Southern Housing Group Limited (202008842)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008842

Southern Housing Group Limited

26 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

The complaint is about:
1. The works the landlord completed to the loft space.
2. The landlord’s handling of works to the radiators in the property.
3. The landlord’s response to the representative’s request to be added as either a joint tenant or, assigned the tenancy.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of a five bedroom house, owned and managed by the landlord. The tenancy began in August 1990 and was a joint tenancy with the resident’s partner at the time, who passed away in 2007.
Following the death of the resident’s partner, the resident, by survivorship, succeeded the tenancy and became a sole tenant.
The resident’s son, who also lives in the property, is acting as a representative in the complaint.
In February 2019, the representative wrote to the landlord and asked for an update following inspections it had carried out in the property in December 2018 and January 2019. The landlord did not respond.
On 4 April 2019, the representative submitted a formal complaint. They said that during the inspections, it was found that the radiators in the property were too small and that the loft insulation needed to be made good following a previous leak. They complained that the surveyor agreed to arrange for these issues to be addressed however, they had not heard anything further since the inspections.
On receipt of the complaint the landlord arranged a heat survey on 25 April 2019. Following this, the contractor informed that it would undertake a power flush to the system and order a pump.
On 29 April 2019, a contractor attended to make good the loft insulation. On the same day, the landlord issued its stage one response and said that it was awaiting the report from the heat loss survey. The landlord acknowledged that there had been delays and a lack of communication on its part regarding the work. It offered £75 in total for the lack of communication and the delay.
On 30 April 2019, the representative said that they were dissatisfied with the quality of the works completed to the loft. They stated that some areas had insulation missing and other areas were not filled properly.
A surveyor carried out a post inspection on 16 May 2019. They found the works to be satisfactory but asked the contractor to re–attend and ensure that the insulation was topped up throughout the loft.
The landlord’s heating contractor attended on 7 June 2019 to complete the power flush and fit the pump to the heating system. The engineer was unable to complete the work therefore, another engineer had to attend on 19 June 2019 to complete the work. Between the two visits in June, the contractor confirmed that there was an issue with the output from the radiators in the property and they required replacement.
On 30 July 2019, the landlord carried out an ad-hoc visit to the property to post inspect the loft work. The surveyor reported back that they spoke with an occupant of the property, who confirmed that the insulation had been installed and they were happy with the works. The surveyor said that they did not enter the property as they had not been invited in.
The heating contractor attended to renew the radiators on 1 August 2019 but the work did not go ahead, as the operative did not know where each radiator was to be placed. On the day of the appointment, the representative asked the landlord to clarify the size of the radiators that would be fitted and where in the property they would be placed. The contractor attended the property again on 28 August 2019, to discuss this.
In September 2019, during a conversation with the representative about the complaint, the landlord agreed to arrange another post inspection of the loft as the surveyor could not do so during the last visit. The landlord also made a revised offer of £150 compensation for the delay and service failure it found in the complaint investigation.
On 30 October 2019, the representative chased the landlord about the post inspection of the loft work. A surveyor attended to the property again on 14 November 2019. They reported back that they were not invited into the property and were advised to contact the resident’s representative.
The landlord issued a follow up stage one complaint response on 18 November 2019. It advised that the surveyor was not invited into the property when they attended on 14 November 2019 and agreed to contact the representative to arrange an appointment for another visit.
On 4 February 2020, the representative contacted the landlord, as the post inspection was still outstanding and they had not been contacted by the surveyor. The resident also advised that the landlord agreed to board the loft after the insulation was carried out, and this was outstanding. The resident also confirmed that the heating contractor had installed some radiators but one was the wrong size and another was not working. There was also an outstanding replacement radiator to one of the bedrooms.
The landlord responded on 28 April 2020. It apologised for its lack of response to the resident in February 2020. It said that the outstanding work would be picked up once the Covid 19 lockdown restrictions, imposed in March 2020, had been lifted. It confirmed a point of contact for the representative whilst the works remained outstanding and agreed to get in touch once works had been completed, to ensure that the representative was happy with the completed work.
After the lockdown restrictions were eased, a surveyor attended to post inspect the loft on 2 October 2020. The surveyor raised an order for the loft to be boarded as the loft beams were covered by the insulation and it considered this a fall hazard. The surveyor confirmed that the heating contractor was to attend and complete the outstanding radiator installations. The surveyor sent the resident an email on 6 October 2020, confirming the works they had raised to the loft.
The loft works were scheduled for 12 November 2020. Prior to the appointment the representative asked if the landlord could also provide a loft ladder kit and offered a financial contribution towards this.
On 11 November 2020, the landlord contacted the representative about the pending work to the loft. The landlord informed that only a section of the loft would be boarded to facilitate access to the water tank. The following day, the representative wrote to the landlord with their dissatisfaction with the landlord only boarding a section of the loft. The representative understood from the landlord’s email of 6 October 2020, that the entire loft would be boarded.
On receipt of the resident’s correspondence, the landlord agreed to undertake a review of the complaint.
While waiting for the landlord’s response the representative contacted this Service. When doing so, they mentioned an additional complaint about the landlord’s response to their request to be added as either a joint tenant or, assigned the tenancy. We wrote to the landlord and asked that it review this as part of the complaint investigation.
The landlord provided a stage one response on 30 April 2021 and apologised for the delay in providing this. In relation to the additional work the representative requested to the loft, it said that such works were considered improvements and not repairs and therefore, would not be completed.
It advised that it understood that the radiators had been renewed following the heat survey in 2019. It said that if after this work, the representative did not consider the heating adequate, they could ask for an assessment by an occupational therapist.
In respect of the joint tenancy request, it found no formal application of this from the representative but explained that it would only allow a joint tenancy between partners. It noted that this may be why the representative was previously given advice that a joint tenancy would not be granted. It advised that if the information was not correct, and the representative was a partner of a sole tenant, they could contact the landlord again.
The landlord found no service failures in how it dealt with the repair issues however, found a delays in its communication and response. It offered the resident £50 in recognition of this.
On 24 May 2021, the representative requested an escalation of the complaint. They provided the landlord with an email they had received from the surveyor on 6 October 2020, confirming the work raised for the loft boarding. The resident also noted that there were still radiators that required replacements and noted that the landlord was aware of this.
The representative was not happy with the level of compensation the landlord offered and stated that they had spent time pursuing the landlord about the matter.
The representative advised that the joint tenancy request was raised in 2008 and at that time, they were informed that they could not be added as a tenant as the tenancy was in both of their parents’ name. The representative noted that their mother had succeeded the tenancy after their father had passed away in 2007 and there was no chance to succeed the tenancy a second time. The representative stated that they had paid rent for the property for 20 years and believed that they should be added to the tenancy agreement.
The landlord issued its final response to the resident on 24 June 2021. It:
1. Confirmed that the works it had completed to the loft was normal practice and complied with its health and safety policy. It acknowledged that its surveyor provided misleading information about it reboarding the whole loft but said it does not do such work. It also said that it does not allow for loft spaces to be used as an additional room or storage.
2. Confirmed two radiators in the property still required replacement and said that the contractor would contact the representative once they were in stock.
3. Advised that it had since received a formal application from the representative for the assignment of the tenancy and would process the application.
4. Offered an additional £25 compensation to account for the delay and £25 for the misinformation from the surveyor. It confirmed that its total offer, inclusive of the £50 it offered in its former stage one response in April 2021, was therefore, £100.
Following the completion of the complaints procedure, the gas contractor attended to install the outstanding radiators on 25 June 2021. It could not complete the work as the radiators were the incorrect size. This service has not seen evidence as to whether this has now been completed.
After reviewing the representative’s application for the tenancy assignment, the landlord notified that in the event of the resident passing away, it would apply its discretion to decide whether it would grant the representative discretionary succession. The representative was not happy with this as the landlord could not confirm whether they would be successful in the event they applied for succession.

Assessment and findings

The works the landlord completed to the loft space.

There is no evidence of any obligation on the landlord to provide loft insulation or boarding to the property. However, the Government recommends installing up to 20cm of insulation for maximum energy and money savings.
The landlord accepted the responsibility for installing the insulation to the loft following a previous leak to the property.
After it renewed the loft insulation on 29 April 2019, it took steps to post inspect the work on 16 May 2019 as the representative highlighted a concern with the quality of the work carried out. Although it found that the works were satisfactory, it ensured that the contractor reattended to ensure that the insulation had been throughout. This was appropriate given that the representative informed that areas had not been filled properly however, there is no evidence that this further recommendation was fulfilled by the contractor.
Thereafter, the representative made requests that the landlord attend again to post inspect the work. The landlord visited the property on two occasions between 30 July 2019 and 14 November 2019 however, there is no evidence that the landlord arranged an appointment with the representative or the resident, before attending. The landlord was not able to see the work as it was not granted access into the property to assess the quality of the work carried out to the loft. Although, this Service notes that it accepted a verbal confirmation from an occupant of the property, that the insulation works had been carried out satisfactorily.
As a result of the landlord not making the arrangements with the representative to attend to inspect whilst the representative was present, they had to chase the landlord on at least two occasions for it to inspect the loft. In this time, there were long periods which the representative had to wait for the surveyor to attend, particularly between 18 November 2019 and 2 October 2020.
From March 2020, the Government imposed a lockdown as a result of the Covid 19 pandemic. However, prior to March 2020, the landlord had agreed to arrange an appointment to inspect the loft when it responded on 18 November 2019 and this did not happen within a reasonable period of time. As a result, the resident was required to chase the landlord about this again in February 2020, before the landlord attended in October 2020 to inspect.
After the surveyor attended in October 2020, they did confirm that the loft was to be boarded and the works were raised for this. The landlord later changed its position on this and the recognised in its response to the complaint, that the resident had been given misinformation about the works it would be doing to the loft.
The landlord provided an explanation as to why its position changed. This Service has seen evidence that the landlord was advised following fire risk assessments, not to board loft spaces as this presents a fire hazard and a wider safety issues. Given that a water tank is present and the landlord identified that there is a fall hazard without the presence of loft boarding, it was reasonable for it to install boarding to a section of the loft in order to facilitate access to the tank only.
Although the landlord changed its position regarding the loft boarding, it recognised this in its response to the complaint and it provided an explanation as to why it would not carry out loft boarding to the entire loft. This was appropriate for it to do so, as the representative’s expectations had not been managed from the outset. It also offered the resident £25 compensation to recognise the incorrect information they had been given about the extent of the loft boarding that it would do.

The handling of the works to the radiators

The landlord has a repairing responsibility for keeping in good repair and working order any installations it provides for space heating.
The landlord identified from as early as the inspections carried out in December 2018 and January 2019, that there was an issue with the radiators in the property.
It took the landlord three months to instruct its heating contractor to undertake a heat survey after finding this. In those three months, the resident had to chase the landlord for an update in February 2020, which the landlord did not respond to. This resulted in the formal complaint.
After the heat survey was carried out, it took nearly six weeks for the contractor to attend and carry out the follow on works to power flush the system and fit the pump. Following this appointment, a further visit in June 2020 established that the radiators in the property needed to be replaced.
Thereafter, the resident experienced issues with the contractor attending without being briefed on the scope of works. This meant that the appointment to install the radiators on 1 August 2019 did not go ahead. Sometime between August 2019 and February 2020, the contractor attended and installed the majority of the radiators but the works were still not completed by 24 June 2021, 12 months after it was acknowledged that the radiators required replacement.
Overall, there were significant delays in the works being carried out. For routine repairs, the landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to complete such repairs as quickly as possible and at a time that suits the resident. It also states that it aims to complete work the first time, wherever possible.
In its investigation into the complaint between 2019 and 2021, the landlord recognised there was a delay in it completing the work. In total, it offered the resident £175 for the delays.
Its compensation policy allows it to offer compensation up to £50 for delays and up to £50 in recognition of a service failure.
The Ombudsman finds that there was a service failure by the landlord because, whilst it found delays and service failures when it investigated the complaint in 2019, it did not thereafter, take reasonable steps to ensure that the radiators were replaced in a reasonable time after Covid 19 restrictions had been lifted. The representative as a result of this, had to pursue the landlord again for updates on the work.
The landlord offered compensation for the further delays that occurred between 2019 and its final response in June 2021 however, it failed to take into consideration that the resident spent time pursuing the matter for the entire period between 2019 up to when the final response was issued in June 2021. An additional compensation order has therefore been made in recognition of this.
As this Service has also not seen evidence that the two outstanding radiators have been replaced, an order has been made in relation to this.

The landlord’s response to the representative’s request to be added as either a joint tenant or, assigned the tenancy

The landlord’s joint tenancy policy stipulates that no applicant or existing tenant has a legal right to insist on the landlord granting a new joint tenancy.
The landlord’s approach is to grant joint tenancies to spouses, including joint partners. The landlord will not approve requests to create a joint tenancy with anyone who does not meet this criterion.
As the representative is the son of the resident and not a spouse of the resident, the landlords advise that it would not grant them a joint tenancy is in accordance with its policy.
Regarding succession, the resident’s tenancy stipulates that provided the tenant themselves was not a successor and the tenancy does not pass to the resident’s spouse, the landlord will offer a new tenancy of the property.
In this case, the resident succeeded the tenancy following their spouse’s death in 2007 therefore, the resident’s son does not have a right to succeed the tenancy in the event of the resident’s death.
However, the landlord’s succession policy does allow for it to use its discretion to offer a new tenancy where there are no succession rights. The landlord’s advice to the representative that it would apply its discretion to decide whether it would grant succession to them in the event of the resident’s death was fair.
It is noted that the resident is dissatisfied that the landlord is unable to provide confirmation that they would be successful in the event they apply to succeed the tenancy. The landlord is required to, under its policy, to undertake checks before granting succession. Without an application, it cannot undertake these checks and it would not be reasonable to promise to grant such without doing the necessary checks.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in relation to the works completed to the loft space.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of the works to the radiators.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation its response to the representative’s request to be added as either a joint tenant or, assigned the tenancy.

Reasons

There is no obligation on the landlord to provide loft boarding however, it initially gave the indication that it would provide loft boarding to the entire loft. It later changed its position on this following advice it was given following fire risk assessments. In the complaint response, it recognised the misinformation given and explained its reasons for why it made the decision to only board a section of the loft. It also offered compensation for the misinformation it provided.
In respect of its handling of the works to replace the radiators, the landlord did not complete the work within a reasonable timeframe. While the works were outstanding, the resident has had to chase it for updates and its consideration of compensation did not take this into account. This Service has also not been provided with confirmation that the outstanding radiators have been replaced.
In its response to the representative’s request to be added as either a joint tenant or assigned the tenancy, the landlord has responded in accordance with its policies.

Orders

It is ordered that:
1. Within four weeks of this report, the landlord attends to complete the two radiator replacements. If this work has already been completed, the landlord is to provide confirmation of this.
2. The landlord pays the resident £275 (inclusive of the £175 it offered in the complaint) for the time and trouble their representative spent pursuing the outstanding radiator work. If the landlord has already paid the £175, it is to pay the difference.

Recommendation

That the landlord pays the resident £25 for the misinformation it initially provided regarding the extent of the loft boarding work.