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

Southern Housing Group Limited (202211551)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211551

Southern Housing Group Limited

17 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
    1. Communication regarding major works carried out to the block.
    2. The standard of works carried out to the roof, windows and paintworks within the major works programme.
    3. The decision to remove the rear balconies from the building and impact on the value of his property.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint within the investigation.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraphs 42 (f) and (o) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the standard of works carried out and its decision to remove the rear balconies from the building and impact on the value of his property are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. Paragraph 42 (o) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the complainant is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide.
  4. Paragraph 42 (f) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure’.
  5. In his correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident has confirmed that his preferred outcome is not to be charged the major works bill as he was not sent the correct notices. Such a decision is not within the Ombudsman’s remit. The First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) has the authority to make findings as to whether costs incurred for repairs or maintenance were reasonably incurred and whether the services or works are of a reasonable standard. It would therefore be more reasonable and effective for the resident to seek a determination on the consultation process for the major works along with these matters from the Tribunal.
  6. In addition, the resident raised concerns about the removal of 2 balconies which ran along the back of his flat without prior consultation. Whilst the lease is silent on ownership, he asserts that this was a special feature to his property and in removing it reduced its value. Furthermore, the resident stated that his desired outcome is to be reimbursed the amount lost in value to his property. In accordance with paragraph 42 (f) and (o) of the Scheme, it is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to determine this aspect of his complaint and would need to be considered as a legal matter with the courts to make a legally binding decision.
  7. Paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale. The resident informed this Service that the landlord replaced a roof on the maisonette at the rear of the building that did not need replacing. This is a new complaint which has not exhausted the landlord’s complaint process..
  8. Whilst the Ombudsman (paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme) expects a formal complaint to be made within a reasonable time of the occurrence of the matter complained about (usually 6 months), this Service deems it reasonable to include the historical events from 2016. These provide contextual background to the current complaint, but also gave rise to the resident’s complaints.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 1 bedroom flat. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.

Landlord obligations

  1. Under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 landlords are required to consult leaseholders where they intend to undertake works where leaseholders may, under the terms of their leases, be required to contribute to the relevant costs (more than £250) incurred under the agreement.
  2. Under the terms of the lease the landlord agrees to maintain, repair, decorate and renew the structure and exterior of the building including the roof foundations, main structure of the building, external parts thereof including all load bearing walls, and window frames.
  3. The landlord’s guide to major works describes major works as repairs, maintenance or improvements to the building, shared areas or land surrounding of the resident’s home, which it would normally plan for in advance because of their size, cost, or complexity. Examples of major works include window or roof replacement and cyclical decoration works. The guide further notes that where it intends to carry out major works, it will consult with leaseholders and anyone else affected by the work. Depending on the cost of the works to individuals, this could either be through statutory consultation, also known as Section 20 consultation or through its non-statutory process.
  4. The landlord’s complaints policy (effective December 2020) states that it will respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It also states that:
    1. It aims to provide a consistent and fair approach in responding to complaints and to resolve the issue at the earliest opportunity.
    2. It may try to resolve informal complaints or service dissatisfaction there and then if it believes the issue can be resolved with a few straightforward actions. It aims to resolve these within 10 workings. Residents are offered the option of escalating the matter as a formal complaint if they remain unhappy with the outcome.
  5. It’s compensation policy allows payments up to £25 in recognition of poor service, failure to follow its policy or procedure. Discretionary payments can be awarded based on the severity of the issue.

 

Summary of events

  1. The landlord sent a notice of intention to enter into a qualifying long term agreement to the resident on 24 June 2016 in order to carry out its obligations in the lease relating to repair, decoration and maintenance of its properties. It advised that:
    1. It was planning to enter into a contract for the provision of planned maintenance over a period of 10 years and it was consulting him about the proposed contract.
    2. It constituted the notice of intention under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
    3. It set out the nature of the planned maintenance contract and proposed planned maintenance works such as replacements of components to the windows, doors, roofing and other external works.
    4. The resident was invited submit written observation within 30 days of the date of the notice.
  2. The landlord sent a notification of proposal dated 1 March 2017 to the resident which it referred to as the second part of its consultation process. It said that the consultation period for the initial notice ended on 24 July 2016. In respect of the second notice it advised that it had identified a preferred contractor with whom it proposed to enter into the contract for provision of planned maintenance works for a maximum 10 year period. It said the letter was in fulfilment of its obligations to give the resident notice of its proposed agreement in the form of a notification of its proposal for the proposed agreement. The letter provided a link for the resident to access a full copy of the proposal and an address for those who wished to pick up free copies of the proposal.
  3. The letter advised that details of works to be carried out to each block covered by the proposed agreement had not been decided upon, so it was not reasonably practicable to estimate the relevant contribution to be incurred by any affected resident. The proposal included a summary of observations raised by residents in response to the initial notice of intention and its responses to them. It invited the resident to make written observations in relation to the current proposal and provided an address to send it to within 30 days beginning with the date of service of the notice.
  4. The landlord and the resident exchanged emails between 22 June 2017 and 19 July 2017. The emails suggest discussions around the proposed works were had. In one of his emails, the resident expressed his concerns about a connection between some of the companies the landlord intended to have the works or agreement with. The landlord responded that the notice was sent to all leaseholders, as they pay towards works carried out as they have a direct financial interest in the property they own. In another email to the resident, the landlord indicated that it was sending a copy of the work proposal and explained that these would include works to the windows, external repairs or decorations and roofing. It said leaseholders would only pay towards external elements of works carried out. It further said that a more detailed description of works that would directly affect him would be sent to him before they started. It said he would have the opportunity to submit observations about the proposed works to his property. It also advised the resident in a later email that it had commissioned a consultant to inspect the roof and present proposals.
  5. The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 December 2019 regarding planned works to his main roof and rear secondary roof. It mentioned that the windows of his home required attention and would be doing the works in conjunction with the roof works. It said it was unable to advise if there would be an overhaul of the existing windows or full replacement as it was subject to planning approval. It said it anticipated the works would likely take place in February 2020, but it would provide an update. It further said it would meet with him in the new year to give him all the information he would need for the duration of the works. It said it was still in the planning stages.
  6. On 10 November 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident and advised that as part of its planned works programme a company had been instructed to carry out major works at his block. It said it had previously written to him to advise that it had to postpone works as it was awaiting the outcome of its planning application with the local authority. It said that it had now received planning consent to replace his windows with double glazed timber sash windows.  It said it intended to carry out a complete replacement of his home roof with associated works and full external redecorations. It anticipated that the works would start in January 2021 and to be completed by May 2021. It said it would write to him with further information on the works.
  7. On 16 December 2020, the landlord sent a notification of proposed major works to the windows, renewal of main roof and rear roof, external decorations and repairs to the resident. It referred to the letter as the final part of the consultation process and constituted its notice of intention to carry out works under the qualifying long term agreement, section 20 of the landlord and tenant act 1985 as amended with its contractors. The notice included the statement of the amount estimated for the works, what the resident’s estimated contribution would be and it invited him to make observations in writing within 30 days by the end of 29 January 2021, to which it would respond within 21 days. It said minor external repairs would be identified once scaffold was in place. It said this was only a summary of the works which it would like to provide.
  8. The resident contacted the landlord by email on 18 December 2020 and queried why the letter did not show a full breakdown of costs. He questioned why a new roof was being installed when it had only recently carried out works to the roof to address a leak.
  9. The landlord responded to the resident’s observations in relation to the section 20 notice on 5 January 2021. It provided a breakdown of works and associated costs to the roof, windows, and details of planning permission. It said:
    1. It was a requirement of the planning approval that the windows were replicated in slim timber frames to ensure they are replaced as close as possible to the original windows.
    2. Previous repairs carried out to the roof would have only been on a patch repair basis and would not have replaced the entire roof.
  10. The resident raised further concerns about the proposed works in his emails dated 5 and 6 January 2021 to the landlord. He said he and other tenants were kept informed as to when all the surveys for the works took place as no one had been on the roof.
  11. The landlord responded on 21 January 2021 in response to further concerns raised by the resident. It said:
    1. It had taken longer to start the works than expected due to a number of issues including planning.
    2. The roof inspections were carried out in May 2018 and coverings were identified to be over 30 years old. It said following its inspection and works carried out to the roof, it would make an assessment to determine the overall scope of works.
  12. On 11 February 2021, the resident contacted the landlord that he had not received any previous section 20 notices before 16 December 2020. He said the only letter he received was dated 11 January 2019, but this was a standard letter stating planning permission had been granted and was not a section 20 notice. He further said the first he knew of the major works was a letter dated 10 November 2020 stating that planning permission had been granted. He said the landlord could not have sent the notices before then as it did not know the works that were to take place until it had obtained planning permission.
  13. The resident sent a formal complaint to the landlord on 13 February 2021 regarding the section 20 letters. He reiterated that he had not received the initial notices and that he had only received generic letters from 2019 with vague messages regarding planning permission for roof and window repairs.
  14. The landlord’s April 2021 newsletter provided an update on major works being carried out. It said roof works were in progress to be completed by 16 April 2021. It also advised that residents would be contacted about their window installations and that the works would take 4 days to complete.
  15. The resident contacted the landlord on 5 April 2021 for an update on his complaint. The landlord responded on 6 April 2021 that the major works had already been consulted on. The resident reminded the landlord that his complaint was about the consultation process for the proposed major works.
  16. On 10 and 11 May 2021, the resident re-submitted his complaint to the landlord regarding the consultation process for the proposed works. He emphasised that he had only received its letters dated 11 January 2019 and 11 December 2019 and that the landlord had no idea of the works it planned to undertake at the time.
  17. The landlord responded on 11 May 2021 that it received observations from the resident following the notice of proposal issued to residents in March 2017. It sent him copies of emails exchanged during this period.
  18. The resident and the landlord corresponded in numerous emails between 10 July 2021 and 11 May 2022 about the works being carried out.
  19. On 13 July 2022, the resident asked the landlord for an update on his complaint submitted on 13 February 2021.
  20. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage one complaint on 14 July 2022 and advised him that it would respond within 10 working days.
  21. The landlord issued its stage one response to the resident’s complaint on 22 July 2022. It said:
    1. Notices were sent accordingly and they had also corresponded through email and writing between 27 June 2017 and 6 April 2021 about the proposed works  It said it had responded to observations raised by the resident on 22 June 2017 and included a copy of the notice of the proposals in its email sent to him on 27 June 2017 on 11 May 2021.
    2. It responded to the resident’s queries following the third notice sent on 16 December 2020.
    3. Several letters were sent to him in relation to works being carried out such as on 10 November 2020 regarding delays and through its newsletters in April and December 2021.
    4. It sent an email to him confirming that the windows had been completed to the agreed standard and had been checked its clerk of works.
    5. It did not uphold the complaint.
  22. The resident complained on 22 July 2022 that he was not satisfied with the landlord’s response. He said:
    1. He did not receive the correct notice letters.
    2. The windows were not fitted to decent standards, paintwork discoloration within days of completion, tiles already falling off the new roof and balconies fire escapes removed.
    3. The balconies taken away were an asset and safety feature to his flat which had taken considerable value off his flat.
  23. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 25 July 2022. It said it would respond within 20 days.
  24. On 28 July 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident and advised that:
    1. Further to earlier communication about the balconies, it was awaiting feedback from the local authority regarding the planning requirements surrounding the works to reinstate them and further updates would be provided in due course.
    2. The lower balcony which spans the width of the block, is in keeping with the character of the building and would remain in place due to their architectural importance, but they did not meet the current regulations to allow residents to access them as they were not structurally sound.
  25. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 10 August 2022. It said:
    1. It sent the required notices before the works started.
    2. It had written to all residents to explain the situation regarding the removal of the balconies and explained that the iron railing at the rear were old and in poor condition and were unsafe to access and had to removed.
    3. The lower front balconies were due to be replaced and this would be carried out once statutory consent had been approved.

Post complaint actions

  1. The resident told this Service on 28 October 2022 that post had been going missing and post boxes vandalised for years, as it came in through the main front door of the building and not to their indoor individual post boxes. He said the landlord was aware and should have ensured that any important letters were sent by recorded mail.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
    1. be fair
    2. put things right
    3. learn from outcomes.
  2. This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

Communication regarding major works carried out to the building.

  1. The Ombudsman notes from the evidence seen that the landlord issued a notice of proposal on 1 March 2017 and it invited residents to submit observations. It referred to this as the second stage of the consultation process. The contents of the letter also indicated a notice of intention to carry out works had been sent to the residents, prior to this, dated 24 June 2016 and it included observations made by other residents in response to the notice. It sent a third notice on 16 December 2020 confirming the works and estimated costs to the residents. This demonstrates that the landlord complied with its internal policies and acted in accordance with the law in consulting with the residents before commencing works to the windows, roof and other external works.
  2. We have seen that the landlord responded to various queries raised by the resident between December 2020 and January 2021 regarding the proposed works to his property. Also, when the resident reported on 11 February 2021 that he had not received any previous notices about the proposed works, the landlord responded on 11 May 2021 that they had corresponded regarding the works in 2017. It also sent him copies of emails they had exchanged between 22 June 2017 and 19 July 2017. Whilst the resident’s query in these emails were unclear, the landlord’s response dated 27 June 2017 indicated it had sent another copy of the proposal, and provided advice regarding the notice and the works being proposed. Although the resident contends receiving these notices (issued in 2016 and 2017), the landlord’s letter dated 11 December 2019 updated residents on the planned works and when they were likely to start. It also advised that it would meet with the residents as part of the consultation and provide the information they would need for the duration of the works. This Service has not seen that the resident raised any objections following this letter until December 2020 when the landlord sent the notice of proposed works. As with the previous notice, the resident was invited to make observations within 30 days regarding the proposed works.
  3. Whilst the resident maintains he did not receive the initial notice, the evidence shows that there were communications between him and the landlord regarding extensive repairs to the building in 2017. We have also noted that the landlord provided updates in January 2019 (copy of letter not seen by this Service) and December 2019 and the resident had ample time to raise any concerns or queries about the works mentioned in these letters during this period. Overall, from the evidence seen, the landlord acted accordingly in its communications about the major works proposals.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

  1. The resident initially raised his complaint on 13 February 2021 but the landlord did not acknowledge or respond to it until 11 May 2021. This was not a formal complaint response, but the landlord’s policy allows for quick resolutions to some complaints. Whilst it is noted that the landlord answered the resident’s complaint informally, the response was more than 2 months late as opposed to the 10 working days stipulated in its complaints policy. The response was also triggered by the resident’s emails on 10 and 11 May 2021 where he asked for an update. It did not acknowledge the delay in responding to the complaint or apologise to the resident. This is not reasonable and would have caused the resident some frustration.
  2. The resident did not request an escalation of the complaint to stage one or revisit the matter until his email of 13 July 2022 to the landlord. The landlord’s actions in logging the matter under stage one of its complaints process at this point was appropriate. It responded to the resident within a reasonable timeframe as well as the stage 2 complaint which demonstrates some learning from its earlier mistakes. However, whilst it provided a very detailed response to the stage 2 complaint, it did not respond to his concern about the roof tiles and the impact of the removal of the balconies on the value of his property. The landlord’s actions here are unreasonable and not in adherence with this Service’s complaint handling code (the Code). The Code outlines that landlord’s must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate. Failure to provide a full response would have caused the resident some frustration and uncertainty. In light of the above, there is evidence of service failure in its handling of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraphs 42 (f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the standard of works carried out are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42 (f) of the Housing Ombudsman the decision to remove the rear balconies from the building and impact on the value of his property are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about communication regarding major works carried out to the building.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord responded accordingly to the resident’s concerns about its communication regarding the major works. It provided evidence of their correspondence during the stages of the proposals in response to the resident’s concerns. The evidence also shows that it sent 3 notification letters about the major works in compliance with its policy and the relevant legislation. It also provided updates by letters prior to when the works started.
  2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s initial complaint was delayed. It did not acknowledge the delay in its response or apologise to the resident for any inconvenience. It learned from this and responded within the timescales published in its policy to further complaints raised by the resident, but it failed to cover all the issues raised by the resident in the stage 2 response.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident the sum of £100 for the inconvenience caused due to the failure in its complaint handling.
  2. The Ombudsman has recently made a number of orders and recommendations in other investigations to the landlord about reviewing its complaint handling approach. The Ombudsman has therefore not made further recommendations around this aspect of service in this report, but expects the landlord to take all relevant learning points from this case into account in its overall reviews of complaint handling and its record keeping.