Southern Housing Group Limited (202008950)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008950

Southern Housing Group Limited

14 March 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to:
1. The resident’s immersion heater.
2. The mixer taps to the resident’s bath.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 12 February 1996. The property is a two bedroom flat. The resident has severe Raynaud’s disease which affects both her upper and lower limbs. The resident was on the DHSS’ Clinically Extremely Vulnerable list. The resident has also provided photos of her bathroom which show that she has a specialised shower seat to enable her to use her bath.
Whilst the landlord was corresponding with the resident and seeking access with regards to the immersion heater and mixer taps it was also corresponding with the resident regarding access in relation to her disrepair claim. Whilst this has been noted to provide context, this report focuses on the issue of the resident’s report of repair to the immersion heater and the mixer taps to her bath. Matters relating to the disrepair claim have not been considered as part of this investigation.
On 2 November 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to report that she had had no hot water in the last week. The resident also reported that the mixer taps to her bath were constantly dripping and that the cold tap did not turn all the time. The resident advised the landlord that the taps were very old and that as she suffered from arthritis this was a real struggle. The landlord logged the repair, noting that the resident had reported no hot water at her property, and passed the repair to its contractor the same day.
The resident chased the repair with the landlord on 6 November 2020, advising that she was hoping the plumber could complete both repairs in one visit in order to avoid multiple visits as she was considered vulnerable.
The contractor called the resident on 6 November 2020 to made an appointment for it to attend that day to assess what repairs were required. The contractor advised the landlord that the resident had decline its offer to attend that evening saying that she would only allow them to enter the property to carry out the works and not to inspect, and that the boost button on the immersion was in working order, but she choose not to turn it on.
The landlord also spoke to the resident the same day. The landlord’s records note that the resident confirmed that she would only allow access to actually carry out works, as she knew that the issue with the immersion heater was that the element needed to be changed and the mixer taps on the bath just needed replacing. The landlord explained to the resident that in order to carry out any works it would need to confirm what the issue was with the immersion.
Between 10 and 18 November 2020, there was further communication between the resident, the landlord and the contractor with regarding access to assess the repairs. During these communications the landlord acknowledged that the resident had health concerns around providing access, as she was shielding, but reiterated the need to investigate what works were required prior to an appointment being made to complete the works.
On 16 November 2020, a surveyor attended the residents property. The evidence suggest that this inspection was related to a MP’s enquiry regarding a separate issue relating to heating within the resident’s property. The immersion heater and taps were referred to by the surveyor in their follow up email to the landlord on 18 November 2020, following which an order was raised to renew both the mixer to the bath and to install lever taps, ‘‘as per the resident’s poor health’’. The surveyors email also noted that there was already a pending job to investigate the immersion heater.
On 7 December 2020, a plumber attended the resident’s property. The plumber replaced both the hot and cold lever taps to the bath shower mixer but did not replace the mixer unit itself. The plumber did not carry out any works to the immersion heating, reporting to the landlord that both a plumber and electrician were required to complete the works.
Following the visit the resident was sent a text advising that a new appointment had been made, for which she should shortly receive confirmation. This was followed by a further text advising that an appointment for 16 December 2020 had been rescheduled and that a new appointment time would be sent to the resident soon.
On 18 December 2020, the resident’s arranged for her immersion heater to be privately repaired as it had not been repaired by the landlord.
On 21 December 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to complain that she had waited seven weeks for her immersion heater to be repaired by the landlord before employing her own plumber to carry out the repair on 18 December 2020. The resident said that the heating element had blown at regular intervals throughout her 25 year tenancy and she had not experienced any problems with the landlord replacing it until now. The resident explained that:
1. After repeated requests the landlord arranged for a plumber to attend, on 7 December 2020, but they did not turn up on time and when she called the landlord, she was told that the plumber had to attend another property with a ‘‘gushing leak’’.
2. When the plumber arrived, he did not have proper PPE.
3. The plumber refused to fix the immersion stating that Health and Safety required an electrician to be present.
4. The plumber also refused to change the bath mixer unit, only changing the taps with ones that the resident said were not suitable which reduced the water supply to her shower.

The resident said that she wanted the landlord to reimburse her for the money she used to employ her own plumber, as she had used money meant for her electricity bill, plus to compensate her for the seven weeks she had been without hot water.

On 5 January 2021, the landlord noted that it had spoken to the resident who had advised that she was shielding and so did not want any appointments to be booked at that time. The landlord followed the call up with a letter to the resident on 6 January 2021 in which it advised that any outstanding jobs on its system had been cancelled and asked that the resident contact it when she felt comfortable to allow access and it would raise the jobs, and book them out again.
On 19 January 2021, the resident contacted this service to advise that she had not received a response to her complaint. The landlord was asked by this service to provide the resident with a response within the following five days.
On 22 January 2021, the landlord issued its Stage one response which referred to repairs relating to the resident’s disrepair claim as well as her report of repair to her immersion heater and loss of hot water. The response made reference to contact from this service on 19 January 2021 but made no reference to the resident’s complaint of 21 December 2020. The landlord said that as the resident had notified it that she was shielding at that time, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, and did not want operatives in her home it had suspended the repair works. The landlord said it would be happy to reschedule the works as soon as the resident contacted it to confirm that she was no longer shielding and that it could not investigate her complaint further until that then.
Following contact from the resident on 25 January 2021, this service wrote to the landlord on 24 February 2021 to escalate her complaint. This service confirmed that the resident:
1. Had stated that she had sent emails to the landlord regarding the invoice that she had to pay for a private plumber to undertake the repairs to her immersion heater due to the landlord’s inaction with regards to changing the element, and that the landlord had fitted incorrect taps to the mixer unit on her bath.
2. Was seeking reimbursement of the costs she had incurred as well as compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the situation.
The landlord issued its Stage two, and final, response on 26 March 2021. The landlord noted that the resident had opted not to speak to it as part of the review. The landlord:
1. Acknowledged that the repair to the immersion heater, reported on 2 November 2020, should have been recorded as an emergency repair but was not, the resident had also requested that her mixer taps be replaced and that she had made it clear that the required repairs were having an impact on her health.
2. Said that when the resident spoke to its contractor on 6 November 2020 she informed them that she did not want an emergency visit, that her immersion heater boost button was working but she was choosing not to turn it on and that there was nothing wrong with her taps, she was just having difficulty turning them on.
3. Said that between 12 and 18 November email correspondence was exchanged between the resident, the contractor and the landlord emphasising the resident’s concerns in regard to shielding and reducing the number of visits necessary. A visit was made on the 16 November 2020 by a surveyor where works to the mixer taps were ordered and an appointment made for an electrician to replace the immersion heater.
4. Several appointments were made between 23 November and the 4 December 2020 but were not successful until 7 December when additional works were identified, and an appointment was arranged for an electrician to attend.
5. Said that whilst it was satisfied it had acted reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures, both it and the resident should have ensured that their communications were ‘‘better focussed on (the resident’s) requirements and that (her) age and vulnerability should also have been a consideration. The lockdown due to the pandemic had no doubt exacerbated the communication and repair issues’’. The landlord said that it would investigate how could improve this going forward.
6. Recognised that the resident had engaged a private plumber to repair the immersion heater, that it had estimated the costs of replacement for which it offered the resident £250 and asked that if the costs were significantly greater the resident provide it with an invoice and it would pay the difference.
7. Offered the resident £50, which it said was the maximum it could offer, for the loss of hot water.

Assessment and findings

Relevant legislation, agreements, policies and procedures.

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord must keep in proper working order the installations in the dwelling house for the supply of water, gas, electricity, sanitation, space heating, and heating water. This obligation is confirmed in Clause 5 of the landlord’s obligations under the tenancy agreement.
Under Clause 14 of the tenant’s obligations under the tenancy agreement, the resident is obliged to allow the landlord or its contractors access at all reasonable hours of daytime to inspect the property or to carry out repairs.
The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy explains that Emergency repairs will be completed (or made safe) within 24 hours and that routine repairs will be completed as soon as possible. The policy includes no hot water between 31 October and 1 May as an emergency repair.
The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy also states that the landlord recognises that some repair issues have a potentially adverse impact on a resident with a medical vulnerability or condition. In these situations, the landlord will investigate the matter promptly and work in partnership with its contractors and in liaison with the resident to resolve the matter. In all instances the resident’s welfare, health and safety will be its primary concern.
The landlord’s Compensation Framework states that:
1. Where there is a total loss of hot water, the landlord will pay the resident £10 + £2 per day commencing 2 days after the defect being reported until the hot water is reinstated.
2. For partial loss of hot water between 31 October and 30 April the landlord will use the same calculation but this will be capped at £50.
3. For requests for compensation when a resident has incurred additional costs due to a service failure, and where the compensation requested is over £25, the customer will need to provide proof of loss or incurred costs for the landlord to consider. It is at the landlord’s discretion as to whether to pay all or part of the loss depending on the circumstances.
4. In recognition of poor service, failure to follow policy/procedure or act in a reasonable manner a goodwill payment up to £25 can be made and this can be given in vouchers, money or flowers.
5. In recognition that every case is different and to take into account the severity of the issue and any vulnerabilities of the people affected, a discretionary payment can be awarded.

Assessment

When responding to complaints the Ombudsman expects landlords to address all of the issues raised in the original complaint, set out any further actions with timescales and where appropriate, provide redress which should include an apology, an explanation and may include compensation. Any offer of compensation should be in line with the related policy, but the landlord should also, where appropriate, use discretion to take account of the specific circumstances of the case.
In its final response, the landlord acknowledged that repairs to both the immersion heater and mixer taps were reported on 2 November 2020 and that it had failed to log the immersion heater as an emergency repair. That the resident’s hot water supply had been disrupted between 2 November and 18 December 2020, when the immersion heater was repaired privately, was not disputed by the landlord who offered the resident £50 compensation, in accordance with the maximum allowed for in its Compensation Framework for the partial loss of hot water.
It is noted that whilst the resident had reported a total loss of water this was disputed by the landlord in its final response in which it said that the resident was able to use the booster button on the immersion but chose not to do so. There is also no evidence the landlord’s position being challenged by the resident. I am therefore satisfied that its offer of £50 compensation for the partial loss of hot water was reasonable. However, having acknowledged its failure to follow its policy/procedure with regards to logging the resident’s initial report of repair to her immersion as an emergency, the landlord should also have offered the resident a further £25, in accordance with its Compensation Framework.
In order to resolve the complaint, with regards to the resident’s request that the landlord reimburse her for the costs she had incurred in having the immersion heater repaired, the landlord used its discretion under its Compensation Framework to offer the resident £250, which said it would increase on being provided with an invoice indicating the total cost incurred. This was a reasonable step for the landlord to take and, it should be noted, was not an offer it was obliged to make.
In its final response the landlord also invited the resident to let it know if the costs were significantly in excess of the £250 offered. The resident has provided this service with an invoice which states that the cost to her was £265.96. The invoice confirms that the private contractor replaced the element on the immersion and when the immersion was filled there were no leaks. The invoice also included costs related to the sealing of a basket strainer waste, which is not a matter that formed part of this complaint, and as a result I am satisfied that £250 offered by the landlord was reasonable.
With regards to the repairs to the mixer taps to the resident’s bath. Whilst it is noted that there were issues with regards to access due to the resident’s concerns about operatives entering her property as she was extremely clinically vulnerable, given the resident had advised the landlord of the difficulties she was experiencing with the taps due to her arthritis, 25 working days was not a reasonable length of time for her to wait to have the repairs to the taps carried out. This was also not in accordance with the landlord’s Reactive repairs policy which refers specifically to repairs that may have a potentially adverse impact on a resident with a medical vulnerability or condition. In recognition of this failure the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a further £25, in accordance with its Compensation Framework
The mixer was also not replaced by the plumber when he attended on 7 December 2020, as recommended by the surveyor, and in both her initial complaint to the landlord on 21 December 2020 and in the escalation request made by this service on 21 January 2021, the landlord was advised of the resident’s concerns that the new taps were not suitable and had reduced the flow of water to her shower. However, there is no evidence of the landlord taking any steps to address this.
There was also no mention of the taps in the landlord’s final response beyond acknowledging when the resident had initially reported her concerns. In this respect the landlord’s response failed to comply with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code which states that landlords should ‘‘address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate’’. As a result of this failing the landlord has been ordered to apologise to the resident and to pay her £100 compensation.
It is this service’s understanding that the resident is continuing to experience difficulties with regards to the mixer unit on her bath and so a further order has also been made that the landlord contact the resident and investigates what the current situation is with regards to the mixer unit on her bath.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the resident’s immersion heater.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the mixer taps to the resident’s bath.

Reasons

Whilst the resident was without hot water for a period of 35 days, there is evidence of the landlord attempting to gain access to the property together with evidence of the resident refusing appointments due to her concerns about having multiple operatives in her property when she was shielding. The landlord acknowledged and offered the resident £50 compensation, in accordance with its Compensation Framework for her loss of hot water, however, it failed to provide reasonable redress with regards to its failure to log her initial report as an emergency repair. With regards to the resident’s request that the landlord reimburse her for the costs she incurred, the landlord’s response was both fair and reasonable, in that it used its discretion to offer the resident £250 towards those costs which it was not obliged to do.
With regards to the repairs to the mixer taps to the resident’s bath. Whilst it is noted that there were issues with regards to access, given that the resident had advised the landlord from the start of the difficulties she was experiencing with the taps due to her arthritis, 25 working days was not a reasonable length of time for her to wait to have the repairs to the taps carried out. The mixer was not replaced as recommended by the surveyor and despite both the resident and this service advising the landlord of the resident’s concerns during the complaints process that the new taps were not suitable and had reduced the flow of water to her shower, there is no evidence of the landlord taking any steps to address this, nor was there any mention of the taps in the landlord’s final response beyond acknowledging when the resident had initially reported her concerns.

Orders

That within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is to:
1. Pay the resident a total of £200 made up as follows:
  1. The £50 it offered in its final response, if it has not done so already.
  2. £25 for its acknowledged failure to log the resident’s initial report of the loss of hot water as an emergency repair.
  3. £25 for the delay in carrying out repairs to the mixer taps to her bath.
  4. £100 for its failure to provide the resident with a response to her concerns about the mixer taps to her bath in its final response to her complaint, beyond acknowledging when she first reported those concerns.
2. Contact the resident to investigate what the current situation is with regards to the mixer tap unit to her bath.
3. Confirm that it has complied with the above orders.