Southern Housing Group Limited (202214376)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214376

Southern Housing Group Limited

25 April 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 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s ventilation system.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a house. She reported an outstanding repair to her attic ventilation system to the landlord on 20 April 2022, and it provided her with an appointment for this on 17 May 2022. After its operative arrived earlier than it had agreed with her on that day, resulting in them not gaining access to the property, she raised a stage one complaint with it about this on the same date. The resident complained that the operative arrived too early at 12pm, instead of as agreed at 3pm, and that the next available appointment for her for this was not until 22 June 2022, for which it acknowledged her complaint on 18 May 2022.
  2. The landlord’s subsequent stage one complaint response to the resident on 31 May 2022 acknowledged that it had failed to keep to the agreed time when attending her ventilation system repair appointment on 17 May 2022. It therefore apologised to her for this, explained that it had previously had no earlier appointments than 22 June 2022, but that it had now brought the rescheduled repair appointment forward to 6 June 2022, and it offered her £25 compensation for the missed appointment.
  3. After two further visits from the landlord on 6 June and 14 July 2022 that found that an air filter required replacement, the second of which was unsuccessful due to the operative not being qualified to repair the ventilation system, the resident escalated her complaint to the final stage of its complaints procedure on 18 July 2022. This was after she informed it on 31 May and 15 June 2022 that she was dissatisfied that it did not discuss the appointment of 6 June 2022 with her, or tell her when it would arrive on that date. The resident added that she was unhappy that the air filter replacement identified by the landlord’s visit had already been reported by her, and that she would have to wait for another appointment before it would replace this.
  4. The landlord then acknowledged the resident’s final stage complaint on 4 August 2022, and it confirmed on 8 August 2022 that its final stage complaint response would consider its late escalation of the complaint. Its subsequent final stage complaint response of 18 August 2022 acknowledged that it should have completed the repair sooner, and it offered her £294 total compensation. This was broken down into £75 compensation for the unsuccessful repair appointments of 17 May, 6 June and 14 July 2022, £194 for the 13-week delay since 17 May 2022 in completing the repair at the rate of £10 plus £2 per day, and £25 for the landlord’s delayed handling of the escalated complaint.
  5. The landlord also agreed to reattend to repair the resident’s ventilation system at an appointment of her choice, when the necessary part for this was available, which it said that it was chasing daily. It added that it had given its property services contracts managers her feedback for better communication around repair appointments. The landlord additionally explained that it had reorganised its complaint handling to direct this to the teams overseeing each service area, instead of its complaints team, for which its stage one complaint responses were being checked by the teams’ managers to ensure that these were appropriate.
  6. After receiving the outstanding replacement air filter on 19 August 2022, the landlord then attended the resident’s property again on 30 August 2022 to complete the repair to the ventilation system there. She subsequently communicated with it on 1 September 2022 to seek to increase the compensation that it had offered her, before complaining to this Service that she remained dissatisfied because she had heard nothing from it since 2 September 2022, when it had requested her reasons for this, and she had received no compensation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s ventilation system

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy confirms that it will keep in good repair and working order any equipment which it provides, including ventilation fans and ducts, and to complete non-emergency routine repairs by appointment at a time that suits the resident, within an unspecified timescale.
  2. It was not disputed that that the repair and maintenance of the resident’s ventilation system was the landlord’s responsibility under its responsive repairs policy. As there was no indication that this repair posed an immediate hazard to people or the property, it should therefore have completed the repair in accordance with the policy. Its responsive repairs policy does not provide a set timeframe for the completion of a routine non-emergency repair. However, this Service would expect such a repair to be typically completed within four weeks. This is in accordance with the standards of best practice across the sector.
  3. Had the resident’s ventilation system repair request been resolved on 17 May 2022, this would have been within a reasonable four-week timeframe of her initial report about this on 20 April 2022. However, an excessive delay was caused in the handling of the repair due to the landlord attending at the wrong time on 17 May 2022, being unable to gain access to her property, and then sending an operative to the property on 14 July 2022 who was not qualified to complete the repair. Furthermore, the part that was required to complete the repair, a replacement air filter, was not received by the landlord until 19 August 2022.
  4. The resident expressed dissatisfaction, in her email to the landlord on 15 June 2022, that its visit to the property on 6 June 2022 had not resulted in the repair to the ventilation. It had simply concluded that a replacement filter was required, which she had already informed it about. It is nevertheless reasonable for a landlord to first inspect the reported defect on its first attendance to a repair and to arrange for further works to this to follow. While it is noted that the resident had already informed the landlord about the nature of the repair, it would be expected to verify this for itself, through its appropriately qualified staff and contractors, in order to determine the work that was necessary to resolve the repair.
  5. However, the landlord’s final stage complaint response acknowledged that an excessive number of visits were required to complete the repair, leading to a 13-week delay since the date of its initial appointment on 17 May 2022. It therefore offered the resident £269 compensation in total for this, as a result of the three unsuccessful repair visits, for which it awarded her £75, and the delayed resolution of the repair, for which it awarded her £194 at the rate of £10 plus £2 per day.
  6. This Service’s remedies guidance recommends compensation from £100 where there has been a failure by a landlord which adversely affected the resident. This meant that the landlord’s offer of £269 compensation was in accordance with our guidance, and so proportionately recognised the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble experienced by the resident in pursuing the resolution of the repair. This is also because its compensation framework recommended awards of £10 plus £2 per day for its repair delays, as well as of up to £25 per missed or failed appointment, and so its offers to her at this rate for the 13-week repair delay and three failed appointments were appropriately in line with the framework.
  7. The landlord, in its final stage complaint response, also noted the resident’s dissatisfaction with its communication surrounding its repair appointments. It was therefore suitable that it showed that it had learnt from the outcome of her complaint, in accordance with this Service’s dispute resolution principles, by explaining in the final response that it had given its property services contracts managers her feedback for better communication around repair appointments.
  8. In conclusion, the landlord’s final stage complaint response provided reasonable explanations and assurances to the resident about how it would improve its standard of service to her, and offered her an amount of compensation which represented an offer of reasonable redress to her in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two-stage internal complaints procedure. At stage one of this procedure, it should provide a written response within ten working days, and at the final stage it should provide its written response within 20 working days. At both stages of the complaints procedure, the landlord should contact the resident to acknowledge the complaint within five working days of receipt.
  2. The resident’s stage one complaint of 17 May 2022 was acknowledged by the landlord after one working day on 18 May 2022, and it issued its stage complaint response within ten working days on 31 May 2022. It therefore handled the complaint at stage one appropriately and in accordance with its complaints policy.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint on 18 July 2022, which the landlord did not acknowledge until 4 August 2022. This was 13 working days later and was in excess of the five working days within which it should have acknowledged the escalation of the complaint, as set out in its complaints policy above. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord, on 8 August 2022, to note this delay and to confirm that this would be considered in its final stage complaint response.
  4. The landlord provided its final stage complaint response to the resident on 18 August 2022, 23 working days after she escalated her complaint. It offered her £25 compensation for the delays in its handling of her final stage complaint. Given that the eight-working-day delay in acknowledging the complaint escalation, and the three-working-day delay in responding to this, were relatively short, and that this did not result in a significant delay in the overall handling of the final stage complaint, this offer was reasonable in the circumstances. This is also because the landlord’s compensation framework recommended that it award compensation from £25 for such failures to follow its policy or procedure.
  5. The landlord additionally appropriately explained that it had reorganised its complaint handling to direct this to the teams overseeing each service area, instead of its complaints team. However, since the completion of its complaints procedure, the resident contacted it to discuss the level of compensation that she was offered by it. The landlord’s response to this, on 2 September 2022, was to request that she provide it with her reasons for it to reconsider the compensation amount offered. There is nevertheless no evidence of correspondence between the parties about this issue since then, and the resident subsequently informed this Service that she had received no further contact about this or the compensation.
  6. When a landlord offers a resolution to a complaint, whether to carry out an action such as a repair or compensation, it should follow through with this. Providing proposed resolutions forms a part of an effective complaints handling process, in accordance with this Service’s dispute resolution principles to be fair and put things right. In this case, while there was no evidence of the resident putting forward her reasons for requesting a higher level of compensation in response to the landlord’s request for this on 2 September 2022, it would have been reasonable for it to have contacted her again after a reasonable interval. This is in order to confirm its position, and to pay her the compensation that it had offered her, which would have provided its offer of redress to her.
  7. Therefore, the landlord has been recommended below to pay the compensation that it previously offered to the resident in its final stage complaint response to her, if she has not received this already. It has also been recommended below to seek to avoid uncertainty about this for residents by reviewing its processes to ensure that compensation, when offered, is paid promptly and that contact about this with residents is managed appropriately.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily about:
    1. Its handling of repairs to her ventilation system.
    2. Its handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to:
    1. Pay the resident the £294 compensation that it previously offered her, if she has not received this already.
    2. Review its processes to ensure that compensation, when offered, is paid promptly and that contact about this with residents is managed appropriately.