Southern Housing (202227417)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227417

Southern Housing Group Limited

8 July 2024

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould.
2. Reports of required repairs.
3. Complaint.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the property, a 1 bedroom bungalow, since September 2018. The resident has fibromyalgia and several conditions affecting her neck and back, which result in restricted mobility. The landlord is a housing association, which owns and manages the property.
The landlord’s repair log shows it raised a ticket on 6 June 2019 for an inspection of the soffits, which were blocked; and the chimney, which was letting water in. However, the landlord cancelled this inspection without any explanation.
The landlord raised a job on 17 September 2019 in relation to:
1. Making sure the loft insulation was laid evenly.
2. Missing sealant on a fascia.
3. Missing mortar on brickwork.
The repair log shows the landlord confirmed the above jobs were completed on 13 February 2020. However, the resident contacted the landlord on 16 June 2020 and requested an update on outstanding repairs relating to:
1. Loft insulation.
2. Missing sealant on a fascia.
3. Missing mortar on brickwork.
4. A crack on the inside wall following a corner roof repair.
5. Internal roof repairs.
6. Mould.
The landlord attended on 15 October 2020 and completed the loft insulation work.
The landlord completed an inspection on 27 January 2021 and identified several required repairs, including:
1. The canopy at the front door, which had dropped on the right side.
2. The washing line post, which needed to be renewed.
3. The gutter overflows at the front left corner of the property.
4. A loose tap on the basin.
5. Several cracks in the bathroom ceiling.
6. Cracks in the Artex kitchen ceiling and mildew spots.
7. Water dripping into the base unit under the sink.
On 8 April 2021, the landlord confirmed the soffit vents had been covered and this was causing a lack of air flow, resulting in damp and mould. It raised a job for vent tiles to be installed in the roof. The landlord marked this job as completed on its repair log on 9 September 2021. However, it re-raised the same job again on 25 November 2022, before marking this complete on 9 December 2022.
On 29 December 2022, the resident reported black mould on her kitchen ceiling and inside her kitchen cupboards. She also said sections of her Artex kitchen ceiling were peeling off. The resident said she had reported this in 2020 and the landlord had inspected it in January 2021 and March 2021 but not completed repairs.
The resident sent a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 2 January 2023, in which she said:
1. She had been waiting for roof repairs for over 2 years.
2. There had been black mould in the property for 4 years.
3. She had experienced stress due to the ongoing disrepair and her continuous chasing of repairs. She felt the landlord had not acknowledged her disabilities in its handling of the issues.
4. The landlord had not called her back on several occasions.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 23 January 2023, in which it:
1. Acknowledged the resident had been waiting for roof repairs for over 2 years. It said there had been an administrative error by its contractors, which meant the repairs were not progressed. It confirmed it would attend on 27 January 2023 to assess the likely cause of the ceiling defect and it would check the ceiling for asbestos. It would also contact her by 6 February 2023 at the latest to arrange an appointment to install ventilation tiles in the roof.
2. Said it would send its surveyor to inspect the mould in the kitchen and inside the kitchen cupboards on 27 January 2023.
3. Agreed its communication with the resident had been poor, and it had identified this as an area for improvement.
4. Confirmed it would monitor the works through to completion.
5. Offered £240 compensation, comprising:
  1. £60 for the roofing repair delays.
  2. £10 for a missed appointment.
  3. £15 for a delay in issuing the stage 1 response.
  4. £30 for failed call backs between July 2021 and October 2021.
  5. £125 for the resident’s inconvenience, time and trouble.
6. Asked the resident to provide her bank details if she wanted to accept the payment, or to let it know if she wanted to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
The landlord attended the property on 27 January 2023 as promised in the stage 1 response. However, it aborted this job because “the asbestos test (was) not done properly on the kitchen ceiling”. It also said more details were required on what works were needed and that the resident was awaiting roof repairs.
The landlord completed the required roof repairs between 17 March 2023 and 21 March 2023. This included:
1. Stripping off 1 metre of tiles to all sides of the roof and installing 23 metres of eave trays.
2. Installing new felt and battens and reinstalling the tiles.
3. Installing 11 new vent tiles.
4. Replacing broken hip and Ludlow plus tiles.
The resident sent the landlord emails on 17 April 2023 and 23 May 2023, in which she said:
1. It had not completed an inspection of the mould in the property as promised in the stage 1 response.
2. The landlord had not replaced the soffits as required.
3. The roof insulation had not been installed properly and needed to be removed.
4. There were guttering works outstanding on the property, as well as repairs needed to the guttering connected to the soakaway.
5. She had not heard any updates regarding the cracks in the ceiling.
The resident and landlord completed a stage 2 complaint panel meeting over video call on 23 May 2023. This Service has not seen any recording or minutes of this meeting. The complaint was escalated to stage 2 following this meeting.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 13 June 2023 for an inspection. However, the resident did not grant entry for this because the landlord had not told her of the appointment in advance and she was not prepared for it.
The landlord sent the stage 2 response on 20 June 2023, in which it said:
1. It had closed the works order for the inspection on 27 January 2023 pending the outcome of an asbestos test. However, it had not completed the asbestos test and had made no further progress on the issues of mould and ceiling cracks.
2. It would ask its contractor to complete an internal investigation into why no progress was made on the inspection. It would also ask it to investigate why the soffits had not been vented or replaced, and why the loft insulation had not been addressed.
3. It had arranged an appointment for 13 June 2023 for a joint inspection with its contractor to inspect the roof, gutters and loft. It would also check the fans in the kitchen in bathroom and the mould in the property. It would produce a schedule of works once it had completed this.
4. It would make a referral to its investment team to install a new radiator in the kitchen, and would update the resident about this by 22 June 2023.
5. It increased its stage 1 compensation offer of £240 to £735, comprising:
  1. £600 for the resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience.
  2. £60 for the repair delays.
  3. £20 for missed appointments.
  4. £15 for poor communication.
  5. £15 for the failure to follow its process.
  6. £15 for the failure to respond in the required timescale.
  7. £10 for the delay in extending the response date for the stage 2 outcome.
6. The resident could bring the complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied with its response.
The landlord completed repairs to the guttering on 20 July 2023. However, the resident told the landlord that the contractors were unable to replace the fittings for the guttering because these were no longer sold. The contractors had sealed the existing fittings but this had not solved the problem and the leaks had continued. The resident requested for the guttering to be replaced.
The resident sent the landlord emails on 24 July 2023 and 27 July 2023 stating there had been no progress and asking for an update.
The landlord completed another inspection on 10 August 2023, during which it proposed various works, including:
1. Installing the correct gutter joints and resolving issues with the downpipe connections.
2. Installing circular vents in the soffits to allow ventilation of the roof space.
3. Roof ridge repairs and installation of tile vents.
4. Kitchen ceiling repairs including scraping, skimming and redecoration.
5. Overhaul of the fan in the kitchen.
6. Mould wash.
The resident emailed her MP on 4 occasions between 11 September 2023 and 20 October 2023. She told him that she had received no updates on repairs other than the landlord telling her it would complete the kitchen ceiling repairs on 30 November 2023. She also told the MP that she had infestations of silverfish and weevils in the damp kitchen. She said she had been bitten by a silverfish, which had resulted in blisters on her leg and an allergic reaction. The MP forwarded the resident’s correspondence to the landlord.
The landlord completed a further inspection at the property on 4 December 2023. The works identified included:
1. Chasing up its contractor for an asbestos survey to enable completion of the kitchen ceiling repairs.
2. Lifting the vinyl flooring, cleaning underneath and relaying vinyl flooring.
3. Installing a new downpipe to the gully.
The resident duly made her complaint to this Service on 9 January 2024.
The contractor attended the property on 17 January 2024 and confirmed it had completed the guttering works. It also checked the loft insulation and confirmed this did not need to be refitted.
The resident contacted the landlord on 18 January 2024 and said the guttering work had not been completed correctly. She said a joint which had been installed had been leaking since installation. She said the contractor had told her it had ordered parts and given the impression further work was to be done. She also said the contractor had damaged her shed by climbing on the roof of it during the works.
The landlord attended on 19 February 2024 and 20 February 2024 and completed the mould wash. It also replaced the kitchen units which had been destroyed by mould. The resident told us the landlord damaged her kitchen vinyl flooring when it removed the units and it is yet to resolve this.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 9 March 2024 and completed an asbestos survey, which revealed there was no asbestos present. We have seen no evidence in the repair log that the landlord completed the kitchen ceiling repairs following this. However, the resident told us it has since completed these repairs.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould

This Service has not been provided with copies of the landlord’s repair policies covering the relevant period. However, under section 41 of the tenancy agreement and section 11 of the Landlord and Tenants Act 1985, the landlord is required to complete all repairs within a reasonable time and to a reasonable standard.
The resident reported black mould for the first time on 16 June 2020. Mould has a detrimental effect on human health, but the landlord did not complete an inspection of the mould when the resident first reported this in June 2020. The first time it proposed to inspect the mould was 27 January 2023, when it arranged to inspect the mould and the separate problem with the kitchen ceiling. The landlord attended and confirmed it needed to await an asbestos test before completing the kitchen ceiling repairs, but we have seen no evidence it inspected or attended to the mould during this visit.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to help local authorities identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety from any deficiencies identified in dwellings. Damp and mould are included as hazards under the HHSRS. In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, the landlord is obligated to ensure that a property is fit for human habitation and free from hazards.
The Ombudsman released his “Spotlight on: Damp and mould” report in October 2021 which emphasised, among other things, that landlords should take a “zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould” and to “ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue”.
The landlord completed the mould wash in the property on 20 February 2024, which was almost 4 years after the resident first reported mould in June 2020 and over a year after it first promised to deal with the mould on 27 January 2023. The Ombudsman considers the landlord did not approach the mould with the seriousness required under its legal obligations and the guidance in the Spotlight report. We have seen no evidence the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerability and limited mobility in its approach to the damp and mould problem.
For the landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in a reasonable timeframe the Ombudsman finds maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of required repairs

There were several instances of the landlord marking jobs as completed on its repair log when this was not the case, or cancelling inspections or jobs without any explanation. These are outlined in paragraphs 4, 6 and 9 of this report.
The landlord also completed inspections on 27 January 2021 and 10 August 2023 and identified various required works. However, we have seen no evidence that there was any follow up to these inspections.
The landlord completed loft insulation work on 15 October 2020. However, we have seen no evidence it completed the various other jobs which were outstanding at the time.
The landlord did not inform the resident in advance about the inspection on 13 June 2023. The first time it told the resident about this was in the stage 2 letter dated 20 June 2023. This meant the resident was not prepared for the visit and it could not go ahead. The resident told us that, due to her disability, she needs more time than other residents to get herself ready and prepare the property for an inspection.
The resident requested updates on outstanding works on 16 June 2020, 24 July 2023 and 27 July 2023, but we have seen no evidence the landlord provided any updates. The landlord also told the resident in its stage 2 response it would update her regarding the installation of a kitchen radiator, but it did not do this in the timeframe promised. The landlord had told the resident in its stage 1 response it would improve its communication with her, but the evidence we have seen suggests it did not do this.
The resident reported on 18 January 2024 that the guttering works had not been completed correctly and there was still a leak. She also reported that the contractors had damaged her shed. The resident told us she and the landlord have been in contact with the contractor about the damaged shed, but she has received no outcome to this. We have also seen no evidence the landlord has followed up regarding the resident’s continued concerns about the guttering.
Due to the long delays the resident experienced in relation to various disrepair issues, the poor communication, the failure to provide updates and the failure to follow up on inspections in a reasonable timeframe, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of various repairs.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The complaint timescales in the landlord’s complaint policy match the timescale requirements which were included in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time of the complaint. This says the landlord will:
1. Log and acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
2. Send a stage 1 decision in writing within 10 working days of acknowledgement, extending this by up to 10 working days if necessary by writing to the resident with an explanation of the delay.
3. Send a stage 2 decision within 20 working days, extending this by up to 10 working days if necessary by writing to the resident with an explanation of the delay.
Section 1.2 of the Code at the time defined a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”. The Ombudsman considers the resident’s emails sent on 17 April 2023 and 23 May 2023 qualified as a complaint under this definition. As such, the landlord should have treated these emails as stage 2 escalation requests.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response after 14 working days, which was outside the required timescale. It sent its stage 2 response 43 working days after the resident’s first stage 2 escalation email dated 17 April 2023. The landlord should have held the video meeting with the resident sooner if it wanted to gain more information about the complaint and remain compliant with the Code timescales. However, the Ombudsman recognises the landlord did acknowledge the stage 1 and stage 2 delays in its responses and offered compensation for this.
The landlord did not provide this Service with a recording or minutes of the stage 2 panel meeting on 23 May 2023. This was contrary to section 4.15 of the Code at the time, which said the landlord needed to keep a full record of the complaint, including “any review and the outcomes at each stage…the original complaint and the date received, all correspondence with the resident, correspondence with other parties and any reports or surveys prepared”.
Section 5.6 of the Code at the time of the complaint said that landlords needed to “address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate”. The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns raised in her stage 1 complaint about it not acknowledging her disability in its handling of the disrepair issues.
Section 6.5 of the Code at the time said “the remedy must clearly set out what will happen and by when, in agreement with the resident where appropriate. Any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion”. The landlord said in its stage 1 response it would monitor the required works through to completion, but it did not do this and the resident had to request updates on the works. The landlord’s action plan in its stage 2 response included an appointment for a date that had already passed. It also promised to update the resident regarding the installation of a kitchen radiator, but it did not do this. The landlord showed a lack of follow through with its promises, which was contrary to section 6.5 of the Code at the time.
For the delays, the lack of records relating to the stage 2 complaint and the failures to follow through the promised remedies to completion, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s record keeping

As outlined in paragraph 36 of this report, there were several instances of the landlord marking jobs as completed on its repair log when this was not the case, or cancelling inspections or jobs without any explanation
We have also seen no record in the landlord’s repair log that it completed the required repairs to the kitchen ceiling. We were reliant on the resident to tell us this.
As outlined in paragraph 45 of this report, the landlord made no recording, minutes or transcript of the stage 2 complaint panel meeting.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
The Ombudsman released his “spotlight on knowledge and information management” report in May 2023. The seventh recommendation in this report was for a landlord to develop key data recording standards across its organisations to ensure good records that supports its business. The Spotlight report highlighted that, if information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate or partial information. The Spotlight report was released after the record keeping failures identified in this report. However, the landlord can use the recommendations in this report to improve its record keeping.
For the missing and inaccurate records in relation to repairs and the stage 2 complaint, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. Handling of the resident’s reports of required repairs.
3. Handling of the resident’s complaint.
4. Record keeping.

Orders

It is ordered that, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord provides the resident with an apology written by a senior member of staff.
It is ordered that, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord provides the resident with a payment of £2,435. This includes the £735 the landlord offered at stage 2 and comprises an additional:
1. £700 for the long delay in addressing damp and mould, and the resulting inconvenience and distress to the resident, particularly given her health conditions and disability.
2. £550 for the long repair delays, and the resulting inconvenience and distress to the resident.
3. £250 for the complaint handling failures identified and the resulting inconvenience.
4. £200 for the record keeping failures identified.
It is ordered that, within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord completes a survey regarding:
1. The resident’s reports of ongoing problems with the guttering.
2. The installation of a radiator in the kitchen.
3. The shed damaged by the contractors in January 2024.
4. The vinyl flooring in the kitchen damaged during works in February 2024.
It is ordered that, within 16 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord produces a schedule of works and completes these works. The landlord should provide replacements for the shed and vinyl flooring if these are damaged beyond reasonable repair.