Southern Housing Group Limited (202127930)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127930

Southern Housing Group Limited

31 July 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
1. Damage, damp and mould to his living room walls and ceiling following a flood from the flat above in October 2021.
2. Drainage issues to the rear of his property.
This complaint is also about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the replacement of the resident’s boiler.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 16 June 2008. The property is a one bedroom, lower ground floor flat. At points during the complaints process the resident’s representative was in contact with the landlord and this service on the resident’s behalf. For the purpose of this report both the resident and his representative will be referred to as ‘the resident’.
At some point in October 2021, there were two incidents of flooding into the resident’s property from the flat above. The first was from a water storage cylinder, following which the landlord carried out minor repairs to the living room ceiling. The second, again from the flat above, and again into the resident’s living room, was the result of the upstairs resident leaving their bath running and flooding their bathroom. It was the landlord’s response to this second flood that was raised in the resident’s escalation request of 24 November 2021.
On 2 November 2021, the landlord logged a formal complaint from the resident regarding about the landlord’s handling of drainage issues to the rear of his property to prevent flooding into his property. The landlord sent an acknowledgment letter on 3 November 2021 and emailed its contractor the same day advising that it had received a complaint and requesting a timeline of events regarding the issues raised, along with any appointments that had been scheduled for rectification.
On 12 November 2021, the resident called the landlord to advise that the drainage company had called that day to advise that someone would attend to look at the issue. The resident said that about two months previously both the drainage contractor and the landlord had visited his property and he was advised that someone would contact him regarding the drainage, and the other outstanding repairs at his property. The resident went on to say that both the landlord and its contractor knew what the problem was with the drainage and therefore he wanted the problem fixed, and he did not want the drainage company to attend to look at it again.
On 19 November 2021, the landlord noted that the resident was not happy with its stage one response and, on 24 November 2021, the resident emailed to explain the reasons for his escalation request. This service has not seen a copy of the landlord stage one response. In his escalation request the resident referred to the drainage issue, damp, mould and damage to his living room ceiling and walls which had been caused by the second flood from the flat above in October 2021. The resident also said that he was not satisfied with the length of time it was taking, that he was constantly having to call or complain and nothing had been done about the repairs to his living room. The resident also said that he had tried to explain to the drainage contractor that there was no need for them to come a look at the drains as their supervisor had already visited in March 2021, but had not returned to complete the job.
On 10 December 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to chase its response to his complaint. The resident said that he had had no contact and was still waiting for his boiler to be replaced and for the landlord to carry out the repairs, and treat the damp, in his living room following the flood in October 2021.
Following further chasing by the resident, the landlord noted on 22 February 2022, that the resident’s email of 24 November 2021 requesting the escalation of his complaint had been received that month and was yet to be assigned to a manager.
On 24 February 2022, the landlord received an independent survey report, which it had instructed on 10 February 2022, to inspect the property to determine the presence and extent of problems associated with rising or penetrating dampness to the walls of the property/lower ground floor walls. The report, carried out on 22 February 2022, noted that:
1. The guttering and rainwater systems were ‘’visibly in poor order’’. However, as it was dry could not comment on the extent of any leaks that might be present. The guttering should be cleaned of leaves and blockages every year. Failure to maintain guttering often leads to problems with damp. This can hide underlying damp issues or result in unnecessary treatment for damp.
2. Render to the external walls was cracked and defective, the render was coated with what appeared to be a non–breathable paint, water gets trapped behind and the moisture saturates the wall.
3. The surrounding external ground levels to both front elevations are high in relation to the property’s internal floor construction. This is likely to result in rainwater splashing above the damp proof course and penetrating through the wall. This may allow ground moisture to penetrate the building.
4. Any defects would allow ground moisture to penetrate the building and should be repaired. Ground levels abutting the walls should be reduced to a minimum of 150mm below damp proof course levels.
5. At the time of the inspection, moisture profile readings obtained with an electronic moisture meter from the base of the walls indicated the presence of rising dampness. The penetrating dampness appeared to be due to the apparent defective render and the entrance steps allowing water to penetrate in from the side.
6. The report ‘‘strongly’’ advised that the landlord arrange for any defects to be attended and to be resolved without delay.
Following contact from this service, the landlord emailed the resident on 4 April 2022, stating that it had escalated his complaint to stage two. The landlord said that it had previously asked the resident to confirm the reasons why he wished to escalate the complaint, and that whilst the resident had said that he had provided this information before, it could not clearly identify this on his case file.
On 6 April 2022, the resident said that he had had approximately 4 visits from both the landlord’s and its contractor’s surveyors but nothing had been done. The resident said that he had been treated unfairly for so long by the landlord, that his children suffered from asthma and he found it difficult for them to stay with him when they were supposed to, as he did not want their condition to get worse.
The resident confirmed that the issues that remained outstanding were that:
1. There was a flood in his living room from the flat above in October 2021, which he reported but still nothing had been done about to address the damage caused to the walls and ceiling, and that there was damp which needed immediate attention.
2. There was an issue with the drainage at the back of his property and when it rained his kitchen and living room flooded.
3. His boiler needed to be changed as it was over 20 years old and cost a lot to run.
On 24 May 2022, the landlord noted that it had called the resident to provide an updated on the progress of the repair appointments and, as the resident did not want the complaint resolved until all the appointments were finalised, the complaint response deadline was extended to 7 June 2022. This service has seen no record of what was discussed during this call.
A property inspection was carried out on 27 May 2022. No details of the inspection have been provided to this service. The landlord also noted that a phone call was made to the resident to confirm the works that were to take place following the inspection but again no evidence of what was discussed has been provided to this service.
The landlord issued its final response on 8 July 2022, referring to a call with the resident that day. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its failure to raise any follow on works to deal with the dampness, mould and damage to the property caused by the flood into his living room in October 2021, despite the resident chasing the works during that 9 month period. The landlord acknowledged that this was an unreasonable amount of time for the works to be booked in. To ensure incidents like this did not happen again, it said that it would be reminding its repairs team of the importance of booking works following repair appointments to make safe. The landlord offered the resident £600 compensation made up of £200 for the delay in the repair, £100 for delays in its complaint handling and £300 as a goodwill gesture to partially cover his decoration costs
The landlord also said that:
1. As the result of the resident’s complaint an appointment had been booked for 11 July 2022 to carry out remedial works to the living room, including the damp and mould.
2. With regards to the issue of his living room wallpaper being damaged due to the flood from the flat above, as a gesture of goodwill, it had offered to partially reimburse the resident for the internal decoration in his living room. The landlord also confirmed that it would usually advise residents to have contents insurance and that it could not commit to completing these works itself.
3. It was waiting for the works to be scheduled for the drainage issue.
4. An appointment was scheduled to replace the boiler on 27 June 2022 however this was cancelled due to a misunderstanding regarding the type of boiler being installed. The landlord went on to say that it had spoken to its heating contractor who had explained that boiler replacements and installations were subject to an engineer’s survey and that, based on that survey, the engineer had decided that a like-for-like replacement was appropriate. The landlord said that it was sorry the resident was mistakenly told he would be getting a combination boiler and that its heating team would be in contact soon to re-arrange the appointment to have the boiler replaced. The landlord also noted that the resident had requested a copy of the engineer’s survey regarding the boiler replacement.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to relevant legislation, its policies and procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and that the landlord acted reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.
It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. Failure to create a record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action and missing opportunities to resolve repairs, as happened in this case. In addition, if the Ombudsman investigates a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
In this case, the investigation has been able to reach a determination based on the information to hand. However, the omissions related to the repair and complaint records, referred to in the follow assessment, underlines the inadequate record keeping by the landlord in that it was not able to provide the relevant information when asked. As a result of this failure the landlord has been ordered to carry out a review of its repairs record keeping processes and procedures in light of both the findings in this report and the recommendations made in this Service’s KIM report.

Relevant legislation, policies and procedures.

The landlord is obliged under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to complete repairs to the structure and exterior of the property, including drains, gutters, internal walls and ceilings, but not including painting and decorating unless in a communal area. The landlord is also obliged to keep in repair and working order any installations for space and water heating. This obligation is confirmed in the terms of the tenancy agreement.
Once a landlord is informed of some damage or deterioration in a property, it is ‘on notice’ to carry out a reasonable inquiry to determine the cause and complete a repair. What is a reasonable time will depend on all the circumstances of a case.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy refers to both emergency and routine repairs. With regards to emergency repairs the policy states that a repair will be treated as an emergency if there is an immediate risk to safety, security or health, and that it will repair or, if that is not possible, make safe as soon as possible and always within 24 hours of being notified. For routine repairs, the policy states that the landlord aims to complete all other repairs as quickly as possible, at a time that suits the resident and to finish the work the first time, whenever possible.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy also states that residents are responsible for getting their own contents insurance to cover loss or accidental damage to furniture and contents within their home, and that its building insurance will not cover resident’s belongings in the event of damage. The tenancy agreement confirms this stating that the landlord is responsible for insuring the structure of the building and communal areas and that residents are advised to take out a policy to protect themselves in the event of any loss or damage to the contents of their home.
The landlord has a two stage complaints policy which states that it aims to provide a stage one response within 10 workings and within 20 working days at stage two. If it is not possible for the landlord to respond within these timescales, the policy states that it will contact the resident and let them know why it is not able to do this and when it will provide the response. The policy goes on to state that this will not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason and the resident’s agreement.

Damage, damp and mould to the resident’s living room walls and ceiling following a flood from the flat above in October 2021.

An element of this complaint concerns the liability of the upstairs neighbour for damage caused to the resident’s flat as a result of the flood from that neighbour’s property caused by them allowing their bath to overflow. The resident has advised this service that the landlord told the upstairs neighbour that they would not be liable for the damage caused.
It is not the role of this service to comment on liability but rather whether the landlord’s response to reports of issues that it was obliged to address was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. In this case, as the landlord was not responsible for rectifying damage to the resident’s personal property or internal decoration, it would be for the resident to either make a claim for any damage to his personal items, either through his own insurance or via a private legal claim. However, the landlord was responsible for any repairs to the property itself and it is the landlord’s actions in regards to these matters that have been considered here.
It is not in dispute that the resident received a poor service from the landlord following the second flood into his property in October 2021. The landlord has accepted that it failed to raise any follow on works to deal with the damp, mould and damage to the property caused by that flood despite the resident chasing the works throughout a 9 month period. The landlord also acknowledged that the resident had had to wait an unreasonable amount of time for the works to be booked in.
As such it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident, offer compensation, explain what works it intended to carry out to resolve the outstanding issues and to explain what steps it had taken to improve its service. In response the landlord said that it would be reminding its repairs team of the importance of booking works following repair appointments.
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 takes into account 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.
At the time of the landlord’s final response of 8 July 2022, the resident had been waiting 9 months for the landlord to carry out required repairs to his living room. This was despite the resident reminding the landlord in his escalation request in November 2021, 1 month after the flood, of the damage to his living room ceiling and walls and the need for the landlord to take action. Despite this, the resident advising the landlord of damp and mould to his living room and that he said that he had been constantly having to call or complain and that nothing had been done about the repairs to his living room, the landlord failed to take any action to resolve these matters at that time.
This is particularly concerning given that the resident has children who he advised had asthma.
In was then not until its final response of 8 July 2022, 8 months after the escalation request that the landlord said it would address the outstanding repairs on 11 July 2022. Given the lack of repairs records the landlord has failed to evidence whether these works went ahead as promised on 11 July 2022, and having spoken to the resident on 26 July 2023, over a year later, it would seem that they did not and still remain outstanding.
Not only did the resident have to wait a significant and unreasonable amount of time for the landlord to acknowledge that the repairs had not been done and to agree to carry then out, the landlord then failed to follow through with the promises it made, leaving the resident with the disrepair and reported damp and mould for at least a further 12 months.
When landlord’s make commitments to take action in its complaint responses, the Ombudsman expects it to carry out those actions in a reasonable period of time. That the landlord did not fulfil its promise was a signficant failure, and was detrimental to the landlord/tenant relationship, due to fractured trust that resulted between the two parties.
In addition, damp and mould are health hazards, as confirmed by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by the Housing Act 2004, and as such the landlord had an obligation to identify and mitigate any such hazard. It would be expected of the landlord to inspect the property, carry out any repairs that it was responsible for, and provide measures to prevent the development of damp and mould.
In the evidence provided by the landlord for this case, it did arrange for a damp and mould inspection of the property on 22 February 2022, although it is not clear whether this inspection was raised in response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in his living room and it was not mentioned in the landlord’s final response. Nevertheless, given that the report ‘‘strongly’’ advised that the landlord arrange for any defects to be attended and to be resolved without delay, a order has been made for the landlord to confirm to this service that it addressed the defects listed and, if it has not done so to provide both this service and the resident with an action plan, with confirmed dates, as to when it will do so.
Taking all of the circumstances of the case into account, the landlord’s offer of £200 for the delay in the repair and £300 as a goodwill gesture to partially cover his decoration costs, £500 in total, was not not proportionate to the length of the delay nor the distress and upset caused to the resident. In addition, whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to remind its repairs team of the importance of booking following on works, that the landlord has provided no evidence that it also considered whether its records were robust enough, and if not what actions it might take to address this, was a further failing. For these reasons a finding of maladministration has been made and the landlord ordered to pay the resident further compensation as well as to take specific actions with regards to any outstanding repairs to the resident’s living room and the reported damp and mould.

Drainage issues to the rear of the resident’s property.

The landlord has provided no evidence regarding the drainage issues prior to the resident’s stage one complaint on 2 November 2021, however, it is evident at that stage that it had been agreed that another plumber would look at the drainage and that an appointment for this was arranged for 12 November 2021.
It is recognised that the resident was frustrated at the landlord seeking to inspect the drainage again, however, it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as drainage problems as it can be difficult to identify the cause of issue at the outset and in some case different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord. However, by 6 April 2022, almost 5 months later the resident was still advising the landlord that the drainage issue remained outstanding, and that his kitchen and living room flooded when it rained. In its final response of 8 July 2022, a further three months later, the landlord confirmed that the works were still awaiting a schedule.
Following its final response, on 19 August 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it had received the quote from its drainage contractor and that this had been agreed. The works would include the downpipe to be re-routed underground to connect to the drainage system and bypass the gulley, so that any water and debris from the roof would travel directly underground and only the surface water from the courtyard and from the two kitchen wastes would enter via the gulley.
The resident has advised this service that the drainage works were completed late December 2022/early January 2023 but that this had only happened because he had liaised directly with the contractor. Whilst there is limited evidence to support the resident’s position, this would explain their emails to the landlord regarding their contact with the drainage contractor and their email to the landlord on 2 October 2022, to advise that the drainage works were scheduled for 3 November 2022.
Whilst the details about who arranged for the works to be completed may not be entirely clear, what is clear is that overall it took the landlord more than a year from the resident’s initial complaint on 2 November 2021, to complete these repairs. As with its response to the resident’s report of a flood from the flat above into their living room, this was an excessive and unreasonable amount of time for the resident to have to wait for the works to be carried out and, given the reports that water flooded the resident’s kitchen and living room when it rained, this must have been extremely distressing and inconvenient to the resident. Despite this, the landlord made no apology for the delay in carrying out these works in its final response and made no offer of compensation in relation to this issue.
As a result a finding of maladministration has been made and, to make things right, the landlord has been ordered to apologise for the failings identified in this report and to pay the resident £500 compensation.

The landlord handling of the replacement of the resident’s boiler.

Whilst the evidence regarding the replacement of the resident’s boiler is very limited, it is clear that this matter was not raised as part of the resident’s initial complaint nor his escalation request. However as the landlord did provide the resident with a final response to his dissatisfaction with the proposed like-for-like replacement as part of its final complaint response on 8 July 2022, it is appropriate for its response to be assessed by this service as part of this investigation.
It is not disputed that by December 2021, the landlord had agreed to replace the resident’s boiler, and that the resident was chasing the landlord for this to take place. The resident repeated his request for the boiler to be changed in April 2022. It is also evident at the time of the landlord’s final response that the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s refusal to install a combination boiler, and that he had asked for evidence from the landlord to support its position that this would not be possible.
When carrying out works, such as the replacement of boiler, it is reasonable for landlord’s to rely on the advice provided by experts in that given field. In this case the landlord said that it had relied on the advice given by its heating contractor following ‘an engineer’s survey’, which was a reasonable position for the landlord to take.
However, despite noting that the resident had asked to see a copy of the report referred to in its final response, the landlord did not provide this. Following the landlord’s final response, the resident continued to challenge the landlord’s decision not to install a combination boiler and to repeatedly request a copy of the relevant survey report. During a telephone conversation with this service on 27 July 2023, the resident advised that they had still not been provide with the requested report.
Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the advice of its specialising heating contractor with regards to what type of boiler was suitable for installation in the resident’s property, it was not reasonable for the landlord to fail to provide the resident with a copy of that report. If indeed the advice contained in that report confirmed the landlord’s position, this would have gone some way to allay the resident’s concerns and to have addressed their doubts about whether the landlord’s decision was fair.
As such a finding of service failure has been determined and a further order made that the landlord provide the resident with a copy of the report from its heating engineer that a combination boiler is not suitable for his property. Further orders have been made regarding action the landlord is to take were it to be unable to provide the said report.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The resident raised their initial complaint on 2 November 2021, which the landlord acknowledged the following day in accordance with its complaints policy. No copy of the landlord’s stage one response has been provided and therefore it has not been possible to assess whether the landlord issued its response within the 10 working days timescales set out in its complaints process, nor what the content of that response was.
The resident escalated his complaint on 19 November 2021, which was followed up with an email on 24 November 2021 explaining the reasons for his escalation request.
According to the landlord’s complaints policy it should have provided its stage two response by 22 December 2021, within 20 working days. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge the complaint until 22 February 2022 and then failed to escalate the complaint until 4 April 2022, following contact with this service. In its contact with this service the landlord said that the resident had not provided a reason for his escalation request, which was evidently not the case. Due to this error by the landlord the resident had to resubmit his escalation request causing him unnecessary inconvenience.
The landlord then failed to provide its final response until 8 July 2022, almost 7 months after the original deadline for it to do so and 3 months after it had been contacted by this service in April 2022.
Given the extent of these failures, it was appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident compensation for the delays in its complaint handling. However, the £100 offered was not proportionate nor in line with the amounts suggested by this service in our Remedies Guidance for situations where its failure has adversely affected the resident and where there was no permanent impact on the resident. Further, in its final response the landlord failed to offer the resident either an apology or explanation for the excessive delay in it providing its final response to his complaint. For this reason a finding of maladministration has been made and the landlord order to pay the resident an additional £200 for its complaint handling failures, bringing the total payable to £300, and to provide the resident with both the apology and an explanation for the delays.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to damage, damp and mould to the resident’s living room walls and ceiling following a flood from the flat above in October 2021.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to drainage issues to the rear of the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the replacement of the resident’s boiler.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

Whilst the landlord acknowledged and apologised to the resident for the delays in it raising following on works following a flood into the resident’s property in October 2021, the level of compensation offered nor the learning it said it had taken from the complaint were sufficient to put right the significant failings and excessive delays in this case. The landlord then failed to complete the works it had agreed to carry out in its final response and it is understood by this service that those works remain outstanding.
The resident had to wait an excessive and unreasonable amount of time for the works to be carried out to address the drainage issues to the rear of his property. Given this failure it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have apologised to the resident the delay in carrying out these works in its final response and offer further compensation, but it did not do so.
Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on advice provided by its heating contractor with regards to what sort of boiler it would be appropriate to install in the resident’s property, it was unreasonable for it to not provide a copy of the engineers report, referred to in its final response, following the resident’s repeated requests for it to do so.
There were excessive delays in the landlord providing its final response to the resident’s complaint for which the landlord failed to apologise or to provide the resident with an explanation for the delay. The offer of £100 by the landlord was also not proportionate to its failures.

Orders

Within 28 calendar days of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Pay the resident a total of £1,600 made up of:
  1. £800 for the delays in addressing the repairs to his living room following the flood from the flat above. This is inclusive of the £200 compensation and £300 goodwill payment previously offered, if this has not already been paid.
  2. £500 for the delays in it addressing the drainage issues at his property.
  3. £300 for its complaint handling failures. This is inclusive of the £100 previously offered, if this has not already been paid.
2. Arrange for an inspection of the resident’s living room to confirm what repairs remain outstanding following the flood from the flat above in October 2021. An action plan is then to be produced detailing what works are to be carried out and by when. Both the report and the action plan are to shared, discussed and agreed with the resident, and then shared with this service.
3. Arrange for a further independent inspection of the property to determine the presence and extent of problems associated with rising or penetrating dampness to the walls of the property/lower ground floor walls. The inspection is also to confirm whether there is any connection between the damp and mould reported in the resident’s living room and the issues raised in the report provided to the landlord in February 2022. An action plan is then to be produced detailing what works are to be carried out and by when. Both the report and the action plan are to shared, discussed and agreed with the resident, and then shared with this service.
4. Provide the resident with a copy of its heating contractor’s report confirming the landlord’s position that the water pressure in the resident’s flat is not sufficient for a combination boiler. The landlord is also to confirm the time and date the said visit took place. If no such report is available the landlord is to arrange for an inspection to be carried out by its heating contractor and a report produced, a copy of that report is then to be shared with the resident.
5. Carry out a review of its repairs record keeping processes and procedures in light of both the findings in this report and the recommendations made in this Service’s KIM report. The landlord is to provide this service with the outcome of its findings and any actions it proposes to take as a result.
6. Confirm that it has complied with all of the above orders.