The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Southern Housing Group Limited (202106187)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106187

Southern Housing Group Limited

17 November 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to repairs in the resident’s property, in particular who is responsible for progressing an insurance claim. 

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident has been a leaseholder of a property where the freehold is owned by the landlord, since 1996. There is a communal hallway and doors, and an upstairs neighbour has a roof terrace above the resident’s flat.

The lease

  1. The standard condition for leases for flats in section 5.2, says that the landlord will make the claim against the insurers in the event of any part of the building being damaged by fire or other risks covered by such insurance.

The repairs policy

  1. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Procedure, section 4, covers leaseholders in flats and says the landlord is responsible for repairs to internal structural elements of the building, the external structure and repairs and redecoration to communal areas. Section 5 says that flat owners are normally responsible for repairs and maintenance to the inside of their home only, excluding structural items. 
  2. The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy, section 10 says the landlord is responsible for insuring the structure of the building and communal areas and that the landlord’s building insurance will not cover resident’s belongings in the event of damage. 

The complaints policy

  1. The landlord’s Complaints Policy effective 2017 states that complaints will be responded to in ten working days at stage one, and stage two complaints will be reviewed by a complaint review panel to include the resident.
  2. The Complaints Policy effective December 2021 says that complaints will be responded to in ten working days at stage one, and stage two complaints will either be reviewed by a panel or a senior manager. A senior manager review will be responded to in 20 working days.

Summary of events

  1. In October and December 2020, the landlord’s repair log shows that repairs were logged in respect of cracks around a door frame on the outside only, a leak from the roof terrace and a communal door, and a request to replace a door closer. 
  2. On 6 January 2021, the log shows that the resident made a complaint regarding multiple issues. The landlord’s notes show that an investigation found no service failures as all operative visits were required, and that an order for the roof leak was raised on 18 December 2020 but the contractor had been unable to contact the resident.
  3.  A stage one complaint response was issued on 20 January 2021. It explained that the resident stated that the operative visiting on 15 December 2020 seemed unaware of what was required. He only sanded the wall, did notpaint it, took four visits and multiple emails to get a minor job done. The resident was still waiting for someone to fit the door closer and repair minor damage by the operative who attended on 10 December 2020.
  4. The resident reported the leak coming into her flat from the roof terrace several months ago and was still waiting for a response about this and the leak on her ceiling was getting worse. The resident stated that the required solution was to investigate why she had such difficulties communicating and getting works done by contractor, why she had not had a response about the leak and to arrange for the door closer to be fitted and the minor damage repaired.
  5. The response explained the reasons for the multiple visits and apologised if this had not been communicated properly. The door closure had been fitted but the contractor was unable to source the gold-coloured closure. The landlord understood that the minor repair was now completed. The roof leak issue was raised on 18 December 2020 and the contractor had tried to reach the resident. The landlord asked the resident to provide the best number for the contractor to call her.
  6. The landlord offered £25 compensation for the lack of communication in respect of the work being carried out, in full and final settlement of the complaint.
  7. The resident replied on 15 February 2021 and said that she was unhappy with the outcome of the complaint investigation and had sent an email on 20 January 2021 and had no reply. There had been various visits by contractors, who had called with the wrong door closer (which was still not working), had not turned up, or arrived unannounced, or too early. The resident felt the contractor who came to sand and paint was wasting time which the landlord should not be paying for.
  8. The desired outcome was to fit a proper door closer which worked and was in brass colour to match the rest. An acknowledgment on 5 March 2021 apologised for the delay in the response.
  9. A response to the stage two complaint was issued on 9 April 2021: 
  1. The resident was unhappy as a minor repair to a crack to an internal communal corridor wall had required five separate appointments by the contractor. She had therefore raised concerns about the use of the contractors and felt communication was poor and asked what the impact of this inefficient work would be on her service charges.
  2. The door closure was not to the equivalent standard of the original and did not function correctly.
  3. The resident had also reported two incidents of water ingress, into her lounge and bedroom. They appeared to be from the outside terraces of neighbouring properties. The first had been resolved but the one into the bedroom was outstanding and required investigation. 
  4. To resolve the complaint the resident wanted a comparable door closer fitted and for this work to be at no extra cost to her or resident’s generally, as well as a review of the contractors five appointments so that only reasonable costs were applied for the work undertaken.
  5. She also required an investigation into the water ingress and that any physical investigation to be via the inside of the property as previously external decoration was damaged, as well as confirmation of who was responsible for the remedial works to her lounge and who will be responsible for any insurance excess to the lounge.
  6. The landlord upheld the complaint. The door closure would not normally have been repaired by the contractor, as the resident is a leaseholder (although the landlord said the lease had not been checked, but it awaited advice, whilst asking that the door closure be replaced).
  7. The landlord had asked the contractor to review the invoices and ensure that the landlord or leaseholders were not charged beyond what was reasonable for the work.
  8. The neighbouring properties would be inspected in respect of the water ingress.
  9. Water damage to the resident’s lounge would be the resident’s responsibility as per her lease. As this appeared to be due to a building defect, a claim should be made by the resident to the building insurers.
  10. The issue of whether an excess payment would be payable by the resident or applied to the wider service charge had been referred to the local team and the resident will be notified. The landlord had sent the resident a link with information on the insurer to take the enquiry forward. 
  11. Lessons learned would be shared with the contractor. Apologies were given and further appeal rights to this Service given.

Since the stage two response was issued 

  1. On 12 April 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and said she awaited the replacement of the door closer and queried the responsibility for raising an insurance claim in respect of the bedroom ceiling, which had yet to be made good. She said the lease provided that this was for the landlord to claim. She referred to previous examples with another resident.
  2. On 17 May 2021, the landlord’s log of repairs shows a repair was raised to ‘install brass effect overhead door closer to match the rest of the block’.
  3. On 18 May 2021, the resident received a letter from the landlord. It said that although the lease required the landlord to make a claim to insurers, it does not suggest that any remedial work should be undertaken by the landlord. The landlord asked for further information and for a phone call to be arranged to discuss this. It said that the resident was invited to obtain independent quotes from contractors for the outstanding work, which would also be submitted to the insurers. On completion of the works, the landlord would assist in the submission of invoices and recovery from insurers less excess as applicable.
  4. On 10 June 2021, the resident advised this Service that the issues outstanding were:
  1. For the landlord to agree progress the insurance claim/repair in respect of the damage due to water ingress, and acknowledge it was not the resident’s responsibility. The resident said that the landlord had offered to help her with the claim.
  2. To arrange the repair of the door closure as previously agreed.
  3. For the £25 compensation offered to be paid and for the Ombudsman to consider the time and trouble chasing the repair, and her time preparing the property and cleaning up after the repairs when they take place.
  1. However, on 19 August 2021 the resident advised this Service that the only issue for the Ombudsman to consider was who was responsible for claiming insurance for the water ingress repairs to her flat, and not the four issues previously confirmed with her. The resident stated that although the stage two complaint response said the resident may have to make the claim, an officer from the landlord’s lease department insisted on her making the claim, and that this was where they disagreed. She had checked the lease and taken legal advice which supported her belief that the claim should be made by the landlord.
  2. An email from the landlord on 3 September 2021 asked the resident to confirm details regarding the leak into her property, where it was coming from and if it is constant or only when it rained. It also advised that operatives would attend and fit the ‘preferred brass door closer’ on 15 September 2021.
  3. An undated internal email said that the landlord currently had a job for the communal front door which was attended to on 1 September with an upgrade to follow. In respect of the replacement door closer, this was rebooked for a closer of the resident’s choice on 15 September 2021. There were no reports of water ingress, but contact had been made with the resident to find details, no answer was obtained by phone, so an email had been sent.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident has stated that the only issue where the Ombudsman is required to intervene, is who is responsible for claiming insurance for the water ingress repairs to her ceiling. This investigation therefore focuses on this issue.
  2. Section 5.2 of the lease discusses that the landlord will keep the building insured and ‘in the event of the building or any part thereof being damaged…by fire or other risks covered by such insurance…make a claim against the insurers’. Elsewhere, the Responsive Repairs Policy, section 10, says the landlord is responsible for insuring the structure of the building and communal areas, and the resident for furniture and contents. 
  3. The resident was unhappy that the landlord had said she must make the insurance claim herself.  But the landlord had confirmed on 18 May 2021 that it would make the claim. It said that the resident was responsible for obtaining quotes, and that on completion of the works, the landlord would assist in submitting invoices and recovery of any monies form the insurers, less any excess.
  4. It would appear then, that the resident is unhappy that she must arrange and pay for the repairs, rather than submitting the insurance claim, which it seems she is not required to do.
  5. The resident also mentioned in her email of 19 August 2021, that an officer from the landlord’s ‘lease department’ had insisted on her making the claim. It is not clear if this was during a phone call, but no evidence has been submitted to support this. Therefore, the evidence most recently submitted shows that the landlord is making the claim to the buildings insurers but requires quotes and invoices from the resident to do this. This not unreasonable and is supported by the lease and policies.
  6. That said, the landlord’s stage two complaint response dated 9 April 2021 said not only that the resident was responsible for repairing obligations, but that she that she should ‘explore making a claim though the buildings insurance’. It has since, on 18 May 2021, said it would make the claim as required in the lease.
  7. Therefore, there was a service failure in the landlord initially advising the resident to make a claim herself, and confusion around this issue. Although this was rectified five weeks later, the resident has explained that in this time, she checked the lease and took legal advice, which also supported her belief that it was not up to her to make the insurance claim. This change of stance by the landlord came after the resident had gone to some effort to clarify what should reasonably have been known by the landlord all along. It is therefore fair in all the circumstances that a sum of compensation be paid to the resident to reflect the time and trouble spent in resolving this.
  8. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available to view at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Remedies-Guidance.pdf, provides for compensation of  £50 to £250 in instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant.  We recognise that there has been service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant.
  9. The landlord should therefore pay compensation of £50 to the resident in recognition of the likely distress and inconvenience caused by its conflicting advice around who was liable to make the insurance claim. In awarding compensation, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case. In this instance, the initial information would be likely to cause time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved. The ongoing discussion around who was liable to make the claim has ultimately delayed the remedial work on the resident’s property.
  10. The resident formally raised issues of repairs to her own property, and communal areas in the building, and initially asked the Ombudsman to consider these. She later advised that she was satisfied with the landlord’s stage two response and the landlord has since confirmed that the outstanding repairs have been attended to.
  11. Accordingly, this investigation has not included these issues. If the resident feels that the repairs have not been completed as advised, she can make a further complaint to the landlord which can be later considered by this Service if appropriate.
  12. In the stage two complaint response, the landlord said that it had not clarified who was responsible for the internal door repairs, and that this would be considered further. Whilst there is no evidence to suggest that the resident, as a leaseholder, would not be responsible for the internal door closure, the Ombudsman would expect this type of information to be known and confirmed by the landlord, by the time of the stage two complaint response. This ambiguity on fundamental information does not give residents confidence in the process and can waste time on all sides in resolving complaints. 
  13. The resident had previously said that she wanted the Ombudsman to consider more compensation given the time chasing the insurance matter, and the anticipated upheaval of the redecoration when it takes place. The Ombudsman will consider compensation where it is found that service failure has occurred, as on this occasion. However, it cannot consider compensation for an event which has not yet taken place. If the resident feels that the future repairs to her property are not carried out in an acceptable manner, again, she can complain to her landlord.
  14. It is noted that the second stage response was 18 working days outside of the landlord’s published timeframes for a senior management review. The response was not chased by the resident during this time and has not been raised a particular issue to her. However, the landlord should have acknowledged the delay and apologised as a matter of course as it did not adhere to its timescales.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair. 

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s responses were not consistent in advising the resident about whether she should make an insurance claim, albeit it has now agreed to do so on her behalf. 

 

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should pay the resident £50, on top of the £25 which was offered during the complaints process.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord ascertains who is responsible for the internal door closure repair, so as to avoid future issues due to ambiguity.
  2. The landlord should also consider completing outstanding repairs, if any, with respect to the other issues which the resident stated that she did not wish to be included in the investigation by the Ombudsman.