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

Optivo (now Southern Housing) (202216980)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216980

Optivo (now Southern Housing)

31 October 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. How the landlord handled repairs to the communal entry door to the building.
    2. How the landlord handled repairs to the communal TV aerial.
    3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a flat in a communal building.
  2. The landlord’s records showed that it received reports that its newly installed communal door entry system at the resident’s building was not working, including for the rear entry door, in June 2021, although it only cancelled its jobs for these in September 2021 for a “data cleanse”. It then received further reports that this meant that the building was insecure and that the issue was still ongoing in December 2021 and March 2022, but it only accepted an invoice for this in 25 April 2022, and it did not record taking any further action at that time.
  3. The landlord’s contractor repaired a fault with the communal TV aerial’s signal at the resident’s building in January 2022. However, the contractor then noted in February 2022 that, while working, the TV signal was not good at the aerial input, the aerial needed scaffolding in order to be accessed, and the aerial possibly needed to be upgraded.
  4. In March 2022, the resident subsequently made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord about issues including how it was handling repairs to the communal TV aerial. She explained that she and various neighbours had continued to report a fault with the TV aerial’s poor signal to it for weeks, but that it had neither actioned nor got back to her about this. The resident also said that this had caused her frustration, as she had received increased charges from the landlord for such services. It then acknowledged her complaint in March 2022, and it confirmed that a repair job had already been raised for the TV aerial.
  5. The landlord subsequently chased the status of the communal TV aerial works internally, and it was then chased by the resident for an update on this, in May 2022. During a subsequent call with it on 20 May 2022, she also raised issues with the status of repairs to the rear communal entry door to the building. The landlord’s notes described the elements of the resident’s complaint as being:
    1. The communal rear entry door to the building was unlocked, and had been in that condition for over a year, which was a health and safety hazard.
    2. The communal TV aerial did not work, and it should offer her compensation for the period that she was without television, but still had to pay for a TV licence.
  6. The landlord was then chased by the resident again in July 2022, when it noted that her building’s door entry system’s lock had been disconnected but had now been reconnected, and that the system was working with the exception of a single property that had never given access for this. As she was still unhappy, however, because the communal TV aerial work was still ongoing and required scaffolding, and it had not progressed her stage 1 complaint, it confirmed that it opened the complaint on 26 July 2022.
  7. The landlord subsequently sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 25 August 2022. It explained that it had raised a communal door entry system repair job on 8 June 2022 that was completed on 8 July 2022. The landlord also apologised that the communal TV aerial repair was still outstanding, as it was still waiting for a confirmed date for scaffolding to complete the repair, due to miscommunication from its contractor. It had therefore asked the contractor for better repairs communication, and it agreed to inform the resident when it had a confirmed date. The landlord then noted internally that the scaffolding would be installed on 12 September 2022 for the TV aerial repair to begin on 13 September 2022.
  8. Following a final stage complaint escalation request by the resident on 25 August 2022, about both her building’s rear communal entry door still being unlocked, and the communal TV aerial still not working, a final stage complaint panel review meeting was held by the landlord on 5 October 2022. It subsequently noted that the cost of amplifier repairs to resolve the TV aerial signal would be greater than £250 per unit, which meant that it was obliged to start a Section 20 consultation process about the cost with the building’s leaseholders before it could start these repairs. The landlord then sent the resident a final stage complaint response on 19 October 2022, in which it stated that:
    1. Following repairs made to the intercom system in June and July 2022, it could confirm that the building’s rear communal entry door was functioning correctly, but that this could break down due to usage and how this was used by residents, visitors and others.
    2. The front door to the resident’s property was the main source of security, and the communal door served as a secondary security measure. The landlord was therefore satisfied that the security of the resident’s property had not been compromised while the repairs to the communal door remained outstanding. Although it had recommended that it review its repairs service to ensure that communal entry doors were repaired as quickly as possible.
    3. Its contractor’s previous communal TV aerial repairs did not resolve the problem, and they suspected that amplifier replacement works were needed. Due to the costs involved, a Section 20 consultation process therefore had to go ahead before any work could start. The contractor also informed the landlord that they might have to check each individual property’s cables and signal boosters, if replacing the amplifier did not resolve the issue, which meant that it was not yet able to provide a completion date for the work.
    4. The resident was awarded £100 compensation for the inconvenience caused to her by the time taken by the landlord to complete repairs to the communal TV aerial, and for her time and trouble in having to raise a complaint to receive updates on the status of the work.
  9. The resident subsequently complained to the Ombudsman that her building’s rear communal entry door was still unlocked. She also complained to us about the length of time that the landlord was taking to repair the communal TV aerial, and that the level of compensation that it had offered her was too low. This was in light of the delays, detriment, distress and inconvenience she had experienced.

Assessment and findings

Agreement, policies and procedures

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for the repair of the exterior and structure of her building, and of the shared facilities there.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy does not give any timeframes for when non-emergency repairs will be completed, noting that it will “aim to complete all repairs in one visit and certainly want it to take as little time as possible.” The policy confirms that it is responsible for repairing shared TV aerials installed by it, as well as outside doors.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy and procedure state that it will consider offering up to £250 discretionary compensation in cases where it has taken reasonable steps to resolve any failure in service to recognise distress or inconvenience caused, e.g. repeated attempts to resolve an issue.
  4. The landlord’s complaints resolution policy at the time of the resident’s complaint stated that it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being raised. It was also required to decide whether to escalate a final stage complaint to its review panel within 10 working days of receiving the complaint escalation.

Repairs to the communal entry door

  1. The landlord’s repair logs and internal correspondence state that it received reports that its newly installed communal door entry system at the resident’s building was not working, including for the rear entry door, from 5 June 2021 onwards. It responded to that and a subsequent report by her on 15 June 2021 by cancelling its jobs for these on 27 September 2021, with the only reason given by it for doing so being “data cleanse”. The landlord then received further reports that this meant that the building was insecure and that the issue was still ongoing on 16 December 2021 and 1 March 2022. However, it only accepted an invoice for this on 25 April 2022, and it did not record taking any further action for this at that time, which was inappropriate and contrary to her tenancy agreement’s and its responsive repairs policy’s obligations for it to do so.
  2. It was only after the resident raised the communal rear entry door repair with the landlord as part of her stage 1 complaint on 20 May 2022, and chased this on 8 July 2022, that its contractor visited her building about this on the latter date, after it had raised a repair job on 8 June 2022. The contractor found that the door entry system was working with the exception of a single property that had never given access for this, but that the door lock had been disconnected, and so they reconnected the lock. The landlord’s subsequent complaint responses therefore informed the resident that the repair had been completed, but that the door could break down due to usage and how this was used, while recommending reviewing its repairs service to ensure that this was repaired as quickly as possible.
  1. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord did eventually then reconnect the lock to the resident’s building’s communal rear entry door in July 2022, in accordance with her tenancy agreement and its responsive repairs policy. However, it is of concern that it both took over a year to do so after this outstanding repair was first reported in June 2021, despite being chased by her about this at least 5 times, and that it reported that the door could break down again due to usage and how this was used. The condition of the door was confirmed by the resident’s subsequent complaint to the Ombudsman that the door was still unlocked, suggesting that this had broken down again.
  2. Therefore, the landlord was responsible for failings in both delaying the resident’s building’s communal rear entry door repair for at least 11 months, by taking over a year to arrange this instead of within a reasonable period such as 28 calendar days, and in not trying to resolve the condition of the door to prevent further break downs. It also failed to acknowledge either this repair delay or its lack of preventative works, other than recommending that its repairs service ensure that such repairs were done as quickly as possible, demonstrating that it did not learn from the outcome of her complaint, contrary to the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.
  3. The resident has explained that she has experienced detriment, distress and inconvenience as a result of the landlord’s communal rear entry door repair delays, which is concerning. As a consequence, it has been ordered below to attend this to both repair the door lock again, if it has not done so already, and to investigate how to prevent future break downs, providing her and the Ombudsman with the outcome of its investigation and details as to how it proposes to stop the door from breaking down again.
  4. The landlord has also been ordered below to write to the resident to apologise for its failings in handling her building’s communal rear entry door repairs, and to compensate her for these in line with its compensation policy and procedure and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The former recommends up to £250 compensation to recognise distress or inconvenience from failures in service, including repeated attempts to resolve an issue, which is in accordance with our recommendation of compensation in this range for failures that adversely affected the resident that the landlord did not acknowledge or attempt to put right. Therefore, it has been ordered below to pay her £250 compensation for this, as well as recommended below to review its staff’s relevant training needs, in order to try and prevent its failings in her case from occurring again in the future.

Repairs to the communal TV aerial

  1. The landlord’s repair logs and internal correspondence relating to work on the resident’s building’s communal TV aerial stated that a work order was raised on 24 January 2022 following a report from the resident that she had lost the TV signal. Its contractor’s subsequent inspection on 1 February 2022 found that the signal strength was not good at the aerial input, recommending scaffolding to inspect and possibly replace the aerial, which it raised a work order for and chased updates on internally in March and June 2022. The landlord then arranged for scaffolding to be installed on 12 September 2022, and for TV aerial repairs on 13 and 29 September 2022.
  2. However, on 29 September 2022, the contractor informed the landlord that amplifier replacement works were also required to resolve the poor communal TV aerial signal, with it finding that the cost of the work would be greater than £250 per unit, and it would therefore need to a arrange a Section 20 consultation process. It subsequently received the contractor’s formal quote for the work on 19 December 2022, and it approved this and began the consultation process on 10 January 2023.
  1. Initially, the landlord acted appropriately in response to resident’s report of the communal TV aerial issue. It raised a work order following her report and arranged for its contractor to inspect the aerial and recommend repairs within a reasonable period of 8 calendar days. However, between 1 February and 12 September 2022, no further action was taken for over 7 months, and the request by the contractor for scaffolding to repair the TV aerial was not progressed for most of this period, when she chased and complained to it to do so and for updates at least 5 times. The resident also received a poor level of service from the landlord when she chased it for updates at the time, as it was unable to confirm the status of the work for much of the period, other than that this would be progressed on unspecified dates.
  2. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord’s complaint responses to apologise to the resident for its communal TV aerial repair delays, offer her compensation in recognition of her inconvenience from this, and explain the steps that it had taken to improve its service. This sought to follow the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. The landlord acted fairly and attempted to put things right in acknowledging its mistakes, apologising to the resident, eventually progressing the repairs, and offering her £100 compensation. It also looked to learn from the outcome of her case, including by asking its contractor for better repairs communication, and it was not responsible for the statutory obligation for it to carry out a Section 20 consultation for the works costing its leaseholders more than £250 each.
  3. The landlord’s offer of £100 compensation was in line with its compensation policy’s and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s band for failures including delays in getting matters resolved. However, in light of the significant delay experienced by the resident in it progressing the still outstanding communal TV aerial work, and the poor level of communication that she received from it, it would be appropriate for it to pay her additional compensation in order to fully resolve this. This is in line with the policy’s and our guidance’s above recommendations to recognise distress or inconvenience from failures including repeated attempts to resolve an issue that adversely affected the resident.
  4. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to pay the resident £250 further compensation, in addition to the £100 that it previously awarded her if she has not received this already, to recognise the over 7 months it took to arrange scaffolding to progress the communal TV aerial work. This is as well as the poor service that she received when chasing it for updates. The landlord has also been ordered below to contact the resident to provide her with an up-to-date timescale for it to complete the TV aerial repairs, and to continue to give her regular updates on the progress of the works until their completion. It has additionally been recommended below to review its relevant staff training needs to seek to prevent a recurrence of its failings in her case.
  5. The continued frustration that the ongoing communal TV aerial repair delay has caused the resident, as a result of the landlord’s Section 20 consultation, is understandable, particularly as she is a tenant who does not pay a service charge that would be affected by the repair costs. However, it has a duty to follow its legal obligations under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to consult its affected leaseholders, when their costs from these works exceed the threshold of more than £250 each for a Section 20 consultation, before progressing the repairs. Therefore, the landlord would not be expected to provide the resident with a further remedy for this.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord did not follow its complaints resolution policy at the time of the resident’s complaint in relation to stage 1 of the complaints process. She initially made a stage 1 complaint that was acknowledged by it on 9 March 2022, which she then confirmed to it was a formal complaint in line with its complaints procedure on 14 March 2022. However, the landlord did not open a formal complaint until 26 July 2022, 94 working days after the resident’s initial stage 1 complaint was acknowledged, or respond to this until 22 August 2022, which was a further 19 working days later. This was a significant delay to its policy’s stage 1 response timescale of 10 working days.
  2. The landlord’s final stage complaint response’s compensation offer only referred to the resident’s time and trouble in having to raise a complaint to receive updates on the status of the work, and not the over 5 months that it took to respond to her stage 1 complaint. Therefore, there was failure in its handling of the stage 1 complaint. It is noted that there was also further inconvenience caused to the resident by this, as she wrote to and called the landlord on several occasions to enquire about the status of her stage 1 complaint.
  3. It is additionally noted that, while the landlord responded to the resident’s final stage complaint within its complaints resolution policy’s 10-working-day timescale following its final stage review panel meeting, it took from 25 August to 5 October 2022 to arrange the meeting, which was excessive. This was not contrary to the policy, which did not specify a timescale for arranging the meeting, but this did exceed the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code’s 20-working-day timescale for stage 2 final complaint responses. Although it is also noted that the landlord’s current complaints resolution policy now follows our code’s timescale.
  4. In order to resolve the landlord’s poor handling of the resident’s stage 1 complaint, it has been ordered below to apologise to her and pay her additional compensation of another £100. This is in line with its compensation policy and procedure’s and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s above recommendations for failures including delays in getting matters resolved. This is also in recognition of any unnecessary further time and trouble that she experienced from the over 5 months that it took to respond to her stage 1 complaint. The landlord has also been recommended below to review its relevant staff training needs to try and prevent its failures in the resident’s case from occurring again in the future.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
    1. How it handled repairs to the communal entry door to the building.
    2. How it handled repairs to the communal TV aerial.
    3. Its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Attend the resident’s building within 4 weeks to both repair the rear communal entry door lock, if it has not done so already, and investigate how to prevent future break downs of the door, providing her and the Ombudsman with the outcome of its investigation and details as to how it proposes to stop the door from breaking down again.
    2. Write to the resident within 4 weeks to acknowledge, explain, and apologise for its failings in handling her building’s communal rear entry door repairs and her stage 1 complaint.
    3. Pay the resident compensation totalling £700 within 4 weeks, which is broken down into:
      1. £250 in recognition of its failings in handling her building’s communal rear entry door repairs.
      2. £250 in recognition of the further failings in its handling of the communal TV aerial repairs identified by this report.
      3. £100 that it previously offered her for its failings in handling the communal TV aerial repairs.
      4. £100 for its poor complaint handling.
    4. Contact the resident within 4 weeks to provide her with an up-to-date timescale for it to complete the communal TV aerial repairs, and continue to give her regular updates on the progress of the works until their completion.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its responsive repairs policy to outstanding, recurring long-term communal repairs, to ensure that these are attended promptly, regular progress updates are given, and preventative action is taken to seek to prevent the need for future repairs.
    2. Review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its complaints resolution policy and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, in order to ensure that these are followed and prompt complaint responses are issued in every case.
  3. The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within 4 weeks to confirm that the above orders have been complied with, and whether the above recommendations will be followed.