Southern Housing Group Limited (202123627)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123627

Southern Housing Group Limited

17 August 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. response to the resident’s concerns regarding cyclical works.
   2. complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of a shared ownership property, the freehold of which is owned by the landlord, a housing association. The resident’s property is a 2-bedroom first-floor flat in a low-level purpose-built block.
3. Cyclical redecoration work began on the resident’s, and two adjacent blocks, in November 2020. The resident wrote to the landlord before work began to complain about contractors being on site during the pandemic and paint and other products being applied during the winter, against manufacturers’ guidance. She said that previous work by the same contractor in 2015 was not satisfactory. The landlord responded informally but failed to reassure the resident who complained again on 23 January 2021.
4. The landlord replied to the complaint on 8 February 2021 and said that given the number of properties it managed, it was not possible to avoid work in the winter, but product guidelines would be followed. The clerk of works would inspect and sign off on all works and the resident was invited to join the landlord for a ‘walkaround’ the site. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint on 22 February 2021 and said she wanted the redecorating work re-done, by a different contractor, in the warmer months. Another resident submitted a complaint on the same issues which was included with the resident’s complaint.
5. Following the resident and others joining a walkaround with the clerk of works, the final response from the landlord on 21 April 2021 said that some areas of concern were identified but the work was not yet complete. The landlord said it would work with the contractor to ensure the work was of an acceptable standard. The final handover for all three block was made on 18 May 2021.
6. The resident feels the work looked shoddy and has had a detrimental effect on her property value. She feels the landlord was dismissive of her concerns and did not manage the redecoration process properly. She wants the work to be done again by a different contractor in the summer months.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

7. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the works should be done again, or if there was a failure in the decoration work. Rather it is to consider if the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns, in line with its policies and procedures.
8. The resident has not raised the issue of the level of the service charge specifically, however it is worth noting that in accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, it is not in this Service’s jurisdiction to decide on such issues. The First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) can make decisions about the liability to pay a service charge, including by whom, to who, how much and when a service charge is payable, in addition to whether service charges and costs have been reasonably incurred. This investigation is therefore not concerned with the level of service charge and as above, will consider whether the landlord responded appropriately for the issues complained about, up until its final response letter.
9. The resident said in April 2022 that the intercom handset inside her flat was badly installed and that she had concerns about water ingress around a window when new wallpaper was damaged. These issues were not part of the formal complaint that went through the landlord’s internal complaints process ending in April 2021, and so are not included in this investigation. This is because in accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding cyclical works

10. Chapter 5 of the landlord’s standard conditions for leases relating to flats in blocks covers the landlord’s covenants. Section 5.3 says the landlord shall ‘maintain repair redecorate and renew’ (a) all external parts including windows and doors and all parts not the responsibility of the leaseholder. Online information lists the landlord’s responsibilities as including ‘carrying out repairs, external repairs and maintenance around the building and the scheme’.
11. In this instance, the resident’s first complaint letter included her concerns about the landlord’s contractors accessing the building during the Covid lockdown, and the possibility of low temperatures impacting on the products being used, including paint on external areas. The resident felt strongly that having seen work that had been done in the past by the same contractors, the landlord should not allow the work to be done by them, and during the winter, as this would impact the finish.
12. Whilst the resident was not unreasonable in bringing her concerns to the landlord in the light of her previous experience, this Service can only investigate how the landlord responded to the resident’s enquiries. It is not reasonable to find the landlord in breach of its obligations for something which had not and may not have occurred in the future. The landlord took steps to reassure the resident in respect of safe working practices relating to Covid and using products in accordance with manufacturers’ guidelines.
13. However, the resident then wrote again reiterating her concerns and also about the length of time that scaffolding would be erected, given work at the front of the building had not yet started. Concerns were also raised at this time regarding the doors not shutting and a broken intercom.
14. The landlord’s first complaint response on 8 February 2021 explained some of the delays and detailed the work that was still to be done, and said that exact timescales were not possible as further repairs would be identified as work continued. The landlord said that the door had been fixed and a new intercom was to be fitted for which quotes had been obtained. The landlord explained that with 3,000 to 4,000 properties, it was not possible to schedule all the cyclical work for the summer months. It said work may be delayed by the weather, but all work would be inspected and only handed over when found to be of an acceptable standard.
15. The landlord invited the resident to a ‘walkaround’ of the site and said the clerk of works would continue to inspect the work. Letters were hand delivered with updates concerning the scaffolding removal in February 2021.
16. The resident then escalated the complaint and asked for the work to be repeated by an alternative contractor, in the summer, and to inspect the work when finished. Another neighbour’s concerns were included in the resident’s complaint, including issues around the work finished at the rear not being acceptable, and that residents above the ground floor were unable to inspect the work as the scaffolding had been removed. They said the paint applied was already bubbling and cracking.
17. It is also noted that an inspection was undertaken on 31 March 2021 by Dulux technical staff at the request of the contractors. The inspection found that although the overall work to windows and frames had been finished to ‘an acceptable commercial standard’, there were several shortcomings in the paint finishes and gaps in the window frames were also mentioned. The technical support manager said that some balconies had dirt ingrained into flat surfaces, and isolated areas of poor opacity. There were also areas of physical damage noted to the painted sections.
18. The final response on 21 April 2021 addressed each element of the complaint as confirmed in the acknowledgement dated 18 March 2021.  It said that the clerk of works had attended the site on 8 April 2021 and had agreed outstanding areas of concern. The landlord said that on completion the clerk of works would liaise with the contractors to ensure the work was of an acceptable standard and  that the residents would sign off the work. The landlord explained that it would not change the contractor but would monitor the work closely. It said that it would try to limit the time the scaffolding was up but that this was dictated by weather conditions.
19. The landlord also said it was awaiting information on the intercom and entrance and would update the resident by the end of April on costs and timelines. The contractor advised the residents that scaffolding would be removed on 24 April 2021.
20. The landlord has advised there were numerous snagging issues before the  clerk of works accepted the remaining snagging had been completed on 18 May 2021. The landlord inspected the quality of the work and a ‘key performance indicator’ of 8.9 was given (on a scale where 1 is ‘totally unacceptable’ and 10 is ‘excellent’).
21. The landlord’s final response was a thorough and reasonable reply to the resident’s concerns on the issues of the products used, the standard of  work expected by the contractors and the timescales relating to the scaffolding. It appeared to take appropriate steps to reassure the resident that the work would be closely monitored, and that work would not be signed off without the resident’s approval.  
22. It has not been evidenced that the landlord has failed in its duty to the resident. It has used experts to sign off the work following some snagging, as outlined in the final response. It is noted that the resident has raised issues  about the paintwork since the work was completed. If she has further concerns that have arisen since the final response, the resident may submit a   complaint, subject to the usual time restrictions. This investigation coves the issues complained about, being the landlord’s intention to decorate the blocks in the winter, during the lockdown period and with the particular contractors used.
23. It is not unreasonable that the landlord should decide what contractors to use, and when and how to carry out cyclical works on its buildings. The landlord indicated that it would closely monitor the remaining works at the time of the final response, that the clerk of works would sign off the redecoration works, and it would not do so without agreement from the residents. It is not known if the residents did ‘sign off’ on the work, and the resident’s dissatisfaction suggests the landlord did not get sign off from residents. However, this would not be considered a service failure, as it would be reasonable for the landlord to use its professional opinion in this matter.
24. There was some delay in the work being finished and the scaffolding was in situ longer than first anticipated, however the landlord’s initial correspondence did advise residents that the timescale was not fixed, but dependant on weather and other issues. It is not always possible for work of this scale to be carried out with zero inconvenience, by its extensive nature. The Ombudsman does appreciate how difficult the resident has found this process, particularly during the national lockdown and the additional stress this would cause. However, the landlord  has shown that it used suitably qualified staff to inspect the work and responded to the resident’s concerns appropriately. Accordingly, the Ombudsman has not found service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the cyclical works.

The landlord’s complaint handling

25. The landlord’s complaints policy effective December 2020 says at section 2.1 that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service by the landlord. Section 5.3 says the landlord aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. Section 7 says there are three options at stage 2: compensation review, complaint review panel or senior management review (SMR). The SMR response should be given within 20 working days. The first complaint was prior to the policy provided coming into effect, but it has been assumed that the delay from 6 November 2020 to 8 February 2021 would be outside of any earlier complaint timescale.
26. In this instance, the resident’s first complaint was made on 6 November 2020, and clearly labelled as such. The resident sent a copy of this email to her local councillors, and they were sent a response covering all the issues, on 26 November 2020. There is no evidence that the landlord responded directly to the resident at this time. 
27. The resident wrote to the landlord again on 23 January 2021. Internal emails indicate that the landlord was aware at this stage that previous correspondence from the resident should have been logged as a complaint but was not. The landlord responded on 8 February 2021. This was out of time given the initial complaint was submitted on 6 November 2020 and the landlord’s policy says it should have been responded to within 10 working days. The landlord’s stage 1 response did not acknowledge the earlier correspondence or the delay in the complaint response as a result of this.
28. The resident escalated the complaint on 22 February 2021 and an acknowledgement was sent by the landlord on 18 March 2021. The acknowledgment said that the landlord had until 7 April 2021 to reply. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s published timescales, which required a response by 22 March 2021. The landlord advised the resident of an extension on 8 April 2021, when it said the response would be issued by 21 April 2021. 
29. The delay in the stage 1 response was 54 working days, and the stage 2 delay was 21 working days. The final complaint response did refer to the delay but offered no remedy for this element of service failure, when this would have been appropriate. This was a failing on the landlord’s part.
30. Part of the resident’s complaint referred to communication from the landlord, particularly the Section 20 Notice, which details the service charge each year. The landlord explained in its complaint response why the Section 20 Notices were more technical than other letters from the landlord and said that it had fed back to the maintenance and communication team and had considered covering information for the future. It also said it would review the communication generally and look to standardising the way written and verbal communication was handled. In this way, the landlord has illustrated that it acted in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes.
31. However, there was a service failure in respect of the complaint response times, and a failure to fully acknowledge and remedy this during the complaint response. This would reasonably have caused the resident a degree of frustration and a lack of confidence in the landlord’s complaint process. It is fair in all of the circumstances that the landlord pays the resident the sum of  £100 compensation in respect of the delays in its complaint responses. This would fall under the Ombudsman’s range of awards for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant, but which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome.

Determination

32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding cyclical works.
33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

34. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should :
    1. Pay the resident £100 in respect of the delay in the complaint responses.
    2. Remind salient complaints staff of the correct procedure to ensure the landlord’s complaint process is followed, with appropriate appeal rights at each stage.
35.  The landlord should provide evidence to this Service that the above orders have been complied with, within four weeks of this determination.