Southern Housing Group Limited (202001366)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001366

Southern Housing Group Limited

16 June 2021

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 refers to:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for the interruption of the gas supply to the property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s Subject Access Request.
3. The landlord’s communication and handling of the associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s handling of his Subject Access Request (SAR) are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
Under Paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaints-handling body. Complaints relating to data protection and freedom of information fall properly within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (www.ico.org.uk). Therefore, this investigation report will not consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s SAR request.

Background and summary of events

The resident is the leaseholder of the property which he sublets to his tenants. The property is a third floor, one-bedroom flat within a block of flats. The gas supply controls are situated outside the flat in the communal area of the building.
The resident called the landlord on 5 March 2020 to report that the contractors, who were completing Fire Risk Assessment (FRA) works within the building, had turned off the gas supply to his property on 2 March 2020. This left his tenants with no gas or hot water, and he was looking to be compensated for the one day his tenants were without gas so that he could pass the compensation to his tenants. The landlord’s records on this date refer to a separate complaint about a prior leak at the property and the resident’s compensation request related to this.
The resident called the landlord again on 18 March 2020 as he had not received a response. He expressed dissatisfaction that he had been given an incorrect complaint reference number which related to an old complaint, which meant that he had not received a response from the landlord.
The landlord’s records show that it attempted to call the resident on the same day to explain that as a private landlord, the resident would have to claim on his insurance for any perceived losses. The records stated that compensation was not appropriate in this case as his tenants should have checked their gas supply when their appliances did not work.
On 1 April 2020, the resident called the landlord and asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage two of the complaints process. The landlord advised that there was one complaint that looked like it had been closed as there were no grounds for a complaint to be raised. The resident also expressed dissatisfaction that he had not received a call on 18 March 2020 and said that the landlord was ‘lying’.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 April 2020 and explained the following:
1. It apologised that it had not met the resident’s expectations and that its communication had not been clear. It confirmed that the issues surrounding the loss of gas supply at the property on 2 March 2020 had been investigated and it had found that, although the contractors had been on-site that day, there was no evidence to confirm that this issue was caused by the contractors. It confirmed that the resident’s request for compensation had been refused.
2. It confirmed that the resident had called its customer services team on 12 March 2020 and a stage one complaint was raised on the account. It noted that this was raised incorrectly and was closed on 13 March 2020. The landlord apologised that it had not told the resident about this.
3. The landlord confirmed that it had offered to raise a stage one complaint during a call that day. The resident had declined this but asked for a letter so that he could approach this Service for investigation. The landlord confirmed that it had also begun the process of completing a Subject Access Request as the resident had asked.
On 29 June 2020, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord and asked it to investigate the resident’s concerns under its formal complaints procedure, if it had not already done so, and respond directly to the resident by 20 July 2020.
On 2 July 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and asked him to confirm the reason for his dissatisfaction and the outcome he would be seeking should a complaint be raised.
The resident responded on the same day and explained that he had tried raising a stage one complaint on multiple occasions; the first time this was logged incorrectly and when he followed up, the details were wrong. He said that he had asked to raise this again, but again this was not done. He had attempted to escalate the complaint to stage two but was told that a stage one complaint would need to be raised first. He was then told that he could not raise a complaint. He felt that he had been blocked from making a complaint and had raised this concern previously. He stated that he was originally asking for £30 compensation to pass to his tenants for the inconvenience of having their gas turned off but was now seeking an additional £30 for the inconvenience of needing to fix the issue himself, the landlord’s poor customer service and failure to follow its complaints policy.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 6 July 2020 and explained the following:
1. It had reviewed the notes on the resident’s account and found that there was no evidence to suggest that the issue had been caused by the contractors at the property on 2 March 2020. It agreed with the previous decision not to offer compensation for this issue.
2. It acknowledged that notes were added to the resident’s account which were inaccurate, and the resident was subsequently given incorrect information. It acknowledged its poor service and administrative errors and offered the resident £30 as a gesture of goodwill.
3. It apologised again for the inconvenience caused and confirmed that the resident could escalate the complaint if he remained dissatisfied.
The resident responded on the same day and confirmed that he wished to accept the offer of £30 compensation for the poor service he had received. He added that he wished to pursue the complaint about the gas being turned off at the property which he had been blocked from making since March 2020. He stated that no one else had any reason to be in the cupboard where the gas lever was situated, and it must have been the landlord’s contractors who caused the issue.
The landlord responded on 7 July 2020 and confirmed that its communication on 1 April 2020 stated that the resident had previously refused its offer to raise a stage one complaint. It explained that it was a coincidence that the gas was turned off when the contractors were working in the cupboard but there was no evidence to suggest that the contractors had turned the gas off. It confirmed that if the resident remained dissatisfied with the compensation offer only, then this could be escalated to a compensation review. If there were other elements of the complaint that the resident remained dissatisfied with, this could be escalated to stage two of its complaints procedure.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 July 2020 and said that he was unhappy with the assumption that it was a coincidence that the gas lever was switched off at the time of the contractors’ work in this cupboard. He confirmed that he was seeking £30 compensation to pass to his tenants for not having the means to make food and not having facilities to wash for one day before the issue was resolved. He asked for the complaint to be escalated.
Later that day, the landlord emailed the resident and explained that it would not be escalating his complaint to stage two of its complaints process. It explained that as the resident was only seeking compensation, this had been escalated to a compensation review. It confirmed that he should receive a response within ten working days.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 July 2020 and expressed dissatisfaction that after finally providing a stage one response, it was refusing to complete the remaining stages of its complaints process. Following this, the landlord took steps to explain its complaints process to the resident. The resident then confirmed that he was not happy with the lack of compensation offered and that he felt the landlord should apologise for its contractors’ actions.
The landlord emailed the resident on 8 July 2020 and explained that it could not say for certain that it was the contractors who had turned off the gas supply. It admitted that this was most likely, however, it did not compensate for the loss of cooking or hot water facilities until 48 hours had passed with no repair. It said that in this case the gas was switched on within that period and its compensation policy did not allow for any payment to be made in this case.
The landlord wrote to the resident and confirmed the outcome of its compensation review on 14 July 2020. It confirmed that the resident’s claim for compensation did not fall within its compensation framework, and it would not be offering compensation.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s request for compensation for the interruption of the gas supply to the property.

The landlord’s compensation policy states that the landlord will consider paying compensation when a resident loses the use of an amenity, such as a bedroom, heating or hot water. For loss of heating, the entitlement for compensation would begin two days after the issue is reported to the landlord and continue until the heating is restored. For loss of use of kitchen or bathroom facilities, the date from which the landlord would consider paying compensation would be two working days from the date it inspected the defect and would continue until works to rectify the issue are completed. These payments would not normally apply to leaseholders.
The resident has expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had said that it was a “coincidence” that the gas was switched off when the contractors were working. The landlord admitted that it was most likely the contractors who caused the issue, but there was no evidence to confirm this, and it would not look to compensate the resident for the loss of gas supply in line with its compensation framework. It should be noted that the role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the gas supply was turned off by the landlord’s contractors or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of this matter and request for compensation was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
There has been no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for compensation for the interruption of the gas supply to the property. In line with its compensation policy, the landlord would not be obliged to consider paying the resident compensation for the loss of gas at the property for the first 48hrs of the issue occurring. Since the issue was resolved within one day, the landlord’s decision not to pay compensation to the resident for the loss of amenity during this time was reasonable. Furthermore, this was not a repair issue, the tenants of the property could have looked at the cupboard where the gas controls were located and turned this back on at any stage during the time that it was off.
Whilst the loss of gas supply for one day may have been inconvenient for the resident’s tenants, the landlord’s decision not to pay compensation for any inconvenience caused by the gas being switched off was also reasonable as the resident was not directly affected, it affected his tenants. The landlord would not be expected to offer compensation to the resident’s tenants as the landlord has no contractual relationship with the resident’s tenants.

The landlord’s communication and handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a two-stage process for handling complaints. The landlord considers a complaint to be when a resident is not satisfied with its services, and something needs to be done to put it right. This would cover an action, lack of action or standard of service. Requests for compensation should always be dealt with as either service dissatisfaction or as part of a complaint.
The complaints policy states that when the landlord receives a complaint, it should inform the resident of the complaints process and log the complaint on its system. A stage one response should be issued within ten working days and if the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two of its process. If the request for escalation solely involves the amount of compensation offered, this should be considered as a compensation review rather than a stage two complaint.
In line with its complaints policy, the landlord would be expected to respond to the complaint about an action perceived to be taken by one of its employees or contractors. A landlord may in some cases refuse to address a complaint, however, it would be expected to provide the resident with a satisfactory reason why it would not respond. For example, if the complaint was raised by the leaseholder’s tenant, the landlord may refuse to look at the complaint as they have no contractual relationship with the tenant.
There is no evidence to suggest that the resident was given a satisfactory explanation as to why he could not raise a complaint on this matter or why he did not have “grounds” to do so. The landlord offered to raise a stage one complaint on 1 April 2020, although there seems to have been some misunderstanding as the resident believed that this would only be about the service he had received. The landlord has acknowledged that the resident was provided with incorrect information about whether a complaint could be raised sooner and offered £30 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its poor service and administrative errors. This amount is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for service failures and was accepted by the resident.
Following contact from this Service, the landlord responded to the resident appropriately and in line with its complaints policy. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider the resident’s escalation as a compensation review rather than a stage two complaint as the complaint was regarding the lack of compensation.
For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s offer of £30 compensation to be proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to its failings in communication.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for compensation for the interruption of the gas supply to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in respect of its communication and handling of the associated complaint prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

The landlord acted in line with its compensation policy when considering the resident’s request for compensation for the time his gas supply was turned off. Ultimately, the landlord was not obliged to consider offering compensation for the one day the gas was switched off in this case.
The landlord’s offer of £30 compensation was proportionate to the inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s service failures in relation to its communication and overall complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord considers carrying out staff training for its front-line staff and complaint handlers to ensure that accurate records are kept for all correspondence with its residents to prevent repeated service failures in future.