Southern Housing Group Limited (202122289)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122289

Southern Housing Group Limited

12 November 2022

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of a flood in the property;
2. the associated request for compensation for damaged belongings, and;
3. the formal complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. A representative of the resident handled the complaint on her behalf.
On 25 September 2021, the resident reported that the boiler had flooded the property, and a contractor attended that day to make safe. A further attendance took place on 28 September 2021 to reinstate the heating and hot water.
That same day the resident’s representative emailed the landlord about the matter. They stated that a friend who had been at the property at the time of the flood had been able to stop it, and had then purchased a water vacuum to clear the water. The representative asked the landlord for reimbursement for this cost. The rep also explained that the resident had been advised on 25 September 2021 that a dehumidifier would be provided and that contractors would attend to reconnect the hot water and heating. However, no dehumidifier had been delivered, and contractors had only attended to reconnect the hot water and heating after several chasing calls from the representative. The representative explained that the resident was disabled and prone to falls, registered blind, and vulnerable, and asked when the dehumidifier would be delivered and installed. They also said that the living room and bedroom carpets had been damaged by the flood and so expected the landlord to address this. The representative said, ‘I am completely appalled by the way this has not been managed and I would appreciate a timely response and resolution.’
The resident was provided with a dehumidifier on 30 September 2021 to assist with drying out the property. The landlord attended on 1 October 2021 to assess the property and found no structural damage, but it did acknowledge damage to the resident’s personal belongings. It was also noted that the resident had no contents insurance.
On 28 October 2021 the landlord asked the representative for receipts for the water vacuum, and quotes for the carpets in the living room and bedroom so it could review these, although said it could not guarantee it would refund these costs. It noted that it had provided dehumidifiers on 28 September 2021 which were returned two days later, and it would provide a £25 compensation for this. The representative replied with a quote of £1000 for the carpets.
A stage one complaint was logged by the landlord on 2 November 2021. In the landlord’s subsequent stage one response on 1 December 2021, it noted that an annual boiler service had been due in 2020 but had not taken place. However, it advised there was no way to know whether a service would have prevented the flood. It apologised for a lack of communication regarding the repair initially, but said it was not liable for damage to personal belongings, stating, ‘…in regard to your request for compensation for the carpet and the hoover, we do encourage you to claim this under your contents insurance as the issue which ultimately caused damage, is no other individuals fault.’ It offered £50 as a goodwill gesture for the delay in providing and use of the dehumidifier.
In the complaint escalation request dated 5 December 2021, the representative stated:
1. The complaint had not been handled correctly as it had not been raised when she first expressed dissatisfaction on 28 September 2021.
2. She had advised the landlord at the time that the resident did not have contents insurance.
3. There had been delays in the landlord setting up the representative’s third-party authority.
4. £50 was insufficient compensation.
After initially misfiling the stage two request, and then contact from this Service, the landlord issued its stage two response on 16 May 2022. It apologised for delays in its complaint handling and delays authorising the representative as a third party. It offered £200 compensation for the failings it had identified, broken down as follows:
1. £25.00 – good will gesture towards the running of the dehumidifiers (as in stage one).
2. £25.00 – good will gesture for the delays in providing the dehumidifier (as in stage one).
3. £25.00 – service failure for not correctly recording complaint from first correspondence.
4. £50.00 – service failure for delay in raising the complaint to stage two.
5. £50.00 – service failure for delay in issuing the stage two response.
6. £25.00 – service failure for not setting up the third-party authority.
It again advised that the flood was not its fault, and the resident not having contents insurance did not mean that it was obligated to pay for damages to personal belongings.
The resident escalated her complaint to this Service on 16 June 2022, as she was dissatisfied that the landlord had not offered compensation for damage to her belongings, and advised that the landlord had repaired damage in other flats where flooding had occurred. The resident is seeking an increase in compensation to cover damages.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident has referenced how the landlord’s handling of the flood has impacted her mental health. While very sorry to hear of this, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate for it to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim, where the courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. This is an accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
The resident advised this Service in August 2022 that she is also experiencing issues with the intercom in the property and a separate boiler fault. The resident further contacted this Service on 2 November 2022, to advise that she had been experiencing issues with her hot water and heating since the flooding, and that the intercom repairs remain outstanding.
As these are separate issues to the complaint raised with the landlord and that was responded to via its complaint process, they are not matters that can be included in this investigation, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond in the first instance. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint about the boiler and the intercom. This is an accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
Finally, the resident has informed this Service of a separate case that she explains was escalated to this Service by another individual regarding a similar issue. It is important to note that each case is dealt with on an individual basis, and the Ombudsman cannot disclose details of another case or its outcomes.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s repair policy sets out that emergency repairs (which included burst pipes or other major plumbing repairs, and no heating or hot water between 31 October and 1 May) would be repaired, or if that was not possible, made safe, within 24 hours.
The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for insuring the structure of the building and communal areas. It states that any claim under its building’s insurance will be dealt with by the landlord’s insurers rather than the landlord. This would not cover a resident’s belongings and a resident is strongly advised to take out a policy to protect themself in the event of any loss or damage to the contents of their home.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that the resident is responsible for floor coverings.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that a stage one response will be sent within 10 working days, or if this is not possible a further 10 working days, and a stage two response will be sent within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it would make a compensation payment when there is evidence that there has been a service failure that it was responsible for, that has caused loss, damage or inconvenience. The policy did not cover claims covered by home contents insurance (and it was not at fault). It sets out amounts as follows:
1. In recognition of poor service, failure to follow policy/procedure or act in a reasonable manner a goodwill payment up to £25 could be made.
2. A payment of £25 could be made when a resident has incurred additional costs due to a service failure, for example the cost of using a dehumidifier.
3. A payment of £2 per day commencing two days after no heating being reported would be made during the period 1 May and 30 October, with the same amount for no hot water.

The landlord’s handling of the residents reports of a flood in the property

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
2. put things right, and;
3. learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right.’
The resident reported the flooding on 25 September 2021, and in line with its obligations, the landlord attended to address this. It was appropriate that the landlord treated this as an emergency repair and attended within 24 hours given the extent of the flood, and by doing so, it acted in accordance with its repairs policy. While the flood had been stopped at this point, a further attendance by a different contractor was required to reinstate heating and hot water. The records indicate that there was a of communication and some confusion about which contactor was needed to attend, which resulted in a delay and the representative having to chase up. This was a failing on the part of the landlord. Heating and hot water were reinstated on 28 September 2021, which meant that the resident was without heating and hot water for three days. Given her vulnerabilities, this would have been especially impactful for the resident. Whilst the landlord acknowledged ‘a lack of communication initially’, it did not fully explain this or offer redress within the compensation offered to the resident, and therefore cannot be said to have ‘put things right’.
While the compensation policy as set out above would provide for a total of £4 for loss of heating and hot water, in light of the resident’s specific circumstances and the communication failings, a total of £75 is more appropriate and in line with this Service’s own compensation guidance, which recommends amounts of £50 to £100 in cases where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, and it did not fully put it right. An order is made to this effect below.
The landlord has also acknowledged a five day delay in providing the resident with dehumidifiers and offered £25 compensation to reflect this. This amount was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. It also offered £25 for running costs, which, as the dehumidifier was only in use for two days, was a reasonable amount, and was again in line with its compensation policy. Therefore, the landlord has taken sufficient action to ‘put things right’ in relation to this aspect of the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the associated request for compensation for damaged belongings.

In cases where a resident is requesting compensation for damage to belongings, a landlord should initially consider whether its actions may have contributed to the damage (outside of any strict liability claim) before advising the resident to claim for any damage on their contents insurance. If a landlord accepts that it had been at fault, it may not be reasonable to ask the resident to make a claim via their own insurance, particularly as this might affect a future premium and may require payment of an excess. In these circumstances, the landlord should consider ‘putting things right’ (for example by paying compensation) and/or facilitate a claim via its own insurance policy for any damaged belongings. If the landlord disputes that it is at fault, as in this case, it should either refer the resident to their own contents insurance if they have any in place, or to its own insurers, who would then establish negligence or liability to pay.
In this case it can be seen that the landlord considered the claim that it was liable for the flood and subsequent damage due to the annual service not taking place in 2020, and did not consider that this could be shown. Records show that it found that the flood had occurred due to an overflow from the boiler with no other reason found, and it was not at fault for this. As the landlord had found that it was not at fault, it was reasonable for it to decline to pay compensation.
Further, the repairs policy states that the resident is responsible for floor coverings in the property, and the tenancy agreement states that residents are strongly advised to take out contents insurance to cover personal belongings. Therefore, the landlord was also acting in line with its policies when it advised the resident that it would not offer compensation for damages. Having said this, it was unreasonable to direct the resident to make a claim via her own contents insurance when it had already been made aware that she did not have any.
Similarly, the resident had requested that the landlord reimburse the £60 her friend had spent on a water hoover to assist with remedying the water-logged carpets following the flood. As the landlord had determined it had no liability for the situation, it was reasonable for it to decline to compensate the resident for this (although again should have falcated a claim via its own liability insurance).
Whilst this Service is not able to determine liability for an event or damages, the evidence shows that the landlord had acted appropriately by investigating the matter, and ultimately, the information it provided to the resident was in line with the tenancy agreement. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to signpost to its liability insurer so that the resident could pursue her claim. In light of this failing, an order is made below to remedy.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The stage one complaint was logged on 2 November 2021, although the landlord has acknowledged that it would have expected the complaint to be raised at an earlier stage following the representative expressing dissatisfaction. The landlord provided an acknowledgement of the complaint within one working day, and provided a holding response on 17 November 2021. The stage one response was provided on 1 December 2021. This was a total of 24 working days, and whilst this was four days outside of the appropriate timeframe as listed in the landlord’s complaints policy, it did not have an impact on the overall outcome of the complaint.
The resident requested to escalate the complaint on 5 December 2021, and the landlord has advised that the email was misfiled, and therefore it was not aware of the escalation until it received contact from this Service. It then contacted the representative on 23 February 2022 to ask the what outcomes the resident was seeking from the complaint. Following confirmation of this the landlord failed to escalate the complaint until 17 March 2022. There was no evidence provided as to why this delay occurred, but the landlord has apologised for this and attempted offered compensation. The stage two response was then sent on 16 May 2022, which the landlord acknowledged exceeded the appropriate timeframe as the response should have been sent on 6 April 2022.
The failings in the landlord’s complaint handling are evident, and would have caused frustration to the resident, and time and trouble in pursuing the matter. However, the landlord has taken action to ‘put things right’ by offering a total of £125 in compensation, and to ‘learn from outcomes’ by advising that it would be implementing a new complaint handling process to avoid similar delays in the future, and that it has provided ongoing training for its staff in relation to complaint handling. The compensation award of £125 was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance which recommends compensation of over £100 where there has been a failing, but no permanent impact on a resident.
Similarly, there were also delays in the landlord’s handling of the request for the representative to be listed as an authorised person. The landlord has acknowledged these delays and provided adequate redress in line with its compensation policy.
For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint handling failures satisfactorily.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in way the landlord handled the reports of a flood in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in way the landlord handled the claim for compensation for damaged belongings.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint handling satisfactorily.

Orders

With one month of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £75 for the delay and communication failings relating to the repair.
2. Write to the resident providing details on how she can make a claim for damage to her belongings via the landlord’s own liability insurance, and facilitate this in any way necessary.

Recommendations

The landlord is strongly recommended to pay the £200 previously offered to the resident in its stage two response, if it has not done so already.
It is recommended that the landlord consider providing further staff training in relation to its various contractors, and the remedial work they are able to complete to avoid similar delays in the future.