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

Southern Housing Group Limited (202014681)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014681

Southern Housing Group Limited

24 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:
    1. The resident’s concerns about the scope and standard of cyclical redecoration works.
    2. The resident’s concerns about the method of costing and reasonableness of costs of cyclical redecorating works.
    3. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of a third floor flat. In 2017 the landlord entered into an agreement with its contractor for, amongst other things, the internal decoration of the communal areas of the building. In August 2019 the landlord served notice of its intention to carry out the works and this included an estimate of the cost. The resident noted that in comparison to the last time the works had been carried out, the costs had increased more than threefold.
  2. In April 2020 the resident raised a complaint about the costs and the way the landlord had managed the tendering/consultation process. That complaint was considered by this Service in November 2020.
  3. There was a delay in the works taking place due to the pandemic but they have now gone ahead, and the resident has lodged a further complaint about the quality of the workmanship and about whether the full specification of works was undertaken/completed (and should therefore be paid for). The landlord responded that it had inspected and signed off the works and was satisfied with its contractor’s performance. It noted it considered the residents in the building had had value for money.
  4. As a side issue, the landlord accepted it had failed to respond to the resident’s email of 8 April 2021 which it noted was a service failure and it offered compensation of £25, which the resident accepted.
  5. The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response. He considers that a detailed specification of the works to be undertaken was not adhered to and inferior work was carried out but charged at the full rate. By way of remedy, the resident wants the landlord to provide him with a copy of the advice he understands it received from a consultant confirming this its approach was acceptable. He also wants to see a copy of the contractor’s final invoice to confirm what work it has charged for (and therefore claims to have completed).

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The Ombudsman’s previous investigation set out that this Service could not make determinations about the level of service charges or the amount of any increase as they were matters for the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and therefore fell outside the Ombudsman’s remit.
  2. The Scheme sets out at paragraph 42(m) that “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon”. Therefore, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the method of costing and reasonableness of costs of cyclical redecorating works is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because this issue has previously been considered.
  3. The Ombudsman’s view was that the standard of workmanship impacted upon the liability to pay for it and therefore this was also a matter for the First Tier Tribunal. This Service does not have the remit to inspect works; nor does it have the expertise to decide what should have been done to enable a comparison to be made with what work was carried out. Therefore, the role of this Service is to consider how the landlord handled the resident’s concerns and whether its actions were appropriate, followed stated policies and procedures and were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. The complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the scope and standard of cyclical redecoration works will be considered with these comments in mind.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the scope and standard of cyclical redecoration works

  1. On 18 December 2020 the resident emailed the landlord noting that ‘snagging work’ had been completed related to the decorative work but stating that he was not satisfied that all the work tendered for had been completed. He explained that wooden surfaces had been varnished rather than having wood stain applied. In addition, he did not think the metal balustrade had been prepared or painted which he understood was included in the costing. He considered a reduction in price should be made to reflect these facts.
  2. The landlord took nine weeks and a chasing email to respond to this enquiry. The time taken was not reasonable. In the landlord’s response it said it was within its authority to decide whether works were satisfactory, and it had reviewed them and signed them off as acceptable. It agreed that varnish had been used instead of wood stain and apologised for mistakenly disputing this previously. It explained that it had used the National Housing Federation’s (the Federation) Schedule of Rates to formulate the costs estimate and, whilst it did describe work to doors and windows as being by way of the application of wood stain, it was able to vary the work done where it deemed it appropriate. It explained this was because the Schedule of Rates provided unit costs for activities, “not a robust description of the work which must be undertaken”. Finally, the landlord asserted that a consultancy, working for the Federation, had confirmed its application of the index was acceptable.
  3. This raised further concerns from the resident. He emailed the landlord on 24 February 2021 and wanted to know when it was decided to change the specification given the tender process had set out the finishes to be applied and had included the wood stain. He asked whether a revised schedule of what work had been done was available and raised a complaint when he received no reply. The landlord’s failure to respond to this enquiry was not reasonable.
  4. In its stage one complaint response the landlord explained that the schedule of rates had a limited number of descriptions of work and not all activities were precisely covered. It therefore had to choose the nearest one but there was then some discretion as to what work was actually done. It maintained it had authority to determine what was required and to satisfy itself with the quality of what was done. It reiterated it had confirmation it was applying the schedule appropriately.
  5. The resident then questioned whether this meant residents would not be charged the full amount given works were not as extensive as the description used had suggested. In response, the landlord sought to reassure the resident. It restated that it had inspected the works and was satisfied with the quality and that they matched the level of charges passed to residents. Within that letter the landlord stated: –

“It is key to remember that the specification of work is the proposed scope for many of our buildings, the actual work carried out is then decided at the time of attending to complete the work. At this time, they then decide the best products and type of work to carry out”.

  1. This response was ambiguous. It could be read that it was the contractor who decided what work to do because it referred to their attendance to do the work followed by the words “they decide….”. The resident read it this way and on 13 September 2021 queried what conclusions the contractor had reached and whether there was a written record of them. He considered it was inappropriate to allow the contractor to make decisions about how much work to do for their money.
  2. The resident chased this on 27 September, 20 October, 27 October, 28 October, and 29 November 2021. In response the landlord stated on 27 October that the specification had already been supplied and on 15 December 2021 repeated that it had leeway to change the description of the work in the specification as previously asserted.
  3. The landlord did not recognise the confusion it had caused by its choice of wording in its letter. It had meant to convey that it would determine the precise work to be done for individual buildings; that its discretion in interpreting the schedule of rates allowed this; and that this did not amount to a rewriting of the specification. The resident was labouring under a misapprehension and the landlord failed to properly clarify the position. This, together with the various delays identified above, represented a failing in the service offered to the resident.
  4. The resident was put to time and trouble in chasing for updates and pursuing information. In addition, this caused him evident inconvenience and frustration. An order for financial compensation of £250 has been made below to reflect the impact on the resident. This amount is within the range of amounts that the Ombudsman can order when he has found evidence of considerable service failure or maladministration. This includes cases where there has been poor and delayed communication. This is in addition to the £25 previously offered for failing to respond to one of the resident’s emails (which this Service understands was credited to his service charge account.)
  5. In terms of whether the landlord was entitled to interpret the descriptions in the schedule of rates as it did, this is an issue that relates to the reasonableness of service charges and would better be determined by the First Tier Tribunal as set out above. By way of remedy the resident wishes to see any advice given to the landlord by the Federation’s consultant. In fact, it is apparent from his communications that he is sceptical that such advice exists. Once again, this relates to the issue of reasonableness of costs and cannot be considered further here.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. The landlord has a two stage complaints process. In that policy the landlord commits to acknowledging complaints within one working day and to offering a response within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can request the complaint be escalated to the next level, giving reasons. They should do this within 20 working days. A review must then take place with a response within a further 20 working days to complete the procedure.
  2. In this case there is some confusion as to when the complaint was made as a previous complaint had already been logged and proceeded through stage one relating to the level of costs. On 21 March 2021 this Service contacted the landlord and asked them to deal with the resident’s further complaint about the quality of the work done.
  3. According to the policy, the landlord should have contacted the resident within 24 hours and provided a response by 1 April 2021. The landlord’s records show it spoke with the resident on 30 March 2021 and provided a response on 8 April 2021. This delay was not appropriate.
  4. The landlord’s initial response gave the resident the choice of contacting the landlord to discuss the matter further, but it did not set out that there was a second stage to the process which he could invoke. In any event, the resident sent a detailed response to the landlord the same day. It was apparent from that reply that he remained dissatisfied and the landlord might reasonably have taken it as an escalation request. However, it failed to appreciate this and escalate the complaint until 22 July 2021 after receiving another prompt from this Service and following the resident emailing its Chief Executive. This represented a 15-week delay which was not appropriate.
  5. Once the matter was escalated, a stage two response was due by 18 August 2021. However, the resident did agree to an extension of that time limit to 1 September 2021 and the landlord met that revised deadline.
  6. The landlord’s failure to follow its policy, as set out above, represented a service failing on its behalf. It did not act appropriately when handling this complaint. The landlord might reasonably have been expected to identify this in its stage two complaint response and offer some compensation for the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the matter. It did not do so.
  7. An order for financial compensation has been made below for £250. This reflects the evident inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident along with his time and trouble pursuing matters including involving this Service to progress his complaint which in all took over six months to action.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its:
    1. Handling of the resident’s concerns about the scope and standard of cyclical redecoration works.
    2. Handling of the resident’s complaint.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the method of costing and reasonableness of costs of cyclical redecorating works has already been considered by this Service and is now out of jurisdiction.

Orders

  1. The landlord should pay the resident total compensation of £500 made up as follows:
    1. £250 for the impact of the failings identified in this report relating to the resident’s concerns about the scope and standard of cyclical redecoration works; and
    2. £250 for the impact of its complaint handling failures.
  2. The landlord should confirm to this Service that it has complied with the Order within four weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

  1. Given the resident is entitled to have information relating to the contractor’s costs, it is recommended that the landlord provides him with a copy of the invoice for the internal decorative works, if it has not done so already.