Southern Housing Group Limited (202016267)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016267

Southern Housing Group Limited

13 March 2023

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 handing of:
   1. Repairs to the resident’s windows.
   2. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
3. The resident’s bedroom and lounge windows were part of a planned programme of works, and the works commenced in January 2020, but were halted in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 national lockdown. The work recommenced in September 2020 and the landlord advised “the main windows were replaced in the property before the Velux windows”. The Velux windows are the resident’s bedroom windows.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 19 February 2021 as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the window replacement. She said that she was advised scaffolding would be erected on 25 January 2021, but the work did not take place and she was not contacted. A contractor attended on 15 February 2021 and commenced work to the window, but advised that they did not have the correct part to complete the work as incorrect measurements had been taken. She said the window partition was left open, with tarpaulin covering the gaps and she was advised the work would be completed the following day, but did not receive any further communication. She stated that contractors had attended without notice, which was a privacy issue as she did not have new blinds for the windows. In her escalation, she stated she had contacted the contractor regarding outstanding works, but had not received a response. She also raised issues with dust and water entering through the window gaps and increased heating costs.
5. In the landlord’s final response in July 2022, it acknowledged the delays in completing the repairs and its poor communication. It explained delays had been caused due to a delay in receiving the correct flashing kit and adverse weather conditions. It said that all works to the windows had since been completed, other than some internal finishing, which it had tried to contact the resident to arrange. It apologised that contractors had attended without appointments, and said this was not its expected service standard. It apologised for the delays in its complaint responses, and said it had since improved its complaints process. It offered £600 compensation, comprised of £50 for delays in the flashing kit, £100 towards energy costs, £150 compensation for the delays and inconvenience experienced, £100 for the time and effort pursuing the issues and the complaint and £200 for the delays in its complaint handling.
6. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she said she remained dissatisfied as the landlord had not completed the repairs to her windows. She wanted additional compensation due to the extensive delays in communication and completing the repairs, which had led to issues with cold temperatures and black mould in the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

7. The resident has raised concerns regarding outstanding works to her lounge windows. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. As the resident only raised concerns with the bedroom Velux window replacement within her complaint, the additional issues have not been subject to a formal complaint. If the resident still considers the issues with the lounge windows to be outstanding, she should raise the issues directly with the landlord and progress as a new formal complaint if required.

Handling of the window replacement

8. In accordance with the landlord’s responsive repairs policy, it is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property, including windows, in good repair. The repairs to the resident’s windows and front door were included within the landlord’s planned maintenance programme. As a result, the works would not be expected to be completed within the landlord’s responsive repair timeframe; however, the landlord still has a responsibility to resolve any immediate repair issues in the interim and the works should be completed within a reasonable timeframe.
9. In this case, it is not disputed that there were delays in completing the required replacement to the resident’s window. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
10. The landlord’s repair policy states that it will aim to finish the work the first time, wherever possible. The works commenced on 11 February 2021, however, due to having the incorrect flashing kit (to ensure the windows are weatherproof), the work could not be completed during the first appointment. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to confirm that the contractors had the correct parts before commencing the works, to prevent the impact to the resident. The flashing kits arrived on 8 March 2021, but the landlord was unable to carry out works due to adverse weather conditions until 12 March 2021. The contractor checked the flashing kits on 15 March 2021, and found that the incorrect size and connections had been sent by the manufacturer, which led to additional delays. However, it is acknowledged that the additional delays were outside of the landlord’s control. The works were subsequently completed on 19 April 2021.
11. When there are delays in completing repairs, landlords should manage the resident’s expectations, keep them informed, and show by its actions that it is taking reasonable steps to complete the repairs. Following the initial appointment, the resident was advised by the contractor that the part was expected to arrive on 17 February 2021 and it would contact her to arrange an appointment. However, there is no evidence that she received any further meaningful updates until 15 March 2021, at which stage she was advised further delays had been caused by adverse weather conditions. There is also no evidence that the resident was advised of an expected timeframe for the works, so the landlord failed to reasonably manage her expectations regarding when the work would be completed.
12. As a result of the delays, the window replacement was incomplete for over two months. In instances where repairs cannot be completed on the first appointment, the landlord should consider interim solutions to reduce the impact on the resident. In this case, it was appropriate that the contractor initially left tarpaulin over the windows as a temporary measure until the repair could be completed. However, the resident advised on 19 February 2021 that a contractor had attended without notice and removed the tarpaulin, so the windows had no insulation or soundproofing. It is unclear when the tarpaulin was reinstated but the landlord noted in its stage two response that “the loose tarpaulin was in place between 15th February 2021 and 29th April 2021”. The landlord therefore demonstrated that it took actions to mitigate the impact to the resident for the period the repair was outstanding. However, the resident had reported the repair issue caused a loss of heating, a draught, leaking and dust entering the room, so the interim solution had not resolved the issue in full.
13. In her complaint, the resident raised concerns that the contractors attended without arranging an appointment. Landlords should ensure that residents are given reasonable notice prior to repair appointments. In its complaint response, the landlord explained that its contractors may have attended without prior notice, if an appointment became available at short notice; however, as it occurred several times, it was appropriate that the landlord apologised. It was reasonable that the landlord learned from the outcome of the complaint and stated it had provided feedback to its contractors to ensure appointments were arranged in advance.
14. The contractor sent a letter to the resident on 22 April 2021, advising that the windows would be replaced due to potential damage caused to the seals as the windows had been exposed to rain. The contractor sent further letters to the resident on 10 May 2021 and the landlord advised the resident to arrange an appointment in its stage one response on 14 June 2021. The landlord therefore demonstrated that it attempted to take steps to complete the outstanding works and managed the resident’s expectations regarding the actions she was required to take for the work to be completed. The landlord can therefore not necessarily be held accountable for the delays in completing the repairs. The resident then stated in her complaint escalation on 1 July 2021 that she had contacted the contractor on 18 May 2021 regarding an appointment and provided dates she was available, but had not received a response. Whilst this is the case, it is clear that the contractor also wrote to the resident on 21 June 2021 after her letter to it. However, as the resident advised she had not received any communication, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have supported the resident to book an appointment, but there is no evidence that the landlord had addressed her concerns.
15. In an internal email on 22 September 2022, the landlord noted that it had sent a letter to the resident asking if there were any outstanding defects with the Velux windows as the defect period expired the following month. The landlord advised this Service on 13 October 2022, that it had “wrongly assumed that the work to the trims of the Velux windows had been completed when it advised that the complaint was closed” and it recognised it should have made further attempts to arrange the appointment. It stated an appointment was scheduled for 13 October 2022. While it is recognised that the resident did not make further attempts to chase the work with the landlord, ultimately, it is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure the work is completed. As a result of the landlord’s failings, the making good works remained outstanding for over a year.
16. The resident advised this Service on 24 January 2023 that she was unsure whether the works had been completed due to the appearance of the middle frame, and as the property remained a low temperature. The landlord should therefore provide evidence that it has fulfilled its repair obligations, or complete an inspection and any additional required works. The landlord should also ensure that it addresses the resident’s reports of mould in the property, which she advised this Service the landlord stated the windows would provide a solution for.
17. Overall, there were significant delays in completing all necessary repairs to the windows. The delays caused inconvenience to the resident, as well as              the impact of her outlined concerns with low temperatures and mould.  In accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance, awards of £100-£600 are appropriate in cases where the landlord’s failure has adversely impacted the resident. In its final response, the landlord offered £50 compensation for the delays in the flashing kit, £150 for the delays and inconvenience caused and £100 for the time and trouble pursuing the issue. At the time of the complaint response, the compensation offered was in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, as it is acknowledged that the impact on the resident was somewhat reduced when works were completed on 19 April 2021. However, the making good repairs remained outstanding for an additional three months following the completion of the complaint process, without an appropriate reason so further compensation is warranted. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay the resident an additional £100 compensation for the identified service failure.
18. The landlord offered £100 towards additional energy costs during the period the tarpaulin was in place over the window, and stated it would offer additional compensation if the resident could provide evidence that the energy costs had increased by more than £100. This Service’s remedies guidance states that compensation should be considered if the landlord’s failings led to a quantifiable financial loss to the resident. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord asked for evidence to determine the amount of the financial loss caused by additional energy costs.

Complaint handling

19. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it should respond to stage one complaints within ten working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days.
20. The resident raised her stage one complaint on 19 February 2021 and the landlord issued its response on 14 June 2021, so it significantly exceeded its response timeframe. The landlord also exceeded its response timeframe at stage two, as the resident escalated her complaint on 1 July 2021 and the landlord failed to issue a response until 27 July 2022, meaning it took over a year to respond. The resident also had to contact this Service to pursue the complaint with the landlord on her behalf. As a result, the resident experienced additional time and trouble in pursuing the complaint, both with the landlord and this Service.
21. This Service’s Complaint Handling Code (published on our website) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices. In accordance with the Code, the landlord is expected to address all points raised by the resident in a complaint, and provide clear reasons for its decisions. The code also states that “a complaint investigation must be conducted in an impartial manner, seeking sufficient, reliable information from both parties so that fair and appropriate findings and recommendations can be made”. Despite the resident raising concerns that works remained outstanding to the windows, the landlord failed to ascertain whether the repair had been completed in its stage two investigation. The landlord therefore failed to utilise the complaint process to resolve the underlying issues, or manage the resident’s expectations regarding when the works would be completed. Ultimately, this led to additional delays in completing the works and additional inconvenience caused to the resident.
22. The landlord acknowledged the delays in its complaint responses and offered £50 compensation for the delays at stage one and £150 for the delays to escalate to stage two. The landlord also demonstrated that it had learned from the outcome of the complaint as it had explained it had changed its process for complaint handling, to prevent further failings. The landlord’s offer of compensation was proportionate to the delays identified, and in line with this Service’s remedies guidance. However, as additional failings to fully investigate and address the complaint in full have been identified, further compensation is warranted. The landlord should therefore pay the resident an additional £50 compensation.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way it handled the repairs to the resident’s windows.
24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way it handled the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

25. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident:
    1. £500 compensation for the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s window replacement, inclusive of the £400 offered for this aspect in its stage two response.
    2. £250 compensation for its complaint handling failures, inclusive of £200 offered for this aspect in its stage two response.
26. The landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has satisfactorily completed the window repairs or complete an additional inspection and any additional required repairs.
27. The landlord should contact the resident and address any outstanding concerns with mould in the property.
28. The landlord should provide evidence that it has adhered to these orders within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

29. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its staff training requirements requiring complaint handling, to ensure that complaints are responded to in line with its response timeframes, properly investigated and addressed in full.