Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Southern Housing Group Limited (202114953)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114953

Southern Housing Group Limited

24 October 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s roof and the subsequent compensation offer.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident has said that in 2017 he reported a leak in his roof to his property caretaker, who suggested that this was a one-off occurrence. In November 2019, the resident reported that the roof was leaking again. The landlord investigated this issue, but did not undertake any repairs. The resident reported the same issue in October 2020. The landlord again inspected the roof and decided in December 2020 that repair works were necessary. However, it closed the repair order in January 2021, without undertaking the repairs. The resident once again reported the repairs in May 2021.
  3. The resident has explained that he attempted to raise a complaint about the roof repairs twice in 2020, but the landlord failed to respond to these complaints. The resident complained again on 5 May 2021, stating that he was dissatisfied with the delay to his repairs. He also explained that due to the leaking roof, he was experiencing issues with damp and mould within his home, which was causing both physical and mental health problems for him and his family. The landlord responded in June 2021, acknowledging the delay to the roofing repairs. It explained that the delay had been caused by its contractor catching Covid-19, bad weather and issues with the scaffolding. It offered the resident £125 compensation in recognition of the delay and for two missed repair appointments.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint on 29 June 2021, as he felt that the landlord had not fully recognised the impact the delays had had on his family’s health. He was also unhappy with the amount of compensation offered by the landlord, stating that he wanted some of his personal belongings replaced, as they had been damaged by the leak. The resident ended his tenancy with the landlord on 24 June 2021, due to the condition of the property. Repairs to the roof were subsequently completed by the landlord on 9 July 2021.
  5. In December 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord asking for a response to his escalation request. The resident reached out again to the landlord in January 2022, after it failed to respond. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation in March 2022, after intervention from this Service.
  6. In its final response to the complaint on 12 April 2022 the landlord acknowledged the delays to the roof repairs. It also acknowledged that it had not escalated the resident’s complaint when requested. It apologised to the resident and explained the changes it was making to its service’s structure and how it processed complaints, which would prevent the same mistakes from reoccurring. It offered the resident £850 in compensation.
  7. In his complaint to this Service, the resident has expressed dissatisfaction at the landlord’s response, as he felt it still did not fully address the impact of the delay on him and his family. He also remained unhappy with the amount of compensation offered.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which concern matters where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure. The resident has referenced how the landlord’s failure to remedy his roof leak and the subsequent damp and mould has impacted his health. However, 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. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
  2. Under paragraph 42 (c) of the scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member (landlord) as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. In this case, while the resident’s first repair report in 2017 will provide context to the more recent issues, it will not be assessed in this investigation. This is because this incident was several years before the resident first attempted to complain to the landlord in 2020. The investigation will focus on the events from November 2019 onwards as from this date the resident was in regular contact with the landlord about the roof repairs and associated complaint.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s roof and the subsequent compensation offer.

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is “responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in good repair, including drains, gutters, external pipes and the roof”. It also states that it will undertake routine repairs as quickly as possible. The landlord’s website further explains that repairs are currently taking longer to complete due to a backlog created by Covid-19. It states that the maximum a resident may wait for a routine repair will be three months.
  2. In response to the resident’s reports of leaks to his roof in November 2019, the landlord acted reasonably by investigating the source of the leak within the timescales stated in its repairs policy. The landlord again investigated the resident’s reports of a leak in October 2020 and concluded that further works were required. However, the repair order was then closed in January 2021, without any repairs taking place. The resident was then required to re-raise the issue in May 2021.
  3. The landlord has stated this cancellation occurred due to its operatives closing work orders after completing investigations, without raising a new work order to resolve the issues. The landlord’s handling of the repair issue was not appropriate, as it closed repair orders without actually completing any work. It is not reasonable to expect the resident to keep reporting the same issue without gaining a suitable resolution. As a result of the landlord’s error, the resident would have subsequently spent more time in a home with a defective roof and had the stress and inconvenience of having to report the issue again.
  4. The landlord acted in line with its complaints policy by explaining that personal injury claims needed to be pursued through either the courts or through the landlord’s insurers. As explained above, this was reasonable as personal injury claims are better suited to an insurance or legal process rather than the landlord or the Ombudsman’s complaints processes. The landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging the impact that the delays had on the resident and his family and apologising for the distress it had caused. The landlord reconsidered the resident’s request for an increased amount of compensation, finding that a higher amount would be proportionate to the level of inconvenience and stress experienced by the resident. When calculating the compensation amount, the landlord explained to the resident that it could not award damages for broken items signposted the resident to claim on his contents insurance for his damaged personal belongings. Although this was in line with the landlord’s repairs policy, it was not reasonable in view of all the circumstances of this case. The resident has alleged that the landlord’s negligence in delaying to fix the leak caused his possessions to become damaged. In this situation, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to refer the resident to make a claim to its liability insurer for the damage to his possessions. It is outside the remit of the Ombudsman to comment on insurance claims and therefore we cannot say what the outcome of such a claim would be. It is recommended that the landlord signpost the resident to its liability insurer at this stage so he can register a claim if he wishes to.
  5. The landlord offered a total of £850 compensation to the resident, in recognition of the impact the repair delay had on him, the delay itself and for its complaint handling. This amount is in-line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which suggests that we may award  £600 to £1000 where there have been failings by the landlord which had a significant impact on the resident. Examples include repeated failures to provide a service over a prolonged period of time, as in this case. Therefore, the landlord’s offer of compensation is proportionate in the circumstances as it is in line with the compensation the Ombudsman would have awarded if the landlord had not already made an offer.
  6. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is also expected to learn from its mistakes as part of its efforts to put things right for the resident. The landlord has acted appropriately by investigating and adapting its process on logging repairs, clarifying that now repairs must be both investigated and resolved before being closed by its operatives. The landlord has acted reasonably by acknowledging the impact on the resident, offering proportionate compensation to him and endeavouring to learn from its mistakes. It is therefore of the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord made sufficient redress to the resident, which resolved the complaint satisfactorily.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that after making a complaint, the landlord will provide a response within ten working days. If this is not achievable, the landlord may extend the deadline by a further ten working days. When the resident asks to escalate their complaint, the landlord will provide a response within 20 working days. Again, if this is not possible, it may extend the deadline by a further ten working days.
  2. As a member of this Service, the landlord is expected to abide by the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code) which sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. This states that where a complaint is made to the landlord, it shall be acknowledged and logged at stage one of the complaints procedure. The landlord had to be asked several times by the resident to log his complaint formally, which was not appropriate.
  3. Once raised, the landlord initially responded within the correct timeframes stated above. However, it neglected to escalate the resident’s complaint in June 2021, after he expressed his dissatisfaction at its stage one response. This is not in line with the Code, which states that if the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction, it shall be progressed to the next stage in accordance with the landlord’s procedure. The resident was required to chase the landlord several times to gain a response, requiring intervention from this Service. Despite escalating his complaint in June 2021, the landlord did not provide a response until April 2022. This was not in line with the Code, or the landlord’s own complaint policy, and is a failing.
  4. In its final response to the complaint on 12 April 2022, the landlord acted reasonably by acknowledging its poor complaint handling and apologising to the resident. It explained that it was endeavouring to learn from this mistake, and had restructured how complaints were processed to mitigate any future errors. It assigned £100 of the total £850 compensation offer to address this failing in complaint handling. As above, this offer of compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which suggests that we may  make awards in this range in cases where there was a failure by the landlord which affected the resident but there was no permanent impact. As above, there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the complaint but the landlord acknowledging these failings and took steps to put them right meaning that there was no permanent impact on the resident. Therefore, the landlord’s response was fair, reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances for this aspect of this complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. 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 concerning the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s roof and the subsequent compensation offer satisfactorily.
  2. 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 concerning the landlord’s complaint handling satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the total compensation amount of £850 it offered him in its final stage complaint response, unless this has already been paid.
  2. The landlord should provide the resident with details of how to make a claim to its liability insurer for damage to his personal possessions.