Southern Housing Group Limited (202017061)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202017061

Southern Housing Group Limited

31 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 repairs to a communal heating system.
2. This Service has also considered the associated complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident had an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord.
4. The landlord has provided evidence which shows the resident has had intermittent issues with their heating system since as early as 2017.
5. The landlord stated that it was not responsible for the repair of the communal heating system, as this was considered a responsibility of the freeholder. The freeholder had an external managing agent (EMA) working on its behalf to complete repairs.
6. In February 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to express their dissatisfaction with the ongoing issues with the heating system and requested compensation. The landlord discussed this with the resident and an email confirmed, on 5 March 2020, that any complaint or repair requests would need to be directed to the EMA. The landlord subsequently closed the complaint.
7. The resident contacted the landlord again in March 2021 to raise the same issues with their heating, as nothing had been resolved. They explained that multiple EMAs had attended the property, but none had been able to fix the issue. The resident again made a request for compensation and asked to discuss the matter further.
8. The landlord contacted the EMA in July 2021 requesting it to contact the resident directly, to discuss a plan for a repair of the heating system. The resident contacted the landlord in July 2021 to express their dissatisfaction, having not received any acknowledgement or response to their complaint.
9. The landlord issued a response to the resident’s complaint on 19 August 2021. It acknowledged and apologised for the delays when handling their complaint. When addressing the lack of complaint acknowledgment, the landlord stated, “Although we did not do this [issue an acknowledgement] on this occasion, we do believe that the outcome you requested has been successfully delivered, and your complaint has now been closed.” The landlord also offered £25 compensation for service failure when handling the resident’s complaint.
10. On 16 September 2021, the resident contacted the landlord again to express their dissatisfaction with the handling of repairs. In an email to them, the landlord summarised the resident’s complaint points as:
    1. “The underfloor heating in the bedroom is not working.
    2. Someone said there may be an airlock in the piping underfloor.
    3. This issue has been ongoing for nine years.
    4. Thermostats have been changed and systems flushed but still not working.
    5. [the resident was] sleeping in the front room, unable to use bedroom, [which had caused] several health issues as well as mental health concerns.
    6. Although the issues lie with [the EMA], [the landlord] have not been proactive in fixing the problem and therefore breaking section 11 of the Tenancy Contract.
    7. There are two small children in the property.”

The resident requested compensation for the “stress” caused, “constant chasing” of repairs and responses and the fact the issue had been ongoing for “nine years.” They also requested that the heating system be fixed.

11. Following a request for an additional ten days, the landlord sent its stage one response on 14 October 2021. The landlord stated it had been unable to complete an investigation into the resident’s complaint due to limited information provided by the EMA. The landlord also asked the resident if it could escalate the complaint on their behalf due to the issues with the EMA. The resident acknowledged the landlord’s response and requested escalation on 16 October 2021, which was later confirmed on 27 October 2021.
12. The landlord made a subsequent extension request on 24 November 2021. The resident responded to this expressing unhappiness with multiple extension requests and asked for a resolution as soon as possible. They also reiterated that the issue had been ongoing for nine years and outlined the impact it was having on their health.
13. The landlord issued its stage two response on 8 December 2021. It stated that there had been a change to the reviewing manager and apologised for that. The landlord explained the role of the EMA and described the difficulties in communicating with it. It stated that the EMA is separate to the landlord and therefore would not form part of the complaint considerations or any discovered failings. The landlord also confirmed that the complaint made earlier in 2021 was considered separate and any subsequent offer would also be separate. It made an offer of £50 compensation for misinformation relating to the considerations at stage one and provided referral rights to this Service.
14. The landlord has provided evidence which shows it requested an investigation and repair of the heating system on 13 December 2021.
15. The resident contacted this Service in March 2022. In their correspondence, they stated:
    1. The impact the issue had been having on their health and children. This had caused back issues due to sleeping in living/kitchen space, as the heating did not work in the bedroom.
    2. Repairs had been left outstanding for 3 years.
    3. They had been without heat for “ten years” and requested £5000 compensation.
    4. Issues were with the heating system and the flooring in bedroom needed to “come up” due to an airlock in the pipes.
    5. They requested a fully functioning heating system as a resolution.

Assessment and findings

16. The Housing Ombudsman assesses complaints on the basis of documentary evidence. In this case, the resident alleges the landlord’s handling of the heating issues has affected her back and mental health. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or health condition has been made worse, the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury. Without that evidence, the Ombudsman is not able to draw any conclusions on whether the handling of the heating issues has caused the injuries alleged by the resident. This question may be better for the courts to decide. This investigation has focussed on whether the landlord followed a fair and proper procedure and has considered the distress and inconvenience to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to a communal heating system

17. The landlord’s repairs policy states “Some of the schemes and estates in which we have properties are not managed directly by [the landlord]. Where this is the case a managing agent arranges contracts and provides services in the communal areas. We will endeavour to communicate and work closely with them to ensure the service received by residents is satisfactory.”
18. The landlord is responsible for heating and hot water within the property, and for heating and hot water repairs outside the property it is responsible for working closely with external managing agents (EMA) to ensure services received are satisfactory. As a result, it was necessary for it to investigate the resident’s reports of heating issues and take steps to resolve any issues within its remit, and to work with the EMA for any issues it could not directly resolve.
19. Following the resident’s reports of issues with the external heating system, the landlord was reasonable to initially refer the resident to the EMA, who manage the communal system, and it was then appropriate to intervene when the resident reported failed repairs. The landlord should have acted on behalf of the resident by requesting repairs and chasing failed repairs or failures in communication.
20. While this Service identified occasions where the landlord acted on the resident’s behalf, it also identified multiple occasions where it did not. In those instances, the landlord referred the resident back to the EMA or failed to provide an appropriate response.
21. The resident also made it clear to the landlord the impact the heating issue was having, notably causing one of the bedrooms at the property to be unusable. The landlord had a duty of care to the resident, and this should have prompted action, however this Service is not satisfied appropriate action was taken to resolve the issue or communicate with the EMA.
22. In situations where the landlord is not responsible for a repair and is reliant upon the EMA to act, the resident is reliant upon the landlord to pursue the EMA to ensure that action is being taken. This Service recognises the landlord may have had some challenges with the EMA and that some factors were out of its control. However, its own records describe a lack of engagement with the EMA, and demonstrate a lack of effective collaboration, record keeping, proactive monitoring and communication in dealing with the issue and the EMA. This demonstrates that the landlord did not work closely with the EMA, as its repairs policy aimed to do.
23. Given the length of time issues with the heating system had been reported by the resident – albeit intermittent – the landlord demonstrated significant failings in its handling of the repair and its obligations to the resident. It is important to note here that the landlord will have a lease with the freeholder, under which the landlord can enforce the repairs covenants. There is no evidence the landlord has considered this or sought advice on the prospects of successfully initiating such enforcement action. That is a failure.
24. The Ombudsman’s approach to compensation is set out in our Remedies Guidance, published on our website. The Remedies Guidance suggests that awards of £100 to £600 may be appropriate for cases where there was a failing which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right.
25. This Service has found compensation of £500 to be appropriate considering the continued delays and impact the issues with the heating system had on the resident during this time.
26. The Ombudsman has also considered whether compensation based on rent is appropriate. The resident was unable to make full use of their property, namely the bedroom, due to the reoccurring issue with the heating system. The Ombudsman considers that a 10% rent rebate is appropriate for 220 weeks. The number of weeks has been calculated by considering the 12 month period leading up to the resident making a complaint and the resident confirming to this Service the repair remained outstanding on 9 May 2023. The calculation is based on the net rent set out in the tenancy agreement, which is £126.70 (rounded up to £127 for ease). Therefore the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £2794.

The associated complaint handling

27. The landlord’s complaints policy states “We have adopted the Housing Ombudsman’s definition of a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the Group, our own staff, or those acting on our behalf, affecting an individual resident or a group of residents.” The same policy shows the landlord operates a three-stage complaint process:
    1. Informal complaint – service dissatisfaction.
    2. Stage one.
    3. Stage two (compensation review, complaint review or senior manager review).
28. The resident reported their dissatisfaction with the handling of the repair for the second time in March 2021, following a service dissatisfaction complaint in 2020. The landlord should have acknowledged the complaint and started investigating their concerns. However, it was not until August 2021 that the resident received a response, following contact with the landlord in July to explain they had not received a response. This meant the resident had to wait a total of 108 working days for a response.
29. The landlord’s complaint policy outlines response times for each stage of the process as:
    1. 10 working days for service dissatisfaction.
    2. 10-20 working days for stage one.
    3. 10-30 working days for stage two.
30. Given the timescales set out in the relevant policy, the landlord did not provide a reasonable level of service when responding to the resident. The landlord has not been able to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate why there were such substantial delays.
31. Furthermore, the response provided to the resident did not adequately address the issues raised. The landlord referred to not providing a complaint acknowledgement and, although it had not acknowledged the complaint, suggested the requested outcome had been successfully delivered. To remedy the poor complaint handling, the landlord offered £25 compensation. However, it did not address the concerns that the heating issues had been ongoing for some time. It also failed to address concerns about unsuccessful repair attempts by multiple EMAs.
32. Evidence suggests the resident made another complaint in September 2021, raising multiple complaint issues relating to the heating system and the impact this was having. In its stage one response, the landlord stated it was unable to complete an investigation due to limited information from the EMA.
33. Despite having limited information, the landlord should have completed an investigation into the resident’s concerns at both the service dissatisfaction and stage one stages, providing a full response. It should have addressed concerns raised by the resident and outlined what action it would be taking to resolve them. In failing to do so, it did not provide an adequate response to the resident.
34. In its stage two response, the landlord should have investigated issues raised at stage one of the process and the reasons for escalation. However, the response provided by the landlord referred to the EMA being separate and therefore would not form part of the complaint considerations. In doing so, the landlord demonstrated failure to provide a full and adequate response to the resident for the third time.
35. Given the proximity between the complaints made in 2021, it would have been reasonable of the landlord and a better level of service to treat the resident’s complaints as one. Instead, it closed one complaint in August and opened another in September, despite both relating to the same issue. This meant the resident experienced additional delays in the complaint being escalated. Had it been considered as one, the complaint may have been escalated to stage two sooner. Therefore, the landlord missed an opportunity to put things right for the resident within a shorter timescale and, given the delays already experienced, this should have been an aim for the landlord.
36. Throughout the complaint process the resident experienced unnecessary and substantial delays and inadequate responses. While the landlord attempted to put things right by offering a total £75 compensation for poor complaint handling, this Service does not agree the amount was proportionate to the failings.
37. The Ombudsman’s approach to compensation is set out in our Remedies Guidance, published on our website. The Remedies Guidance suggests that awards of £100 to £600 may be appropriate for cases where there is a failing which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
38. In addition to the £75 offered, this Service has found a payment of £175 to be appropriate compensation for the complaint handling and inadequate responses.

Determination

39. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service has found severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to a communal heating system.
40. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service has found service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

41. The landlord is ordered to take legal advice regarding the freeholder and external managing agent. This is due to the length of time issues with the communal heating system had been ongoing. The advice should consider any enforcement action it can take under the headlease or the managing agent contract.
42. The landlord is to pay the resident compensation of £3,544, made up of:
    1. £2794 compensation based on rent, as set out in the calculation in paragraph 26.
    2. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by failing to handle their request for repairs appropriately.
    3. £75 it offered during its complaint process, if not already done so.
    4. An additional £175 for the service failings when handling the resident’s complaint.
43. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this report.
44. The landlord is to issue the resident with a further apology for its handling of repairs and the subsequent impact this had on the resident.

Recommendations

45. The landlord should run refresher training for all relevant staff on complaint handling and providing appropriate responses to complaints.