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

Southern Housing Group Limited (202118678)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118678

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 the resident’s:
    1. reports of a lack of hot water supply and bathroom repairs;
    2. reports of damp and mould;
    3. associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a flat owned by the landlord. The resident and her family moved in to the flat in February 2020. There are some health conditions among members of the resident’s household, including asthma and eczema. The landlord has not got these conditions on record.
  2. On 20 July 2020, the landlord received a report from the resident about a loss of hot water supply. The landlord attended the resident’s home on 22 July 2020. There are no details of the works completed. The resident contacted the landlord again on 31 July 2020 regarding the condition of the bathroom. The landlord attended on 11 August 2020 and follow-on works were booked. The resident contacted the landlord on 17 September 2020 stating her bath had sunk. The repair works were then carried out the following day.
  3. On 28 October 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to advise of a damp and mould problem in her daughters’ bedroom.
  4. On 9 March 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that the hot water tap in the bathroom was not working and the bath panel was broken. The landlord attended the property on 22 March 2021 and replaced the damaged bath panel. It inspected the bedroom window and found damp and condensation, but no evidence of a leak. A closed vent was opened. A follow-up appointment was requested to investigate the window.
  5. On 14 October 2021, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. She said she had not had sufficient hot water since moving in and throughout a pandemic. She said she had noticed many faults and reported them immediately. She indicated the landlord had treated her neglectfully and without care and consideration. She detailed the impact of the delays, lack of communication from the landlord and the time spent trying to engage with the landlord.
  6. On 28 October 2021, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. It acknowledged the clear delays in follow-on works being completed. It stated that the resident now had hot water and most other repairs had also been completed. It confirmed a further appointment was scheduled for 9 November 2021, where the damp issues would be inspected and shelves were to be fitted above the boiler. In recognition of its service failure, it offered £150 as financial compensation and apologised for the resident’s “disappointing experience”.
  7. An email dated 11 November 2021 from the resident to the landlord forwards a previous email that the resident stated is being sent for the fifth time. She stated she was unhappy with the stage one response and feels it did not contain much of the information about correspondence between the two parties over the 18 months prior. She stated that an issue regarding a contractor advising her to remove a cover on the boiler to press a button next to damaged wires had not been addressed. She stated the landlord was not responding to her calls and emails. She described the mould and damp problem in her daughters’ bedroom and how one daughter had been prescribed stronger asthma medication.
  8. A further email from the resident dated 26 November 2021 gave further detail about the complaint issues. She explained that she had no hot water from any taps since February 2021 and the necessary repairs had only been completed after one year and eight months. She requested a stage two complaint investigation, which was acknowledged by the landlord the same day.
  9. On 10 December 2021, the landlord issued its stage two complaint response. It acknowledged that its contractor should not have advised the resident to go near live wires to reinstate the hot water cylinder. It acknowledged the delays to works to the property. It stated a new thermal cylinder had been installed and recommended that the boost setting be used to generate more hot water supply if needed. It confirmed the insulated plasterboard around the bedroom window and the bath panel had been replaced. Its final offer of £150 compensation was identical to its stage one offer and comprised of:
    1. £50 for delays to repairing the booster switch;
    2. £50 for delays to the bathroom work;
    3. £25 for lack of communication;
    4. £25 as a goodwill gesture.
  10. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman because she remained unhappy with the lack of communication, the length of time it took for the issues to be resolved and the landlord’s poor complaint responses.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has described the significant effect that the lack of hot water and the presence of damp and mould has had on her family and their health conditions. The Ombudsman is acutely aware of the risk these issues can have, especially for those with health conditions that leave them particularly vulnerable. However, it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether there is a direct link between the actions or inaction of the landlord and the effect on the resident’s and her family’s health. Matters of liability for personal injury are better suited to a court or liability insurer to determine. However, consideration has been given in our investigation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s health concerns and to any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of errors by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a lack of hot water supply and bathrooms repairs

  1. The assured tenancy agreement sets out the rights and obligations of the resident and the landlord. The landlord has an obligation to respond urgently to reports of a loss of hot water supply, whilst less urgent repairs should be responded to within a ‘reasonable’ timeframe. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that repairs treated as emergencies are to be repaired or made safe within 24 hours. No heating or hot water between 31 October and 1 May was deemed to be an emergency, with hot water loss in the summer months only being one if the landlord was to “decide this is a priority due to the vulnerability of the resident”. Repairs not deemed to be urgent will be completed “as quickly as possible.” In line with industry best practice, the Ombudsman would expect routine repairs to be completed within one month, although some repairs may take longer if parts need to be ordered or specialist equipment needs to be used etc.
  2. This Service has not seen evidence of any assessment done by the landlord to establish whether the resident’s reports of hot water loss outside of the winter months required an urgent response due to any household medical conditions. This was a failing by the landlord to act in line with its policy, as set out above.
  3. In order to fairly assess the landlord’s response to a given issue, it is important for this Service to understand the extent of the issue the landlord was responding to. The extent of the hot water supply issues experienced by the resident is not clear due to conflicting information provided by the landlord and resident.
  4. The resident has stated that she did not have hot water for over a year, from when she first moved in in February 2020 to when her water tank was replaced in October 2021. An email to the landlord dated 26 October 2020 stated there was hot water loss for almost a week during a pandemic. The resident has said that she first reported hot water loss to the landlord in an email dated 16 April 2020. The landlord has provided evidence of the first report it received on 20 July 2020. It has provided its repair logs, showing that it only received two reports of lack of hot water, with the second being on 9 March 2021. Therefore, the landlord’s understanding is that the hot water loss was intermittent. This Service has not seen the email dated 16 April 2020 containing the resident’s first report of a loss of hot water. While the Ombudsman does doubt the resident’s word, as an impartial service, we can only make assessments based on the evidence we have seen.
  5. The earliest evidence of a report of loss of hot water is 20 July 2020, where the booster switch was said to not be working. The landlord attended two days later. There is no detail available about what works were completed, however there are no further records on the repairs log that suggest the issue was ongoing. Communication from the resident to the landlord in the following weeks was about the bathroom repairs. On 9 March 2021, the landlord logged another report of partial hot water loss, due to the hot water tap in the bathroom not working. A job was raised and notes requested that the booster switch be replaced, immersion heater wiring checked and that a new water tank be fitted. The water tank had already been ordered and was in storage at one of the landlord’s offices. It is not clear when the new tank had been ordered from the information provided.
  6. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 22 March 2021, 4 May 2021 and 16 August 2021 to primarily deal with other issues. The hot water basin was replaced in May, but the new tank, immersion heater wiring repairs and booster switch replacement were not done until 11 October 2021. The reasons for this delay are not clear considering the issues had been identified seven months previously. Landlord notes on 16 August 2021 state that the resident has “limited hot water”. Even if the resident’s hot water issues were partial and/or intermittent, this was an unacceptable delay. Internal landlord notes gives the Covid-19 pandemic and its lockdowns as reasons for delay. This Service accepts that the pandemic made normal landlord operations very difficult. However, the landlord still had a legal obligation to fulfil its essential functions and ensure the safe, habitable environment of its residents. If there were specific issues affecting the landlord’s ability to carry out essential repairs during the pandemic, such as staff absence or lack of availability of parts then the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to inform the resident of the specific reasons for the delay and keep them updated until the repairs could be completed.
  7. The resident reported bathroom repairs on 31 July 2020. The landlord attended on 11 August 2020 and follow-up works were raised to renew the floor underneath the bath. The resident contacted the landlord again on 17 September 2020 to say that the bath had completely sunk while her daughter was in it. Works were completed the following day and feedback appeared to indicate the resident was satisfied with the repair. On 22 March 2021, the damaged bath panel was replaced. The landlord acknowledged in its complaint response that some bathroom follow-up works had been delayed. It is clear to this Service that there were inexplicable delays and the landlord was not working within its repairs policy. It is not clear if the initial follow-on works would have been completed when they were, had the resident not contacted the landlord again on the 17 September 2020.
  8. Part of the resident’s complaint was about advice given to her by the landlord regarding exposing faulty or damaged wires to press a button to restore hot water supply. The landlord stated in its stage two complaint response that this advice had been given in error. An internal email at the landlord on 4 April 2022 indicated that the advice to press the button under the cover was necessary as a means to boost the supply of hot water and that the resident was not using it due to expense. As the repairs have been completed, there should no longer be faulty or damaged wiring next to any necessary function of the system.
  9. The Ombudsman will order the landlord to pay compensation to the resident for the delays with the repairs to the hot water system based on the delay. This will be calculated based on an initial £10 payment plus £2 a day from two days after the second report was made on 9 March 2021. The total compensation will be £444.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould around the windows of the property

  1. The resident first reported the presence of mould in her home on 26 October 2020.On 22 March 2021, the landlord attended the resident’s home and inspected the window. It found extensive condensation and damp but no evidence of a leak. It opened a vent that was closed and requested a follow-up investigation. The landlord did not re-attend the property for this purpose until 16 August 2021, where it removed the trims around the window as per instructions from 22 March 2021.This timeline represents significant delays in responding to the issues reported, even taking into account difficulties presented by the Covid-19 pandemic. The landlord had a duty to respond to these reports with a lot more urgency.
  2. Damp and mould is a safety critical issue particularly when it is found in the bedroom of a child with a respiratory condition. The Ombudsman will order the landlord to pay £800 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the delays to these repairs and the communication failures. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests an award of this level where there was maladministration by the landlord which had a significant impact on the resident.
  3. The resident has indicated to this Service that these issues persist and believes the cause of the damp is coming from outside the property, with the outside walls having become waterlogged. The landlord will need to work with the resident to respond to this and resolve the damp and mould as a matter of urgency.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1.  The Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling is set out in our Complaint Handling Code (published on our website) This Service can see that the landlord acknowledged and responded to the complaint at each stage in a timely manner, in line with the complaint handling code. However, the resident has expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of the landlord’s responses to her complaint. She felt the responses contained inaccuracies and did not make reference to crucial information central to the issues. She has referred to having to chase the outstanding repairs by phone and email. In addition to having to forward emails multiple times, she was receiving little response to her calls or emails.
  2. There is reason to believe that the file submitted by the landlord for this Service’s investigation does not provide a full account of all communications with the resident. There is limited detail and significant timeline gaps, and this has led to complaint investigations that the resident feels do not adequately address the issues she has raised. In the stage one complaint response, the landlord commented that it was unable to find notes related to a job it was referencing. Whilst the stage one response accepted responsibility for the delays and apologised, the stage two response is notably light on detail. The investigation and findings section contains eight sentences in total and does not offer any apology. This was a response to a complaint about multiple issues subject to lengthy delays. This Service accepts this lack of detail reasonably has given rise to the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s record keeping and overall handling of her complaint.
  3. Concerns about record keeping are increased as a result of this Service finding conflicting information in the evidence provided by the landlord for this investigation. The resident’s property is described separately as both a two bedroom flat and a four bedroom flat. An internal email dated 7 December 2021 shows the landlord stating the resident’s property has electric storage heaters, with hot water generated by a cylinder and immersion heater. Another email dated 4 April 2022 shows the landlord describing that the resident’s property is “gas only”, and how this would result in higher gas bills. Internal landlord notes mention that there has been poor communication with the resident and that records of calls and emails do not exist.
  4. The compensation offered by the landlord in its final complaint response is inadequate considering the length of the delays suffered by the resident and the communication failures. The landlord’s compensation policy suggests a daily rate for delays to repairs or loss of hot water, up to a maximum of £50. While the Ombudsman has regard for the landlord’s compensation framework, it is not bound by it and will consider what is fair remedy in the circumstances.
  5. The Ombudsman will order the landlord to pay the resident £250 for its complaint handing failures. Guidance on remedies suggests that awards of £250 may appropriately remedy situations where there is maladministration but unlikely to be a long-term impact on the resident. Criteria for this level of compensation includes a failure of the landlord to meaningfully engage with the substance of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a lack of hot water supply and bathroom repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould issues.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord should carry out the below orders within four weeks of the date of this determination.
  2. The landlord should issue an apology to the resident for its failures in handling her repair issues and her complaint. It should seek to offer reassurance to the resident about steps it has taken that will ensure she does not have to be concerned about having a similar experience in the future, particularly around communication issues.
  3. The landlord should pay the resident financial compensation of £1494, comprised of:
    1. £444 for the delays in restoring fully working hot water supply. This has been calculated as £10 plus £2 a day for the time period covering from 11 March 2021 and 14 October 2021;
    2. £800 in recognition of severe distress and inconvenience caused by delays to repairs and the landlord’s communication failures;
    3. £250 for the significant failure of the landlord to meaningfully engage with the substance of the complaint and failing to address all relevant aspects.

These amounts are inclusive of the landlord’s previous offer of compensation which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid.

  1. The landlord should arrange to attend the resident’s home and work with her to identify any outstanding repairs issues in the bathroom and with regards to the damp and mould. If required, an action plan should then be created, with clear timescales for the remedy of these issues. This action plan should be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman.
  2. Within eight weeks, the landlord should carry out a review of its record-keeping procedures. It should ensure that it has robust record keeping capabilities in place that allow clear audit trails of all actions taken, particularly with regards to resident communication and repairs.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider reviewing how it records any assessments made of resident vulnerability when a repair request is made that requires such an assessment, in line with its policies.
  2. The landlord should consider reviewing its performance against its void standards, to reduce the likelihood of a new resident experiencing significant issues so soon after the start of a tenancy.