with the findings and any works required to rectify the issue, along with a date for the works to be completed, which should be adhered to.
2. Complete an inspection of the main bathroom window and provide the resident and the Service with a works plan to rectify the issue and a date for the works to be completed, which should be adhered to.
3. Provide the resident with its most recent service report completed by its maintenance and service team on the water softener appliance.
Within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Conduct a review of this case, considering the failings set out in this report which relate to the oversight and management of repairs, and review what improved processes and/or training of staff will be implemented in relation to:
  1. Ensuring that residents are kept updated with progress on repairs.

ii. Situations where delays occur with its contractors, and how it will reduce the risk of a reoccurrence in the future

The landlord should provide an outcome of this review to the Housing Ombudsman, as well as dates for training, also within eight weeks.

Provide guidance to relevant staff about investigating and responding to complaints. It is recommended, particularly in relation to cases involving repairs, that the response sets out the outstanding issues and provides remedies offered to put things right. The landlord should ensure that staff are reminded to suitably update residents, where necessary, throughout the complaints process. The landlord should incorporate the Code where appropriate.