Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Southern Housing Group Limited (202207489)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207489

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 at the property.
  2. The Ombudsman will also consider the landlord’s:
    1. Record keeping.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, living in a two-bedroom mid-terraced house. The resident, via his trustee, succeeded to the tenancy on 12 April 2019, following the previous resident’s death on 17 February 2019. The resident was a minor at the time. His trustee has acted on his behalf and is referred to as ‘the resident’ in his complaint.
  2. In December 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that there had been a leak in the bathroom. The landlord attended the property on 8 December 2021, which resulted in the isolation of all the electrical light fittings for safety reasons. The lights were reinstated on 21 December 2021 except for the kitchen light which had been damaged by the leak. The landlord’s contractor who attended said the kitchen light would be replaced with one different from the damaged one, however the resident wanted a like-for-like replacement, which she was advised to contact the landlord to authorise.
  3. The resident reported two repairs to the landlord. The first was the kitchen light replacement. The second one was for loft repairs. The exact dates, she reported these are unknown. There is some internal correspondence between the landlord and its contractors, which indicates that in January 2022, the landlord’s contractor made it aware of condensation in the resident’s loft. The resident stated in her stage one response that she reported both repairs two months prior to her stage one complaint in April 2022, which is around February 2022.
  4. On 4 April 2022, the resident made her stage one complaint to the landlord. She had reported two repairs and despite chasing progress, the landlord and its contractors had done nothing about the repairs. The first repair was for the kitchen light replacement, like for like, and the second was for mould in the loft, originally reported over a year ago. The mould had destroyed large amounts of belongings, which she had had to replace. She had also put a temporary light in the kitchen, and the landlord was responsible for the costs she had incurred.
  5. On 7 April 2022, the landlord, in its stage one response, asked the resident if she wanted the landlord to fix an appointment to reinstate the strip light in her kitchen. Regarding the mould in the loft, it stated that its contractors will need to quote the necessary works to be carried out. After further correspondence, the landlord informed the resident that it would not replace the kitchen light as she had installed her own light fixture, and referred her to her tenancy agreement.
  6. On 8 June 2022, the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage two as repairs remained outstanding. On 13 June 2022 and 11 July 2022, she chased the progress of the complaint with the landlord. On 12 July 2022, she contacted the Ombudsman and advised that the landlord was yet to provide a stage two response to her complaint and that there were outstanding repairs. These were for damage to the kitchen ceiling where the light had been fitted; the removal of mould from the loft; the replacement of loft insulation; and the installation of air vents in the loft.
  7. On 21 July 2022, and following this Service’s intervention, the landlord gave its stage two response, upholding the resident’s complaint. It apologised and awarded her a total of £250 which comprised £75 for repair delays; £100 for damage to stored items in the loft; £25 for complaint handling delay; and £50 goodwill gesture.
  8. On 22 September 2022, the resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman stating that the repairs remained outstanding. She detailed that there should be vents and new insulation in the loft, due to she fears there may still be mould within; the kitchen light area should be finished; there should be further compensation for further time and stress; and the walls in the property should be tested for mould.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints is set out by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme says we will not investigate complaints that, in our opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaint procedure. In her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident stated that she wants the landlord to test the property walls for mould, but there is no evidence she raised this issue with or made a formal complaint about it to the landlord. As the landlord has not yet had the opportunity to respond to this issue, the matter is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme.

The landlord’s handling of repairs at the property

  1. It is noted that the landlord’s responsive repair policy states it will carry out emergency repairs within 24 hours of being reported and routine repairs as quickly as possible.
  2. It is also noted that the repair records provided for this investigation by the landlord were limited.
  3. The evidence shows that the resident initially requested a like-for-like replacement of kitchen lighting. The landlord’s position that it would not do this was reasonable, as it is not obligated to replace any light fitting a tenant has fitted, and an insurance procedure is the most appropriate procedure for damage to a resident’s fittings to be rectified.  It is also ultimately up to the landlord and its contractor’s discretion as to the nature of any repairs it does that are in its responsibility, as long as these provide functionality that is equivalent to what was previously there.
  4. The evidence shows that the resident first made reference to a repair to the ceiling where the replacement kitchen light was fitted in July 2022 correspondence to the Ombudsman. This was linked to the previous request for the kitchen to be replaced light like-for-like following damage by a leak in December 2021. While the landlord’s contractor stated it inspected the kitchen ceiling in May 2022, it is not clear if this related to a light replacement or ceiling repair, and it is not evident the repair to the ceiling was raised prior to the resident mentioning it in the correspondence to this Service in July 2022. As such, the landlord seems resolution focused to take action to progress this between July and November 2022. While the four months it took to complete the repair was quite long, it is not evident that this had any wider significant impact.
  5. The evidence suggests that the landlord became aware of mould and condensation in the loft in January 2022 or February 2022, however there is no indication of actions for this until April 2022, when the resident made her stage one complaint. The landlord’s contractor has stated that it visited the property on 13 May 2022 and 29 July 2022 to inspect the loft. It was agreed there was condensation in the loft, and vents were required. On 3 and 4 August 2022, the contractor provided a quote to the landlord for the installation of roof vents. The vents were installed on 19 November 2022, which was around 10 months after the reports of condensation in the loft around January 2022, and 7 months after the formal complaint. This was too long. Further, the landlord does not satisfactorily demonstrate that installation of vents fully addressed mould issues in the loft, for which the resident reported removal of mould itself was needed. The landlord’s contractors attended in March 2023 to complete works, and the resident did not grant access as she wanted a surveyor to attend, however this was around 14 months after the reports of condensation in the loft around January 2022, and 11 months after the formal complaint. This was also too long.
  6. The evidence shows that the resident first made reference to replacement of loft insulation in July 2022 correspondence to the Ombudsman. There is no specific evidence that the landlord confirmed that replacement of the insulation was necessary. As such, the landlord seems resolution focused to confirm this was an outstanding repair in its stage 2 response. The landlord’s contractors attended in March 2023 to complete works, and the resident did not grant access as she wanted a surveyor to attend, however this was around 8 months after the stage 2 response. While it is not evident that this has had any wider significant impact, the delay in action being taken for this was too long.
  7. The resident has stated she had to chase the progress of her repairs, including making six phone calls to the landlord, before making her stage 1 complaint. The landlord has not disputed this fact. The communication between the landlord and the resident improved after her stage 1 response, however this seemed to dip again after its contractors carried out an inspection of the property on 13 May 2022. The resident was expecting repair work to commence after inspection and chased this with the landlord. However, it did not advise the resident as to when repair work would begin and gave no reasons for the delay. This would have caused the resident some distress and inconvenience and caused her to request escalation of her complaint to stage two in June 2022.
  8. There was some poor communication between the landlord and its contractors, and they did not always appear to be working in sync to resolve the resident’s repairs. For example, during its investigation into the resident’s stage 2 complaint the landlord requested an update about the resident’s outstanding repairs from its contractor. However, the contractor sent the update after the landlord had issued its stage 2 response to the resident.
  9. The landlord has acknowledged and apologised for its delayed responses. However, it seems to have put most of the blame for the repair delays and poor communication on its contractors. A landlord is responsible for the actions and omissions of its contractors. It did not acknowledge its own failings in this instance. It could have been more proactive in working with the contractors to ensure the repairs were completed in a timely manner.
  10. It was positive that the landlord offered an apology and compensation to the resident for repair delays and poor communication. However, in the Ombudsman’s view its offer of £75 for its repair delay does not adequately reflect the length of time it took to complete repairs and some repairs such as mould in the loft not being fully addressed for a lengthy period. This leads this Service to make a finding of service failure for the landlord’s handling of repairs at the property.

The landlord’s record keeping

  1. The landlord’s repair records in this case were limited. There were no records of exact dates on which the resident requested repairs; the landlord did not provide any repair records for periods prior to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in April 2022; and its repair record after this date are limited.
  2. There were inadequate repair notes showing the landlord’s findings from the mould and damp inspections of the loft on 13 May 2022 and 29 July 2022 when the landlord’s surveyor attended. Given the health and safety implications, this type of information should be comprehensive and readily available to the landlord.
  3. There was also some inconsistency about the landlord’s contractor’s non-attendance at the resident’s property on 18 April 2022 and 25 April 2022. On 19 April and 25 April 2022, the resident emailed the landlord saying its contractors had not attended her property. The landlord responded that its contractors may not have attended her property for inspections because 18 April 2022 was a bank holiday, and that it could not attend on 25 April 2022 as it needed to attend with another contractor. The contractor’s undated letter contradicts this and states it tried to gain access to the property on both dates.
  4. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, and investigations. Good record-keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken, and to enable both a landlord and the Ombudsman to carry out an effective investigation. The landlord’s failure to keep adequate records is likely to have impacted the delays seen in the case and will have contributed to the resident’s distress and inconvenience. This leads this Service to make a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s record-keeping.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s responses do not demonstrate that it took the opportunity to fully resolve matters in accordance with its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, including to put things right and learn from outcomes.
  2. The landlord’s complaint policy states that a stage two complaint will be acknowledged within five days of receipt and a response given within 20 working days. On 8 June 2022, the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage two. On 13 June 2022 and 11 July 2022, the resident chased progress of her complaint. However, the landlord did not acknowledge the complaint and issued its response on 21 July 2022, some 32 working days later. This Service had to intervene before it gave its final response. This was not in line with the complaints policy and no reasons were given for the delay.
  3. The landlord failed to acknowledge that its record-keeping was an issue in this case. It did not acknowledge its own failings but tended to pass most of the blame for the repair delays and poor communication on to its contractors. It was the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that the repairs were carried out within a reasonable time. It was not appropriate that the landlord’s responses appeared to absolve itself of responsibility for the delays and poor communication.
  4. The landlord’s final response was unsatisfactorily vague. It did not discuss each repair in detail or acknowledge how long it believed the delays were. It stated that it had held consultations to agree an action plan to get the loft repairs completed, but does not evidence this. It provided no indication as to when the resident could expect repairs to be completed. It is not evident that repairs commitments in the response were met in a timely manner. The landlord should be able to demonstrate that it carried out a detailed investigation and effectively monitored matters to ensure acknowledged outstanding repairs were completed.
  5. In the Ombudsman’s view therefore, while it was positive that the landlord offered compensation and an apology for complaint delays, this did not adequately reflect the issues with the complaint handling and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This leads this Service to make a finding of service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:
    1. There was service failure in respect to the landlord’s handling of the repairs at the property.
    2. There was maladministration in respect to the landlord’s record-keeping.
    3. There was service failure in respect to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord to, in addition to the £250 it offered, pay the resident £400 for the issues identified. This comprises:
    1. £125 for the issues identified with its repairs handling.
    2. £200 for the issues identified with its record-keeping.
    3. £75 for the issues identified its complaint-handling.
  2. The landlord to, if it has not already, liaise with the resident to inspect the mould and damp and loft insulation in the loft. It should then write to the resident and provide a position and explanation about any action it is or is not taking for these, and in what timeframe any works will be completed if applicable.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to review its complaint handling to ensure it carries out effective investigations; responds in a timely manner; and ensures any commitments are monitored and met.
  2. The landlord to review how it coordinates and monitors repairs to ensure these are completed in a timely manner.
  3. The landlord to review its record-keeping for repairs, including for repairs reports; surveyor and contractor inspections; and completion of works; to ensure it has robust record-keeping arrangements in place which allows it to provide clear audit trails of all actions taken.