Southern Housing Group Limited (202218230)

Back to Top

 

A picture containing font, text, graphics, logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218230

Southern Housing Group Limited

28 June 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:
    1. handling of the resident’s reports of leaks into her property from the communal roof and the resulting internal damage.
    2. handling of the complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. This is a two-bed top floor flat and the resident lives there with her adult daughter. There are resident vulnerabilities noted on file.
  2. The resident first reported a leak into her living room ceiling from the communal roof, on 6 July 2021. This resulted in extensive internal damage to her ceiling and walls, damp and mould. She was advised that a contractor would attend to the leak but heard nothing back.
  3. The resident chased this repair several times and then submitted a Stage 1 complaint on 24 September 2021, advising that she still had leaks into the property, that she wanted the communal roof to be repaired, compensation, and a full explanation as to what had happened to cause delays to works.
  4. Works were undertaken to resolve the leak on 6 October 2021. The resident’s Stage 1 complaint was upheld by the landlord and it advised that an action plan would be put in place. It explained that an asbestos assessment would be undertaken to enable it to establish how to proceed with further works to the roof.
  5. Displeased with the handling of this matter, the resident submitted a Stage 2 complaint on 25 August 2022. She noted that the repair to her ceiling and walls had still not been completed and was dissatisfied with the way in which the landlord had handled her complaint. The landlord accepted its fault in this matter and on 23 September 2022, offered the resident £175 compensation in its final response.
  6. The works to the resident’s property were completed in January 2023. She has advised this Service that she remains dissatisfied with how this matter was managed, nonetheless. As an outcome to her complaint, the resident would like additional compensation to reflect the delays to her repair and the complaint handling issues.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks into her property from the communal roof and the resulting internal damage.

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that the landlord is responsible for communal repairs and ‘responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in good repair’. This includes ‘drains, gutters, external pipes and the roof’. The landlord is also responsible for ‘internal walls, floors and ceilings and plasterwork’. It states that it aims to complete communal repairs as quickly as possible.
  2. The landlord operates a two-tier repair service
    1. Emergency Repairs – will be completed (or made safe) within 24 hours. This includes blocked main drains, burst pipes or other major plumbing repairs.
    2. Routine repairs – will be completed as soon as possible – all routine repairs will be arranged at a time to suit the resident. This is based on an appointment system between the hours of 8 am – 5pm.
  3. The resident reported a leak into her property from the communal roof on 6 July 2021. The roof was not attended to until 6 October 2021, after the resident made a Stage 1 complaint, despite the resident chasing this repair several times. Although the landlord’s repair policy does not specifically mention leaks from a roof into a resident’s property as an emergency repair, the landlord’s policy does state that the list provided is ‘not exhaustive’. The policy also states that routine repairs will be completed ‘as soon as possible’. This Service would reasonably expect the landlord to make safe a leak repair within 24 hours or as soon as is practicable. The resident waited three months for the leak issue to be repaired and this Service does not consider this to be a reasonable time.
  4. Furthermore, the resident was not kept updated as to the progress of the roof leak repair and the records show that the landlord’s contractors had issues with appointments on 25 and 28 August 2021. The contractors called the resident for access to the communal roof on 25 August 2021 and the resident advised them that she believed access was via a communal loft hatch. She was advised the contractors would get straight back to her but heard nothing back. It is unclear why the contractors called the resident for access to the communal roof and why they did not check with the landlord for access arrangements to a communal space before attending the property. It would have been appropriate for the landlord’s contractors to do this so that the roof could have been inspected in a more timely manner. The contractors then missed an appointment on 28 August 2021, without letting the resident know.
  5. Between 6 July 21 and 16 September 2021, the resident had chased the repair on at least six occasions, without any progress being made. The repair logs were not fully updated and the repairs to the resident’s own property were not addressed at the time. This caused the resident  adverse effect in terms of frustration and distress and the delay in the roof repair may have caused further damage to the resident’s ceiling and walls due to the recurring leaks into her living room. Had the repair issues been investigated and addressed, the resident may not have had to progress to a Stage one complaint on 24 September 2021.
  6. Furthermore, following the original repair to the communal roof on 6 October 2021,  the landlord advised the resident that contractors had noted asbestos in the roof, so it would need to carry out an asbestos inspection and report, prior to any further repairs being carried out. The records show that the landlord already had historic asbestos report summaries on file from 2019, showing that asbestos was present in the roof and wall tiles and was very low risk. The landlord’s specialist contractors did not carry out a new asbestos management survey of the communal building until 15 April 2023. This is a failing on the part of the landlord as it would have been reasonable for it to commission and chase an up-to-date asbestos report soon after 6 October 2021. This may well have led to any further works being carried out in a more timely manner.
  7. Additionally, in its Stage one complaint response on 8 October 2021, the landlord assured the resident that a live action plan regarding works would be put in progress and neither this Service, nor the resident has seen any evidence of this action plan, despite the resident chasing this several times after 8 October 2021. This led to further stress, frustration and time and trouble for the resident. In fact, the landlord’s records show that as at 30 August 2022, the action plan was incomplete and there was confusion as to what works were needed, what asbestos reports were needed and if any progress had been made. These record keeping and communication errors would have contributed to delays in carrying out any works and would have compounded the adverse effect on the resident.
  8. The resident also asked for copies of the asbestos reports for the roof and for her own property as she was concerned this may be present in her dwelling. These were not shared with her, despite the fact that an updated asbestos survey was carried out on her property in October 2022 and a copy of the report and findings was shared with the landlord. This caused the resident added anxiety and frustration and time and trouble in pursuing the issue.
  9. There is no dispute that there were delays to carrying out the repairs. In its Stage 2 complaint response on 23 September 2022 the landlord acknowledged this, apologised to the resident for the delay and for its communication issues, and advised the resident that it already had a summary of asbestos reports from the communal roof on file, which it could reasonably have relied on. The landlord also offered the resident £175 compensation (£100 for delays to the repair, £25 for complaint handling issues and a goodwill gesture of £50). It also advised that it would review its responsive repairs policy, to ensure that any internal damage caused by a fault of the landlord, would be returned to a ‘like for like’ condition.
  10. However, following its Stage 2 complaint response, internal works to the resident’s property were not completed until January 2023. This is a significant and unreasonable delay, which caused additional anxiety and time and trouble to the resident and impacted on her ability to enjoy her home. Furthermore, there were a series of failings by the landlord before the internal works were completed. After its Stage one complaint response in October 2021, it had initially advised the resident to pursue the internal damage to her walls and ceiling with her own insurer, even though the damage was caused by the leak from the roof. Furthermore, as the landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for internal walls and ceilings, it was inappropriate to advise the resident to pursue the matter with her insurer.
  11. Once it had agreed to complete the works, there were still communication errors and further delays. The landlord raised a repair request for damp and mould in the resident’s living room in November 2021, this was not completed until 4 November 2022. The final painting and decorating works were not completed until 19 January 2023, despite the resident supplying photographs of the required works in October 2022, so as to give contractors a clear idea of the works needed. These communication issues and continued delays caused the resident anxiety, frustration, time and trouble and impacted on her ability to enjoy her home. In total from first reporting the roof leak repair on 7 July 2021, to works being fully completed inside the resident’s home on 19 January 2023, the resident waited over 18 months. This is an unreasonable delay and resulted in substantial adverse effect on the resident in terms of time and trouble, frustration, and the inability to be able to enjoy her home.
  12. The landlord did not act in accordance with its repair time frames, did not maintain communication with the resident and did not share a workable action plan with the resident. It did not have clear, coherent records, which added to the repair handling failures. As such, a finding of severe maladministration is made, along with orders for redress.

The landlord’s Complaint Handling

  1. The landlord states it has adopted the Housing Ombudsman’s definition of a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action’ by the landlord or ‘those acting on its behalf’.
  2. The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy
    1. Stage 1 – where the landlord will provide a response within 10 working days. At the end of Stage 1, the landlord will write to the resident to confirm the complaint stage, complaint definition, the decision on the complaint, reasons for the decision and details of remedy to put things right, and details of any outstanding actions and a plan to monitor these’
    2. Stage 2 – where the landlord will respond to the resident within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
  3. The records show that the landlord did not follow its own policy. Despite initially writing to the landlord on 19 August 2021 and entitling her correspondence a ‘complaint’, the landlord did not treat the resident’s dissatisfaction as such. Subsequently, the complaints process was not commenced until the resident raised a further complaint on 24 September 2021. This was inappropriate.
  4. While the landlord then responded to the resident’s Stage 1 complaint on 8 October 2021, it made no offer of redress despite recognising that there had been failures which delayed the progress of the resident’s repairs. It instead closed the resident’s complaint, and on receiving communication that the resident remained dissatisfied with its response (on the same day), advised her to wait until the repairs were completed to escalate matters. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to keep the complaint open until the repair issues were resolved.
  5. Furthermore, in its initial complaint response to the resident, the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns about the damage to her living room ceiling and walls. The landlord did, however, acknowledge this in its Stage two response. However, had the resident not been dissuaded to escalate her Stage one complaint to a Stage two complaint, this may have  saved the resident additional time and trouble in having the substantive issues of her complaint dealt with. This also prevented the resident from approaching the Housing Ombudsman Service sooner.
  6. Additionally, the landlord had initially advised the resident that it could not escalate  her complaint to a Stage two complaint of 25 August 2022 as her complaint had been closed more than 20 days previously. This is inappropriate as the landlord had previously advised the resident not to escalate her complaint until all works were completed. The landlord failed to consider the advice it had given to the resident and caused the resident additional distress.
  7. Although the landlord did apologise for the delays and for the way the complaint was handled the resident was offered only £25 for the complaint handling delays and £50 as goodwill gesture. This Service does not consider this to be reasonable redress for the adverse effect suffered by the resident, in terms of time and trouble and frustration. As such, a finding of maladministration is made as well as orders for redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks into her property from the communal roof and the resulting internal damage.
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. In recognition of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks into her property from the communal roof and the resulting internal damage, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £900 compensation. This is in addition to the £100 already offered to the resident. It should do this within four weeks of this report and should update this Service once it has done so.
  2. In recognition of the landlord’s complaint handling, the landlord should pay the resident £175 compensation. This is in addition to the £75 already offered to the resident. It should do this within four weeks of this report and should update this Service once it has done so.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to review the findings of this report, alongside its responsive repairs policy, to determine how it can prevent future issues of this nature reoccurring.