Southern Housing Group Limited (202220225)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220225

Southern Housing Group Limited

19 May 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of plastering works in the resident’s property.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. It is acknowledged that during the complaint process a third-party acted on behalf of the tenant; however, both parties will be addressed as the ‘resident’ throughout this report. This is to provide clarity throughout the report.
3. On 29 April 2022, 5 May 2022, 18 May 2022 and 19 May 2022, the resident had appointments booked for repairs and inspections to take place with regard to the internal plastering of the walls in the property. However, all appointments were either cancelled within 24-hours of the appointment time or not attended as scheduled without warning.
4. On 3 June 2022, the landlord’s contractors attended the resident’s property to complete the plastering works in the bathroom. However, the contractor did not complete the plastering in the bathroom as only half of the two walls were plastered. The remainder of the plastering of the walls could not be completed as the contractor had run out of plaster.
5. The resident subsequently raised a complaint on 6 June 2022. The resident stated that he had contacted the landlord on 10 May 2022 but had yet to receive a response. However, since this he had suffered financial loss as a result of the missed appointments. In addition, the resident was dissatisfied that whilst the appointment on 3 June 2022 was attended to, only half of the work required was completed meaning that he would be required to take a further day off work unpaid. Furthermore, the job completed was of a poor standard. The plaster was cracking, flaking, had lines and bumps throughout the finish The resident stated that the plasterer who attended informed him that he was not a plasterer by trade but actually a plumber. The resident advised that he believed this was why the work was completed to a poor standard. As a resolution, the resident requested for all of the plastering to be completed by a professional plasterer and an estimated compensation amount of £1200 for the loss of his earnings.
6. The landlord provided the resident with its stage one response on 27 June 2022. It acknowledged that four appointments had been missed by its contractors and that this had caused inconvenience to the resident. It confirmed that it had contacted its contractors and was informed that the missed appointments were due to a variety of reasons such as contractor sickness, contractors leaving the company and being unable to find the resident’s property. As a result of these missed appointments, the landlord acknowledged that this caused the resident financial inconvenience and it awarded £1000 for this after being provided evidence of his financial loss.
7. In response to the resident’s concerns about the plastering work completed on 3 June 2022, it had arranged for an appointment to be attended on 11 July 2022 to have this rectified. It further confirmed that it would follow-up with the resident on 12 July 2022 to confirm that the work had been completed to a satisfactory standard. It further acknowledged that the resident stated that a letter was sent on 10 May 2022, but that it did not receive this communication. In light of this it offered the resident £50 compensation for failing to identify this message. In addition, it offered a further £100 compensation as a goodwill gesture.
8. The landlord’s contractors attended the resident’s property on 11 July 2022. The contractor’s records showed that it completed all of the internal plastering to the bathroom. However, during the appointment the resident asked about the other walls in the property which were in a poor condition. The contractor identified and informed the landlord that the following areas could benefit from re-plastering:
   1. Kitchen;
   2. Lounge;
   3. Stairs and upstairs area; and
   4. Two of the bedrooms.
9. The resident subsequently escalated his complaint in August 2022, as he stated that he had been waiting four months for a conclusion to the plastering in his property. The resident further stated that the communication provided by the landlord was poor, and led to him having to arrange appointments, enquire why appointments were not attended to and request call-backs which had not been returned. The resident asked when the rest of his house would be re-plastered. He advised that he had been provided with different information which stated that either the job was waiting for the landlord’s approval or that the work was delayed on the contractor’s side.
10. In its stage two complaint response, the landlord stated that it partially upheld the resident’s complaint as it acknowledged that it had provided incorrect information previously when it informed the resident that it had approved the plastering works for the rest of the property. It clarified that after the inspection took place, it was determined that the plastering works were of a decorative nature and would not be completed. In relation to the resident’s reports of poor communication, it confirmed that feedback had been provided to the relevant department and apologised for this. The landlord awarded the resident £50 compensation for the misinformation that he had received and £25 as a goodwill gesture.
11. The resident referred his complaint to this Service on 15 December 2022. The resident stated that he remains unhappy that the landlord will not plaster the rest of the property. He advised that his preferred resolution, was for the landlord to replaster the whole property.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

12. The repairs policy and tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in good condition. This includes keeping the plasterwork in good condition.

Scope of investigation

13. As part of the original complaint, the resident was dissatisfied that there were multiple missed appointments and that this had affected him financially. Once the resident provided evidence of his financial loss, the landlord awarded the resident £1000 compensation. On 14 July 2022, the resident accepted this compensation. As this aspect was not escalated to this Service, there will be no further investigation into this matter.
14. This is further applicable to the resident’s initial concerns about a missed email, where £150 compensation was paid to the resident in light of this and as a goodwill gesture. The resident has not escalated this matter to this Service and, as such, this will not be further investigated by this Service.

Assessment

15. As stated above, the resident’s initial complaint regarding the missed appointments have been resolved by the landlord in the form of compensation and has not been referred to this Service. Therefore, the outstanding issue remains that the resident would like the landlord to replaster the interior of the property. As such, this will be the focus of this report.
16. Upon receiving reports of the plasterwork in a property being in a poor condition, a landlord is expected to attend the property to complete an inspection. The purpose of the inspection is to assess the structural integrity of the property and that the property is safe. This is in-line with the landlord’s repairs policy and tenancy agreement.
17. The landlord is responsible for keeping the structure of the property in a good condition. In the case of plasterwork, this generally means free of cracks, holes or other structural concerns. This would generally not include uneven walls, lines in the walls or flaking plasterwork as these would be deemed to be decorative or cosmetics issues rather than a structural issue. However, this would be a decision for the landlord’s expert contractors to determine.
18. In this case, the landlord attended the resident’s property and completed a joint inspection (exact date unknown), with its qualified contractors. The visit was to determine if the whole property required re-plastering. The visit concluded that the structural safety of the property was not compromised by the condition of the plasterwork. Therefore, any work to be completed in the property would be purely for cosmetic purposes, for which the landlord would not be responsible to complete. In light of this, the landlord was entitled to rely upon its contractors’ reports that the plasterwork was not affecting the structural integrity of the property and any repairs would be for cosmetic purposes only. The contractors are experts in this area and the landlord had no reason to dispute their advice.
19. As such, this Service has not identified any failing in relation to the landlord’s position regarding the request to replaster the resident’s property and it acted in accordance with its repairs policy and the resident’s tenancy agreement. Therefore, the landlord does not need to take any further action in relation to this matter.
20. However, the landlord did acknowledge that its operatives had provided misleading information in relation to the plastering works for the whole house and that this had caused confusion. It was appropriate for the landlord to identify this as a failing and apologise for this, which it did. It offered the resident an overall compensation award of £75. The landlord acknowledged that it delayed between April 2021 – September 2021 before it confirmed its position to the resident regarding the replaster of the property and this had inconvenienced the resident. Also, that during this period the resident also had to repeatedly chase the landlord to obtain its response.
21. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. Taking an overall view on this matter, the landlord has acknowledged that it could have communicated better with the resident regarding its obligations to replaster the entire property. The landlord has acted appropriately by not only recognising its short coming but has also offered the resident compensation. Therefore, the offer of compensation recognises that the resident was misinformed and the compensation award represents proportionate and reasonable redress for this.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the plastering works in the resident’s property, which resolves the resident’s complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendation

23. If it has not already done so, the landlord is to pay the resident the compensation award of £75 outlined in its complaint response.
24. The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within six weeks of the date of this report.