Southern Housing Group Limited (202204459)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204459

Southern Housing Group Limited

3 April 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 handling of:
   1. The resident’s improvement request.
   2. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord.
3. In May 2021, the resident submitted an improvement request for her property. The resident requested for a light fitting to be moved in the property and for wardrobes to be attached to the wall. The resident requested an update on her application in September 2021, but did not receive a response.
4. Subsequently, the resident raised a complaint about the delays to her improvement request. The resident stated that she had not received any information on whether her request had been approved, and she found it unacceptable that she had not received it four months later. As a resolution, the resident asked to be provided with an outcome.
5. In its stage one response, of 21 October 2021, the landlord stated that there was an action plan for approval on the account and apologised for the delays to the process, stating that it was taking longer than expected to provide an outcome to the request. It also informed the resident that a survey of her property would need to be completed prior to approval, and it would arrange for this to take place.
6. The resident contacted the landlord on a further five occasions between December 2021 and March 2022. However, a response was not provided to the resident on the outcome of her request and the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 3 March 2022. Despite acknowledging the escalation, the landlord did not provide the resident with its stage two response. The resident ultimately approached this Service to request a stage two response be provided. This Service contacted the landlord on 18 August 2022 asking that it do so.
7. The landlord provided a stage two response on 12 September 2022. It acknowledged that the complaint was closed at stage one with an expectation that a surveyor would attend the resident’s property to complete checks for the improvement notice. It also acknowledged that the resident had continued to chase a response to her improvement request since January 2022 and in her complaint escalation request of March 2022. It found that there had been unacceptable delays in responding to the resident, it had delayed escalating her complaint, and it had failed to complete actions it stated it would in its stage one response. As a resolution it confirmed that the improvement notice had been approved, and that works could commence. In addition, it offered the resident £75 compensation comprised of £25 for delays in its complaint handling, £25 for its delays in approving the resident’s improvement request and £25 as a goodwill gesture.
8. The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 24 October 2022. She confirmed that the landlord had approved the improvement request; however, she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s compensation offer as since submitting her request 18 months prior, the cost of materials and labour had increased putting her at a financial disadvantage. The resident confirmed this was her only remaining complaint.

Assessment and findings

Improvement request

9. It is not disputed by either party that the landlord failed in its service to the resident in regard to the delays in approving her improvement request. The landlord acknowledged that there had been an 18-month delay in this process for which it apologised for. The outstanding issue that the resident has referred to this Service is the level of compensation offered to her in recognition of these acknowledged delays.
10. When failings are identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord has put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles (DRP): to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
11. In this case, the landlord did attempt to put matters right by acknowledging and apologising for the delays to the approval of the resident’s improvement request. It stated that the approval had taken longer than expected. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident for these delays, and as such was in-line with good practice.
12. However, there is limited evidence that the landlord has learnt from the resident’s complaint, as the complaint response was not detailed in its reasoning as to how the failing occurred and how it would be prevented in future instances.
13. Furthermore, it did not acknowledge that its communication throughout the whole process had been poor and had meant that the resident had to make multiple efforts to contact the landlord to request an update on her improvement request. On occasions, when the resident did request for updates on her request, the landlord did not respond to her. At no stage during the proceedings was the resident provided with clear communication on the next steps the landlord would take, when to expect a decision by or what was delaying the response. This poor communication would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience, and would have been time consuming considering how long this matter took to resolve.
14. The landlord also did not act in accordance the actions it had agreed to in its stage one response of 21 October 2021. The landlord stated that an action plan was in place for the approval of her improvement request and that a surveyor would be required to attend her property to approve such work. However, no further action was taken by the landlord until the stage two response was provided in September 2022. This meant that the resident had to wait an addition 11 months from when the landlord said it had an action plan in plan until the approval of her improvement request. Furthermore, the landlord did not attend and survey the resident’s property for the approval to be granted, which was not addressed in its stage two response, it is unclear why the landlord had taken the decision that this was no longer required.
15. Overall, the landlord’s final offer of compensation of £50 (£25 for its delays in approving the resident’s improvement request and £25 as a goodwill gesture) was disproportionately low, especially when all the circumstances of the case are taken into consideration.
16. The resident contacted the landlord on numerous occasions requesting an update on her application, there was an unreasonable delay of 18 months in the landlord approving the resident’s request, there was lack of explanation for the delays and poor communication from the landlord. The landlord acted appropriately in apologising to the resident; however, its lack of evident learning was a further failure in its service. In addition, the level of compensation it offered to the resident, was disproportionately low given the length of the delays and the understandable impact this would have had on the resident..
17. The landlord has therefore been ordered to pay the resident a further £250 bringing the total payable to £300 (£150 for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble, plus £150 for the delays in confirming the outcome of the improvement request, these figures are inclusive of the £50 already offered by the landlord, if this has not been paid). This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which suggests awards of £100 to £600 where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
18. It is also recommended that the landlord review its compensation policy in relation to this services Remedies Guidance with regards to awards when a service failure has been identified, the landlord’s compensation policy stating that service failure is awarded a payment between £25-£50 and this service’s Remedies Guidance suggesting awards between £50 and £100.

Complaint handling

19. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it should provide the resident with a stage two response within 20 working days; however, in this case, the landlord did not act in accordance with this policy obligation.
20. The resident requested for her complaint to be escalated on 3 March 2022; however, a response was not provided until 12 September 2022. This is 117 working days outside of its policy obligation.
21. The landlord did identify that it had delayed its complaint response to the resident, but it did not acknowledge that it had not provided a clear and comprehensive complaint response. The landlord did not provide a detailed response to the issue raised nor did it address why there had been an excessive delay in the improvement approval procedure. It further did not explain how it would proceed in the future with similar requests, and a lack of learning was evident in its poor response. The incomplete responses from the landlord would have inevitably caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
22. As per the Ombudsman’s DRP’s the landlord should be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
23. In light of the above, the landlord’s final offer of £25 compensation for a 117 working day delay to the complaint response was disproportionately low. The landlord has therefore been ordered to pay the resident and additional £175, bringing the total payable to £200 compensation, inclusive of the £25 previously offered. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which suggests awards of £100 to £600 where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s improvement request.
25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the associated complaint.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

26. That within four weeks of the date of this report:
    1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £500 compensation, made up of:
       1. £300 for the delays to the approval of the resident’s improvement notice, inclusive of the £50 offered by the landlord, if this has not already been paid.
       2. £200 compensation for its poor complaint handling inclusive of the £25 previously offered if this has not already been paid
    2. Review how it communicates with residents regarding improvement requests, to ensure that it provides clear expectations as to how requests will be dealt with and the timeframe for a decision to be provided.
    3. Confirm that it has complied with the above order.

Recommendation

27. It is recommended that the landlord review its compensation policy in relation to this services Remedies Guidance with regards to awards when a service failure has been identified.