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

Southern Housing Group Limited (202122733)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122733

Southern Housing Group Limited

24 April 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. This complaint is regarding the landlord’s handling of:
  1. repairs to the communal door entry system;
  2. the resident’s request for a refund of this element of his service charge, and;
  3. the associated complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared-owner leaseholder with 30% equity in the property, acquired on 8 March 2017.
  2. The management of the block is performed by a managing agent on behalf of the freeholder. A service charge is levied as part of this arrangement, as per the lease.
  3. A leak from one of the landlord’s leasehold units was first reported in February 2018. This leak subsequently caused damage to the electronic door entry and intercom system of the resident’s block in October 2020 which caused both to stop working. Whilst this was out of use multiple residents in the block contacted the landlord for updates on the works, including the resident on 5 May 2021. In this contact the resident asked the landlord to provide him with a clear action plan for these repairs and the management of communal issues in the block. The first written correspondence the landlord provided to the block was on 8 July 2021 where the landlord informed residents it had reached an agreement in principle to complete the repairs.
  4. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 18 July 2021. He asked for compensation for the inconvenience caused by the communal door repairs still being outstanding. The resident was unhappy there was still no schedule for work to begin. The landlord acknowledged this on 19 July 2021 and requested an additional 10 working days to investigate the matter on 2 August 2021. It sent the resident its stage one complaint response on 16 August 2021 rejecting the complaint as the repair was complex and specialist contractors were needed. At this time, it was unable to provide a timeframe for work to begin. Works were completed on 25 August 2021.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on several occasions to escalate his complaint to stage two of the complaints process. The landlord initially advised the complaint was closed until 24 January 2022 when it escalated the complaint to stage two of the complaints process. The landlord requested an extension to answer the complaint on 17 February 2022 and provided its stage two response on 4 March 2022. The landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint providing £25 for the complaint delays, alongside £50 for the lack of communication throughout the repairs. The landlord also advised that any consideration of reducing the service charge would need to be raised with the managing agent who calculated it.
  6. The resident confirmed on 18 March 2022 that he wished for this Service to consider his complaint. He was unhappy with the delays in the complaint, the length of time it took to repair the communal door, and the way the landlord handled his request for a refund of part of his service charge. To resolve his complaint the resident told us he would like a 50% refund of his service charge for the 10 months the communal door was out of service and compensation of £300.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to the communal door entry system

  1. The responsibility for the door entry system repairs lay with the freeholder. The landlord agreed to pay for these repairs due to the leak coming from a flat where it holds the lease. This leak had previously been reported but no work was undertaken to fix this. This meant that although the landlord financed the repairs, it was not the party who performed them.
  2. This repair involved several contractors and went through various proposals and visitations to determine the best way to resolve the issue. It is therefore not unreasonable that this repair could have taken several months.
  3. The landlord’s behaviour in seeking legal advice, undertaking multiple visits, and obtaining multiple quotes for the work was appropriate. However, there is evidence that the landlord failed to begin this process in a timely manner and therefore caused unnecessary delays to the repairs. There was no work, communication or inspections undertaken by the landlord between 20 November 2020 and 18 March 2021. During this time, no progress was made on working towards a repair of the system with the freeholder. Throughout the repairs process there were also instances of the freeholder having to chase the landlord for responses to proposals. These were avoidable delays where progress could have been made to reduce disruption to the resident. This was a failing of the landlord to deal with the matter in a reasonable timeframe.
  4. The landlord also failed to keep the resident properly informed whilst this process was ongoing. Although the resident was able to access the property manually this still resulted in inconveniences whenever the resident was receiving deliveries or visitors. The landlord failed to provide the resident with adequate updates regarding the repairs. The first written update to the resident was on 8 July 2021, nine months after the issue had been highlighted. This was a failing of the landlord to treat the resident sympathetically and fairly.
  5. The landlord offered the resident £50 for its lack of communication throughout this process. Given its inaction resulted in further delays and inconvenience to the resident, the landlord should increase their offer to make a compensation payment of £200 for these combined failures. The landlord failed to take adequate steps to move forward with the repairs process and failed to keep the resident updated whilst the problem was ongoing. This payment is in line with the landlord’s discretionary compensation policy.
  6. The landlord should consider adopting a communication policy of regularly updating residents when large-scale or complex repairs are ongoing and likely to not be resolved within the usual prescribed timescales.

The resident’s request for a refund of this element of his service charge

  1. In the landlord’s complaint policy, it states that for a failure of a communal amenity, it may consider a compensation payment. This is determined by how much the resident pays for this as part of their service charge, along with the reason for the failure, and the reasonableness of the delay.
  2. However, in this instance the amount the resident is charged for this service is not determined by the landlord. This service is undertaken, and the cost is determined by the freeholder and its managing agent. Although the service charge is paid to the landlord, the actual cost of the upkeep of the communal amenities such as the door entry system is determined by the superior landlord.
  3. As the landlord is not the party which determines the cost of this service it would not be expected to refund the resident this aspect of their service charge. The landlord has, however, forwarded the resident’s request to the managing agent to consider refunding part of the service charge.
  4. Overall, the landlords’ actions were fair. In forwarding the resident’s request to the relevant party it has fulfilled its obligations to the resident.

The associated complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy says that once a complaint has been received the resident will be contacted within one working day. This policy also says that the landlord will attempt to respond within 10 working days. If the landlord cannot do this within 10 working days, it says it will let the resident know. It will then take no longer than another 10 working days to provide a response. If the resident is unhappy with this, they can then request an escalation to stage two. Once this has been accepted the landlord then has three available options, a compensation review, a complaint panel review, or a senior management review. For compensation reviews the landlord attempts to provide this within 10 working days and for the complaint panel review and senior management reviews the landlord aims to respond within 20 working days.
  2. When answering the resident’s stage one complaint the landlord followed its complaints process. However, there were significant delays in following its complaints process at stage two. In its internal communication, the landlord acknowledged that the resident wished to escalate this as early as 14 October 2021. However, it took the landlord until 24 January 2022 to escalate the resident’s complaint despite the resident contacting the landlord on at least seven occasions to request this. This is a failing on behalf of the landlord.
  3. The landlord has offered the resident £25 for this failing. However, the number of times the resident had to chase the landlord to escalate their complaint equates to multiple service failures. In line with the landlord’s compensation policy, and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, the landlord should increase this payment to £100.
  4. The tone and the content of the landlord’s emails were in line with its complaints policy and fair to the resident.
  5. The landlord should also consider reviewing its complaint policy to bring this in line with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code. The stage two complaints policy should consist of only one element, rather than multiple possible stages. This can serve to be confusing to residents.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal door entry system.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a refund of this element of his service charge.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated compliant.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. It is ordered that within four weeks of the date of this letter the landlord pay the resident a total of £300 inclusive of the £75 offered in its complaint response from 4 March 2022. This is comprised of:
    1. £200 for delaying unreasonably in dealing with the matter and failing to treat the resident in a sympathetic manner by not providing sufficient updates.
    2. £100 for its failures to apply the timescales outlined in its complaint handling policy.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider adopting communication standards as part of its repairs process. This is to ensure that residents are properly informed about the status of repairs, particularly in circumstances where repairs are complex and likely to take longer than usual.
  2. The landlord should review its complaint policy to bring this in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. Stage two of the complaints process should consist of a uniform single process.