Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Southern Housing Group Limited (202206100)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206100

Southern Housing Group Limited

12 January 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of no heating and hot water in the property.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. Following the resident’s tenancy starting on 25 April 2022, she discovered that there was no water in the bathroom of the property. The resident stated that she had previously reported this to her Housing Officer on 22 April 2022, although the landlord has stated that it was first raised on 26 April 2022. The landlord has advised that on 30 April 2022, a contractor attended to switch on the water in the bathroom. The resident has advised that following this appointment she realised that there was no heating or hot water in the property.
  3. Following the resident reporting that the loss of heating and hot water had not been resolved, the landlord stated it tried to attend on 10 May 2022 but was unable to access the property. The resident advised this Service that a contractor attended on 13 May 2022, the heating in the property was reinstated, however she reported that her boiler had broken again on 19 May 2022. The landlord stated it then tried to attend the property on 20 May 2022 and 24 May 2022 but was unable to gain access to the property. The resident has stated that no one attended the property. The boiler was ultimately repaired on 31 May 2022.
  4. The resident raised a complaint on 10 May 2022 about the additional costs she incurred during the period she was without heating and hot water due to using electric storage heaters and having to boil water for bathing. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint handling, that her complaint had not been dealt with correctly and that she felt that the landlord had tried to stop her from raising a complaint. The resident was also dissatisfied that there had been missed appointments and, on one occasion, the contractor had arrived late.
  5. In the landlord’s final response on 25 July 2022, it explained that it had attempted to attend the property on several occasions but it could not gain access. It acknowledged its poor record-keeping as it was unable to find evidence of whether the resident had been made aware of the appointments. It apologised for the problems the resident experienced with the heating and hot water system after she had moved in. It acknowledged that the resident was without heating and hot water for 37 days in total, and offered the resident £125 compensation in view of this. This was made up of:
    1. £25 for missed or failed appointments;
    2. £50 for loss of hot water for 37 days; and
    3. £50 for loss of heating for 37 days.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied due to the length of time the issues were ongoing for, and the associated costs of the issues which impacted her and her son. She is seeking further compensation in view of these additional costs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident has contacted this Service throughout November 2022 to advise that the boiler has begun to leak again since September 2022 once she had started to use it more frequently after the summer. As the previous problems experienced by the resident were resolved in May 2022, this is a separate issue to the complaint raised with the Service. This is not something that this Service can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect. In December 2022, following contact from this service, the landlord agreed to raise a new formal complaint to deal with the resident’s current boiler issues.

Policies and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that repairs of heating and water systems are the landlord’s responsibility and that routine repairs will be completed as soon as possible. The landlord’s repairs information on its website states that no heating and hot water to the property is considered an emergency repair if it occurs between 31 October and 1 May, and that routine repairs are currently taking longer than usual for it to complete.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will compensate £25 for financial losses, or if the resident is claiming there has been a larger loss, receipts or evidence will be needed to support the claim.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has an informal ‘service dissatisfaction’ stage which consists of 10 working days where it will attempt to resolve the issue, a stage one where a response will be sent within 10 working days, and a stage two where a senior manager will review the case and respond within 20 working days. It states that at both stage one and two, an extension of 10 working days may be needed, but in such cases, an explanation will be given and a date which the resident can expect the response by. The policy also states that complaints will be acknowledged within three working days.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of no heating and hot water in the property.

  1. In this case, it is not disputed that the landlord was responsible for the repairs needed to the heating and water systems. It is also not disputed that the resident was left without heating and hot water between 25 April 2022 and 31 May 2022. The landlord has acknowledged its poor record-keeping as it had no evidence of whether the resident had been made aware of appointments it had made that were marked as no access.
  2. 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.
  3. In this case, the landlord did put matters right by acknowledging and apologising for its failings in regards to the length of time the resident was left without heating and hot water. It also put things right by carrying out remedial works on 31 May 2022, which reinstated the heating and hot water in the property.
  4. However, the resident had informed the landlord that the loss of heating and hot water in the property had resulted in additional costs as she was using electric heaters during this time. Whilst it is therefore clear that the resident did have access to alternative heating throughout this period, it is not clear from the evidence provided whether this was provided by the landlord or whether the resident had arranged this. During periods where a property experiences a loss of heating and hot water, it is appropriate for a landlord to provide alternative heating where necessary. In addition, given that the landlord’s compensation policy states that it would consider any financial loss if the resident could provide receipts, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider the resident’s claim, and to request any required evidence. In this case, the landlord failed to consider the additional costs and how this would have impacted the resident.
  5. When the resident initially reported that there was no water in the bathroom on 26 April 2022, the landlord acted appropriately by arranging for a contractor to attend on 30 April 2022. Following remedial works, the landlord believed that the issue had been resolved. The works had been completed within four working days which was an appropriate timescale for a routine repair when considering that the industry standard is 28 days.
  6. Following the appointment, the resident contacted her Housing Officer on 4 May 2022 as she had realised that there was no heating or hot water in the property. However, the landlord did not take any further action until the resident contacted it through its website on 9 May 2022. The resident raised concerns with the landlord about receiving no response from her Housing Officer and therefore due to a lack of communication on the landlord’s behalf, it appears that it may not have been aware of the loss of heating or hot water in the property. Despite this, the onus would be on the landlord to ensure it maintains records of any communication between its staff and the resident and it not doing so in this case impacted the resident as she was left without heating or hot water. It also would have been appropriate for the landlord to investigate this lack of communication internally and take further action as appropriate.
  7. Whilst the landlord has acknowledged that the resident was without heating for a total of 37 days from 26 April 2022 until 31 May 2022, it was not aware of the issue until the resident reported it on 4 May 2022 and therefore it would not have been possible for the landlord to resolve the issue prior to this. This Service acknowledges that this was frustrating for the resident, but the landlord had acted appropriately prior to 4 May 2022. The landlord resolved the heating and hot water issues which the resident was experiencing on 31 May 2022, and therefore had completed the repairs within 20 working days of it becoming aware of the issue. As the report was made in May it was reasonable for the landlord to consider the report as a routine repair and its response was within an appropriate timescale for that category of repair.
  8.  Nevertheless, the landlord has acknowledged that there were failed appointments due to its lack of effective communication with the resident following the reports made on 4 May 2022. It stated that it attempted to attend the property on 10 May 2022, 20 May 2022 and 24 May 2022 but was unable to gain access. The landlord acknowledged its poor record-keeping as there was no evidence of whether or not the resident had been informed of the appointments made. A landlord is expected to maintain an accurate and robust record of any repairs and contact with residents. The landlord’s failure to do this in this case meant that the resident was left with no heating or hot water as she was not aware of any appointments due to take place and therefore the appointments were missed. As such, it would be appropriate for the landlord to consider how it can improve its communication systems going forward to ensure residents are communicated with effectively in relation to any remedial works needed.
  9. Furthermore, the resident disputes anyone attending the property on the dates listed above and has advised this Service that she provided the landlord with evidence from her video doorbell which shows that no one attended on those dates. As the landlord has advised there is no evidence to suggest the resident was made aware of the appointments, and has not provided any evidence to this Service to show that the appointments did go ahead, this is an example of further poor record-keeping from the landlord. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider any evidence provided by the resident and, if appropriate, investigate further internally. The landlord’s failure to do this impacted the resident further due to the time and trouble she spent in order to provide the landlord with evidence, as well as further inconvenience as it prolonged the delays in any remedial work taking place.
  10. The resident provided evidence to this Service which suggests that on 13 May 2022 the landlord carried out remedial works which resolved the heating and hot water issues in the property, until 19 May 2022 when the issues reoccurred. The landlord has provided no evidence of any works on these dates, and made no reference to any works during this time in its communication with both this Service and the resident. Whilst the evidence provided by the resident shows that the landlord had attempted to resolve the issue, it is also evidence of the landlord’s poor record-keeping as it failed to provide evidence to this Service of the works. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate 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.
  11. The landlord acted appropriately by requesting medical evidence of any vulnerabilities from the resident as it did not have any vulnerabilities listed for the resident at the time. The resident informed the landlord on 9 May 2022 about her vulnerabilities, and the vulnerabilities of her son, however, the landlord failed to consider those vulnerabilities going forward in the repairs process. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider the vulnerabilities the resident had mentioned, and how this may have exacerbated any impact on the resident from the lack of heating or hot water in the property.
  12. Ultimately, whilst the landlord had clearly made attempts to resolve the loss of heating and hot water in the property once it was aware, the impact on the resident was exacerbated by the landlord’s poor record-keeping and its failure to effectively communicate with the resident. The landlord also failed to address the resident’s concerns about the additional costs she had experienced due to the lack of hot water and heating in the property. Therefore, when considering the factors listed above, the £125 compensation offered to the resident was disproportionate.
  13. This Service recommends compensation of £100 to £600 in cases where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident and the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. Therefore, it is the opinion of this Service that £225 compensation (inclusive of the £125 previously offered by the landlord) would provide adequate redress for the distress and inconvenience which impacted the resident. In addition, it would be appropriate for the landlord to consider any additional costs if the resident is able to provide the evidence required, as per its compensation policy.

 The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The resident first expressed dissatisfaction with the service she had received from the landlord on 9 May 2022. The landlord responded on the same day, to advise the ongoing issues had been raised with its contractors. In further communication between the landlord and resident on the same day, the resident stated that she felt like the landlord was stopping her from raising a complaint.
  2. The Complaint Handling Code provided by this Service (published on our website) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how a landlord should handle complaints. It defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation.” Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to recognise this as a complaint following the resident’s initial communication, and raise it accordingly. The landlord’s failure to do this constitutes a failing on its behalf.
  3. Following this, the landlord raised and acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 10 May 2022. It provided the stage one response on 17 May 2022. This was a total of six working days, and therefore the landlord had responded in line with the appropriate timeframe of 10 working days as listed in its complaints policy.
  4. As the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, she requested to escalate her complaint on 18 May 2022. Whilst no acknowledgement was provided at the time, it contacted the resident on 30 June 2022 to provide the resident with a holding response in which, it apologised for the delays and advised the resident that the stage two response would be sent by 26 July 2022. The holding response was in line with the expectations outlined in the Complaint Handling Code provided by this Service. The landlord then provided its stage two response on 25 July 2022. This was a total of 46 working days from the resident’s request to escalate her complaint and therefore, this is outside of the appropriate timeframe as listed in the landlord’s complaints policy. In addition, the landlord’s complaints policy states that a complaint will be acknowledged within three days, which the landlord failed to do on this occasion.
  5. Furthermore, there were several concerns raised by the resident which the landlord failed to address throughout both stages of the complaints process. On 9 May 2022, the resident raised concerns about the landlord’s complaint handling, she also raised concerns in relation to the lack of communication from the landlord as she had contacted a member of staff several times who had not responded. On 18 May 2022 the resident raised concerns about the landlord’s contractors arriving late for appointments which impacted the resident. As stated in the Complaint Handling Code provided by this Service, a landlord is expected to address to all points raised in a complaint. The landlord’s failure to do this in this case constitutes a failing on its behalf.
  6. In addition, the landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a ‘service dissatisfaction’ stage prior to a complaint reaching stage one or two. As stated in the Complaint Handling Code provided by this Service, the Ombudsman does not believe a third stage is necessary as part of a complaints process. The landlord’s ‘service dissatisfaction’ stage is seen as a third stage within its complaints process, and it would be appropriate for the landlord to review this and bring it in line with the expectations of the Ombudsman. If there are cases where the landlord does feel that this stage is strongly needed, it should explain this in its assessment.
  7. Overall, the landlord failed to comply with the appropriate timeframes as listed in its complaints policy. It also failed to address all of the resident’s concerns throughout the complaint process and did not appropriately recognise the resident’s complaint on 9 May 2022. It is recommended that the landlord review its ‘service dissatisfaction’ stage of its complaints policy and whether it is necessary, in line with the guidance provided by the Complaint Handling Code.
  8. This Service recommends compensation of £50 to £100 in cases where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided and it did not appropriately acknowledge it. Therefore, given the above factors, it is the opinion of this Service that compensation of £50 would provide adequate redress for the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way the landlord handled the resident’s reports of no heating and hot water in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way the landlord handled the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £275 compensation, which is inclusive of the £125 previously offered by the landlord. This is made up of:
    1. £125 as previously offered by the landlord (if this has not already been paid),
    2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience and,
    3. £50 for the complaint handling delays and for failing to address all of the residents’ concerns throughout the complaints process.
  2. This should be paid within four weeks of the date of this letter.
  3. The landlord is also ordered to consider any additional energy costs which the resident experienced throughout this period, if the resident provides the required evidence.
  4. The landlord is to confirm to this service that these orders have been complied with.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord review any vulnerabilities listed for the resident to ensure it has an accurate record which it will be able to consider in any future communication or during any future remedial works needed.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord considers providing further staff training on the importance of record-keeping and effective communication with residents to avoid similar issues in the future.
  3. It is recommended that the landlord considers providing additional staff training in relation to the appropriate timescales for complaint handling, so that complaints are dealt with in line with its policy and the Complaint Handling Code provided by this Service.
  4. The landlord should consider reviewing its ‘service dissatisfaction’ stage of its complaint policy, and to consider bringing it in line with the expectations of the Ombudsman. If there are cases where the landlord does feel that this stage is strongly needed, it should explain this in its assessment.