Southern Housing (202222453)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222453

Southern Housing Group Limited

30 August 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the property above her.
This report has also considered the landlord’s:
1. Record keeping.
2. Complaints handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and has lived in the property since August 2018. The property is a one-bedroom flat situated on the second floor.
The landlord has explained that it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The resident emailed the landlord on 4 November 2022 to raise a concern about the leaking ceiling in her bedroom. She explained:
1. This was the second occasion that it had occurred as it had previously been leaking since September 2021. During the previous occasion she had relocated to a hotel for about six weeks.
2. The leak had restarted the previous day (3 November 2022) and she enclosed a video showing the leak.
3. She had tried to get through to the customer service team but had been unable to do so.
4. She was due to be away from the property for a week from 6 November 2022 and was concerned she would return to a room which was soaked. She therefore asked the landlord to act promptly to resolve the matter.
The resident sent the landlord another email on 6 November 2022. She explained that whilst she understood the landlord had attended on 4 November 2022 the leak was still ongoing.
The landlord’s internal correspondence show that it had attended the flat above the resident (B) where the leak was coming from on 7 November 2022. The contractor’s notes set out that it had “found 1 small leak on the primary flow nut, tightened up and fixed this”. The notes added that no other leaks could be found and that the contractor had been unable to get into the resident’s property at that time.
The resident emailed the landlord on 13 November 2022, following her return to the property. She explained she had spoken to the landlord during the period she was away from the property and had been told the leak had been fixed. However she had now discovered this was not the case and the situation had got worse. This had led to valuables being damaged. She asked the landlord to act immediately.
The resident emailed the landlord on 16 November 2022. She explained:
1. Since her previous email a painter/decorator had been sent to her home. This was despite the leak needing to be fixed. She added the painter had called his supervisor about the matter but she had not heard back from the supervisor or anyone else.
2. The leak was getting worse and had spread from the bedroom wall into the living room wall and was also “seeping into the carpet”.
3. She was experiencing mental distress because of trying to sleep through the loud dripping sounds during the night. In addition to the damp floor and carpet there was now the added danger of the physical health affecting her and her family.
4. She was therefore asking for a prompt and permanent response to this issue as well as being decanted until the dampness had been resolved.
The landlord’s internal correspondence on 23 November 2022 provided an update on the leak. The notes stated the leak was coming from the radiator pipes in B and it was running into the concrete floor and leaking into the resident’s flat below. The notes added the contractor had isolated the heating supply and made it safe.
The landlord’s internal notes on 24 November 2022 asked for an update as it noted it had the wrong address for the flat which has been causing the leak.
The landlord’s internal correspondence noted that its operative had visited B on 30 November 2022. The operative had not been able to locate a leak and had turned on the heating valves (having previously isolated the heating pipes on the previous visit on 23 November 2022). The operative was still not able to locate any leak after doing this.
The resident called the landlord on 2 December 2022 asking for an update. She added she had been informed that an appointment had been made for that day which she was made aware of at the last moment. She had taken time off work and whilst an operative had arrived at 11am on the day and confirmed the leak was from the property above, they had been unable to gain access to the property above hers. The resident asked for £250 compensation for the loss of pay.
The resident emailed the landlord on 5 December 2022. She explained:
1. Two contractors had attended on 2 December 2022 but had been unable to gain access to the leak from her flat but instead needed to access it from B. She explained a different contractor had attended the property previously and had visited B to do with the leak so she felt that this information should have been shared with the current contractor which had not taken place.
2. The appointment on 2 December 2022 had been booked without checking with her. She had only found out about it the day before and had attempted to contact the service manager but had received “a lacklustre response”. She had therefore had to cancel her work on the day and so had lost a day’s pay.
3. Since the visit she had received no feedback from the landlord. She added she was only contacted after she made follow up calls and was normally waiting in excess of 30 minutes each time. Her experience with the landlord had been “horrendous” and there had been a complete failure of their duty of care to her, despite her paying her bills promptly and keeping the property maintained.
4. Her request to be decanted had been declined according to what she had been told by a contractor as there was no mould on the walls. She was not prepared to wait for an imminent threat to her family’s health due to mould before she took preventative action.
5. The unresolved issues were:
  1. The constant dripping of water during the night disrupting her family’s sleep.
  2. Her emotional and mental health being affected due to the lack of sleep.
  3. Her carpet which had been installed following the leak in 2021 was being soaked again.
  4. She had had to move her luggage to avoid it getting further damaged.
  5. She had lost a day’s pay as contractors had been booked without informing her.
  6. She wished to be decanted “immediately pending the complete and permanent repair of the roof leakage”.
The landlord’s internal correspondence on 11 December 2022 asked when a builder could attend as it noted the “pipes are imbedded and set in concrete”. As a result it required full excavation and assistance. The notes added that there had been a “multitude of issues” in terms of access and location of the leak.
The landlord’s internal correspondence on 12 December 2022 noted that it was sending an engineer the following day to isolate the pipework. It added it would then survey and provide costings to allow it to re-run the pipework to prevent the issue happening again.
The resident emailed the landlord on 13 December 2022. She said that after each of her emails it would “make a gesture of concern then do nothing”. She stated:
1. She had been passed back and forth for half a day between the landlord and its contractor the previous day concerning accessing the pipe. This was not her responsibility.
2. She had reached out to the housing manager who had informed her a contractor would call her on 12 December 2022. However she had not received a call to date.
3. Mould had began forming in the bedroom and her personal belongings were all over the place.
4. The duty of decanting her as a matter of urgency had been “swept under the rug”. She felt she was receiving “inhumane treatment” from the landlord and the issue had exhausted her patience.
The landlord’s internal correspondence on 13 December 2022 sought to ensure that the appointment (to access B) went ahead on that day. However the landlord’s internal notes on 15 December 2022 confirmed that there had been no access on that day. It noted a further appointment had been confirmed with the tenant of B on the following day (16 December 2022).
The tenant from B contacted the landlord on 16 December 2022 to explain that, despite someone waiting in, in the afternoon when the appointment had been scheduled, the landlord’s contractor had failed to turn up.
The landlord’s internal correspondence from 19 December 2022 noted that the appointment on 16 December 2022 had not taken place. It also noted the resident’s complaint about mould. The landlord attempted to access B again on 19 December 2022 but was unable to access it. The landlord’s contemporaneous notes noted that the resident had also tried to gain access to the property but had been unable to do so even though it was clear someone was in the property at the time.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 December 2022. She explained:
1. She understood that some operatives had attended the previous day to access the flat above hers however they had been unable to access it as the tenant who was in refused to open the door. She added this was not the first time this had happened.
2. Her husband had tried to speak to the tenant in B that day but again the tenant had not opened the door even though they were in.
3. It was not the resident’s responsibility to access the property and she requested once again that she was decanted whilst the issue was resolved with the tenant.
The landlord’s internal correspondence from 20 December 2022 noted the matter had been outstanding for a while and needed to be resolved. It added that it needed to update the resident and it could understand her frustration. The internal communication enquired for the first time about the possibility of undertaking forced entry into B. The landlord noted the contractor stated that it had proof that that there had been no access on 16 December 2022, which was contrary to the information provided by the tenant of B on that day.
The landlord’s internal correspondence from 29 December 2022 noted there had been multiple attempts to access B. It added that the occupants of that property were away and there was no indication of when they would be returning. The notes did add that when it had last gained access to the flat it had isolated the heating circuit. It therefore felt that anything which was low leaking could be from the cold mains leak from the pipe. It asked if someone could investigate this further.
The landlord’s internal correspondence from 30 December 2022 enquired as to the severity of the leak which was affecting the resident’s property. It asked whether it was persistent and whether it was causing damage. It added that it should notify the tenant of B that they needed to provide the landlord with immediate access or it would have no choice but to force entry under the provisions set out in their tenancy.
A further internal email later the same day noted that an operative, albeit not an engineer or a heating specialist, had noted the leaking water was hot. By using a thermal imaging camera they had determined the leak was coming from the heating pipework.
The landlord’s internal correspondence from 3 January 2023 noted that it would contact the tenant of B on that day to arrange an appointment for either that day or the next, as an emergency. It also asked its heating contractor whether it had capped the cold-water supply to that property in the mean time. The notes also asked for someone to inspect the resident’s property to determine if a decant was needed, as it had noted the issue had been outstanding for over a month at that time.
A further email from the landlord’s contractor on 3 January 2023 confirmed that it had managed to gain access to B on that day and that the contractor would forward a report to the landlord shortly. The resident had then sent the landlord a message on the same day to say that despite someone having attended that the leak had not stopped and the matter needed to be investigated.
The landlord’s internal correspondence from 4 January 2023 noted that when its contractor had attended B, the tenant had been “very reluctant to allow us to pressure test the system and spend time onsite delving into the matters at hand”. The contractor added that the tenant had asked for a new appointment to be booked to allow its specialist to carry out the requisite works which included a full system pressure test. The landlord asked for a date to be scheduled with the tenant for this further work. This was scheduled for 9 January 2023.
The landlord’s internal correspondence from 5 January 2023 noted that the resident had asked it to issue a letter to the tenant of B reminding them of the tenancy agreement about allowing access. The landlord’s internal correspondence discussed whether it could do this as the tenant had appeared to grant access and stated the contractor had not attended.
The landlord’s internal correspondence from 9 January 2023 enquired as to whether the appointment scheduled for that day had gone ahead or not. It added if the appointment had not taken place it would need to consider looking into forcing entry as “this had been on going for a while now”. An email the next day confirmed that, whilst the landlord’s operative had been on site for an hour, they had not been able to access B. A revised appointment had been scheduled for 11 January 2023.
The resident called the landlord on 11 January 2023. She wished to make a complaint about the housing services manager who she felt “did not care about her”. The resident explained the leak had been outstanding and mould was spreading in the property which was causing her to struggle. She had requested to be decanted which had not happened and she explained she was getting stressed with constantly having to chase up the matter.
The landlord’s internal correspondence on 12 January 2023 noted that its contractors had been unable to gain access to B on the previous day. The resident confirmed that the leak was still occurring. The landlord asked for someone to attend to the resident’s property and determine if the resident needed to be decanted due to the ongoing damp and mould. The landlord also set out in an internal email that to force access to B without an injunction needed management approval. It added that obtaining an injunction was not a quick process and could take a couple of months even if it applied for either an abridged or no notice hearing. It asked the housing team to contact the tenant of B to establish what had happened and why the tenant was not providing access. It would then ask if he would allow access on that day and set out the alternatives should the tenant choose not to grant the landlord any access.
Following contacting the tenant on 12 January 2023 a new appointment was made for the following day. The landlord’s notes stated that it would also plan to have a locksmith on standby at that time.
The landlord’s internal correspondence from 13 January 2023 confirmed that access had finally been given by the tenant to B. The contractor had attended with a thermal imaging camera which had identified that there was a leak present. However when the contractors had moved the bath panels they had been unable to find a leak. A subsequent email from the contractor had identified the location of the leak. This had been with the flexi hose leading to the hot water under the bath. This was repaired by the contractor.
The landlord’s internal correspondence from 17 January 2023 noted that the leak had stopped and that, having spoken to the resident, dehumidifiers had been supplied to help dry the property. The landlord noted a survey had been scheduled for three weeks which it felt may need to be brought forward. The landlord’s notes set out that it needed to discuss with the resident what exactly it was responsible for. It added that it considered, because of the access issues to B, that it should consider replacing the carpet as well as decorating the bedroom. It would also look at what compensation the resident was entitled to.
The landlord’s internal correspondence on 23 January 2023 confirmed that following an enquiry by the resident, it would reimburse her for the use of the dehumidifier. It noted that its operatives felt that a two-week period to allow the drying out of the property was needed. After this follow on works needed to be booked in, and when the contractor had dropped of the dehumidifier to the resident it had assessed the nature of works needed which included decorating the room and included carpentry.
The landlord’s internal correspondence from 8 February 2023 noted that, having spoken to the resident, she was not prepared to wait and wanted the works booked in as soon as possible and completed.
The landlord’s contractor visited the property on 9 February 2023 and noted down the work which was required. It emailed the landlord with details of the work needed in the bedroom and living room on 10 February 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 13 February 2023. It offered total compensation of £748.04 which was made up of £50 for delays, £50 for service failure, £11.36 in respect of the dehumidifier cost, £300 for delays and inconvenience on a discretionary basis and 97 days loss of use of the bedroom which, based on the resident’s rent, amounted to £236.88. The landlord explained:
1. That it accepted there had been long delays in rectifying the issue. It added this was not the fault of the landlord or the contractor but as no access had been granted (to B). It added the delay had caused damage to the resident’s property.
2. In terms of the decant, whilst it noted the resident had wanted this, the landlord had said this was not required as the resident had hot water, heating and electrics in the property. However whilst a decant was not needed the landlord accepted that the bedroom could not be used to its full potential. As a result, whilst the landlord explained it no longer offered compensation for loss of earnings, it would offer compensation for the loss of the room. The landlord calculated the loss of use to be 10%.
3. Having written to the tenant in B informing it of the terms and conditions of their tenancy agreement access was granted, it added that works were completed on 25 January 2023 and that two to three weeks of drying was required before works could commence. A dehumidifier had been provided to the resident on 17 January 2023 and the works to the property were due to be carried out between 15 to 17 February 2023.
4. In response to the resident’s comment that the landlord had discriminated against her due to her race, that it denied this.
The resident emailed the landlord on 28 February 2023 in response to its offer. She wanted it to offer an amount of £2,500 so she requested the complaint be escalated to stage 2. The resident explained:
1. The constant sound of the water drip, especially at night had caused sleep deprivation and health issues.
2. The landlord had failed in their service agreement as there were delays in it undertaking the repairs work.
3. The tenant in B was a tenant of the landlord so it should have gained access to the property at an earlier time. There had also been a delay in completing the work.
4. There was a failure to provide a service for which she was paying, in her capacity as a tenant paying her rent.
5. The landlord failed to meet the target response times and it took unreasonable time to resolve the situation. This left the resident and her family “feeling ignored, stressed, and mentally exhausted”.
6. There was poor complaints handling. The resident added she had to constantly send emails, reminders and numerous phone calls to push for the repair work to be done and mails were ignored. The landlord did not follow up or provide any updates.
7. The landlord’s approach was in complete contrast to the decision to decant her the previous year when the leak began.
The resident sent an email to the landlord to chase the stage 2 response on 10 April 2023. She sent a further chaser email on 25 April 2023.
The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 13 June 2023. It apologised for the delay in issuing the stage 2 response, following it being contacted by this Service in April 2023. It increased the total compensation by £30 in relation to service failure and repeated visits and added a further £350 in relation for further calls and update requests by the resident as well as the time taken to access the property and resolve the issues. The total amount offered by the landlord was £1,128.04. The landlord set out:
1. It understood there were no further outstanding repairs or remedial works in the property. However it noted the resident had made repeated calls to the service centre for updates to the outstanding work as well as the complaint response.
2. It understood the resident had advised the landlord that she had temporarily moved out of her property. It added that its surveyor had concluded that the bedroom could not be used, however the surveyor had not recommended that she needed to vacate the property whilst the repairs were completed.
3. The major learning point it had taken from the case was that it needed to “improve the coordination where a property within a block is affected by a leak from a flat above and ensure that we arrange access quickly with early intervention from the housing team”.
4. It apologised that the resident was subjected to the level of distress and inconvenience that resulted from the water leak from B.
The resident emailed the Ombudsman on 19 June 2023 asking it to consider the matter. She added she wanted compensation for the damage to her personal items, her general inconvenience and “the mental/psychological torture my family and I went through”. She maintained she considered £2,500 to be reasonable compensation given the circumstances.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident has referred in her communication to both the landlord and to this service to the initial leak in September 2021. Whilst she has explained that she considers the leak in 2022 followed on from the one in 2021, the Ombudsman has not considered whether the leaks were related or the same issue or the landlord’s handling of the 2021 leak. Whilst we acknowledge the resident’s view that the leaks were linked, the Ombudsman noted that there had been a gap of just over a year between the occurrences and that the landlord did not comment on the earlier leak in its complaint responses. Taking all the circumstances into account, this report will therefore consider events from 3 November 2022 onwards, as this was also the focus of the landlord’s own responses.

The landlord’s obligations

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out under the landlord’s responsibilities that it would maintain any installations it had provided for supplying water, gas, or electricity, and for heating, hot water and sanitisation. Under the list of what this included the policy explained it covered “basins, sinks, baths, toilets, flushing systems and waste pipes”.
The landlord’s repairs policy defines a responsive repair as “day-to-day maintenance work carried out in response to a request from a resident. It is sometimes called a ‘reactive repair’.”
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy defines an emergency repair as “anything causing immediate risk to the health, safety, and security of any occupants and/or visitors to your home. Or causing immediate damage to a property’s structure, fixtures and/or fittings”. Whilst the policy provides examples of emergency repairs it does set out that the examples are not an exhaustive list. The policy sets out that the landlord will carry out work to make emergency repairs safe within six hours of the report having been made.
The responsive repairs policy did set out that “sometimes other repairs may be needed to complete the job. If this is the case, we’ll arrange more appointments with you as soon as possible and, where possible, at a time to suit you”. For non-emergency repairs the policy added that the landlord would arrange an appointment, for as soon as possible at a time which suited the resident.
The landlord has informed this Service that it updated its compensation and complaints policies with effect from 16 December 2022. Whilst this was 11 days after the resident had originally raised her complaint, the landlord was fully aware of the upcoming change to its policies. Therefore it is appropriate and reasonable for the landlord to have used the revised policies as opposed to the older policies when considering the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s revised compensation policy sets out that where it fails to meet its standards and commitments it will take action to put things right. In circumstances where apologising is not sufficient. the landlord states it would consider awarding compensation.
The compensation policy sets out that compensation could be payable for quantifiable loss where the service failure resulted in a measurable loss for example higher energy costs incurred by a resident or higher water bills because of a leak. In addition to this the policy also sets out discretionary compensation payments which covered issues such as:
1. Failure or delay in providing a service
2. Failure to meet a target response time.
3. Failure to meet its standards of service.
4. Not following its policies or procedures.
5. The inability to use a room due to loss of accommodation or facilities.
6. Poor complaints handling.
The landlord’s compensation framework sets out that, in relation to delays or failure to complete a repair, compensation starts at £10 with £2 added per day until the repair is completed up to a maximum of £50. Similarly the loss for service failures is capped at £50.
In terms of a loss of use of a room the landlord’s compensation framework sets out the loss of rent for the use of a room would be 10% of the daily net rent per day.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that in the event of a missed or failed appointment, which was not because of a reason beyond its control, it would pay a maximum of £25. It adds it would not make a payment for missed appointments in addition to a payment for loss of earnings.
In terms of loss of earnings the landlord’s compensation framework sets out that “no compensation is payable for loss of earnings or annual leave taken”.
The landlord’s decant policy sets out that a decant is needed where “major works are needed because of structural instability, faulty or dangerous wiring, or serious damp”.
The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that the landlord operates a two-stage policy. At stage 1 the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within five working days and it will aim to provide a response within 10 working days of the acknowledgment. It adds if this is not possible it would contact the resident to explain why it had not been able to respond by then and agree a response time with the resident.
At stage 2 the landlord will acknowledge the request for escalation within five working days and will aim to provide a response within a maximum of 20 working days from the acknowledgment. If the landlord requires an extension it will agree this with the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the leak from the flat above

The resident informed the landlord of the leak initially on 4 November 2022. She explained that she had tried to call the landlord’s customer services team but had been unable to speak to anyone. The resident had acted appropriately in contacting the landlord by an alternative means (by email). Upon being made aware by the resident of the leak into her property, the landlord sent an operative to the property on that day to try to resolve the matter. This was reasonable given the resident had explained the leak had been coming into her ceiling and the landlord would be responsible for this type of repair. The resident informed the landlord on 6 November 2022 that she was going to be away for a week and was concerned about what she would return to. In terms of this, the landlord had attended to B on 7 November 2022 where it had located a leak on the primary flow nut which it had tightened. As it could not access the resident’s property during the period that she was away it was unable to determine whether the work it had carried out in B had resolved the issue of the leak or not.
The landlord’s actions in trying to identify and resolve the cause of the leak would have been informed by how it had tackled the leak the previous year. As the resident had explained the leak was coming from the same place as it had in 2021, the landlord was entitled to consider the cause of the leak in 2022 could have been similar in nature to what had caused the leak in 2021 and to consider this in terms of resolving the issue. This was appropriate and a reasonable course of action for the landlord to initially take.
Following the resident having returned to the property the landlord sent a painter/decorator to her on 13 November 2022. Whilst it had done this based on the work it had carried out at B on 7 November 2022, which it believed had fixed the leak, the landlord should have checked with the resident as to whether the leak had been resolved before it had sent a decorator. This was a missed opportunity by it. Whilst the painter/decorator did contact the landlord and inform it of the situation and the landlord’s internal notes confirmed that it had asked for an update, this was not until 23 November 2022, a full week after the resident had emailed it and 10 days after the painter/decorator had contacted it. This was not acceptable. Neither was the fact that the next appointment to the resident’s property and to try and access B was not until 2 December 2022, a further nine days later.
In terms of the appointment on 2 December 2022 the resident has accepted that the landlord’s contractor did attend on that day but that they needed to access B and went upstairs but were not able to gain access to that property. The landlord has not provided this Service with details of all its communications with the tenant of B. As a result it is not clear to this Service whether the tenant of B had been informed of the scheduled appointment on 2 December 2022 and whether as a result was aware that there was the likelihood that the flat would need to be accessed at that time by the landlord. If the tenant was not aware of the appointment, it was reasonable that they may not have been in on the day. Given this, whilst the matter did cause the resident a degree of inconvenience, especially as she had taken time off work to be present on the day the Ombudsman cannot say that the landlord was at fault if it could not gain access to B to try to resolve the leak.
However, irrespective of this, it is clearly not acceptable that the landlord had not been able to access B until 3 January 2023, which was more than a month since the first appointment on 2 December 2022. Whilst the landlord has stated it had attempted several times to access B in the intervening period, the tenant at B had stated there were occasions when they had been in the property and the landlord’s contractor had not turned up. An example of this was on 16 December 2022. Whilst the landlord’s contractor stated it had proof it had attended B on that day and no one had been in, the landlord has not provided this evidence to this Service. Although the tenant had been away from B and there was also the Christmas break, this was still a long period for the landlord to have not gained access and for it to have not considered what other steps it could take to gain entry to B.
The landlord stated in its stage 1 response to the resident it had finally gained access to B on 13 January 2023 to source the leak after the Home Service Manager had written to the tenant to inform him of his tenancy agreement. Although the landlord has not provided a copy of this letter, the landlord’s internal correspondence has made it clear the letter had not mentioned the option of forced entry to the property if access was not provided. The landlord has not explained why it took so long to write to the tenant about the matter, especially as its internal communication had discussed before Christmas the need for the matter to be resolved. This was a failing by the landlord and the impact of the delay was that it caused continuing distress and inconvenience to the resident, who had been chasing for updates on the matter.
Following it having identified and fixed the cause of the leak, the landlord acted appropriately in explaining to the resident that it needed to dry out the property before it could deal with redecorating. To do this it provided the resident with a dehumidifier and it confirmed when she enquired about the additional electrical costs of running this to dry out the property that it would cover these costs. The landlord’s contractor had informed the landlord that it would take three days to decorate the property once it was dry. This was communicated to the resident. Whilst the landlord adhered to this timeframe, the works had not been scheduled to take place until the middle of February 2023, after it had issued the stage 1 response. This was slightly outside the time needed to dry the property, however it appeared this was due to the availability of the landlord’s contractor. Given the lengthy time the matter had been outstanding the landlord ought to have ensured that there would be no further delays. It could have planned for a different contractor to attend once it was made aware of the slight delay needed to decorate the property.
Given the delays in resolving the matter the landlord had confirmed to the resident that it would make arrangements to replace the soaked carpet in the bedroom. This was appropriate. The resident explained in its communication that her personal belongings had been damaged due to the damp and mould caused by the leak. The resident added that she had sent pictures showing the damaged possessions to the landlord. The landlord has confirmed that it did not provide the resident with details of its own insurer for the resident to submit a claim with it. The Ombudsman has made a recommendation in respect of this.
The resident has stated that she enquired several times with the landlord in respect of being decanted until such a time as the works had been resolved. The landlord explained that its surveyor had stated that a decant was not necessary as the property had hot water, electrics and heating. In terms of the decant, whilst the resident has stated that the landlord had done this following the leak in 2021, it did not automatically follow that it would do likewise in the event of another leak. The landlord’s decant policy set out in respect of a temporary decant that it would be considered in the event of serious damp. Whilst this Service accepts the continuous sound of the leak would have caused the resident a degree of distress, there is no evidence that the leak had caused a serious damp issue to the property.
The resident complained the landlord discriminated against her on the basis of her race. This was disputed by the landlord. This would be a claim of discrimination under the Equality Act. Whilst the resident’s concerns and frustration with a situation which was not of her making are entirely understandable, the Ombudsman’s view is that there is no evidence that the landlord failed to take account of its duties under the Equality Act in this case.
The landlord accepted that, whilst a decant was not necessary, the resident had lost the full functional use of her bedroom. It applied a rent reduction based on a loss of use of 10% for this for a period of 97 days. This was in keeping with its compensation policy. The landlord has confirmed that the calculation of 97 days covers the period from 13 November 2022 up to 17 February 2023. Whilst the resident had initially reported the leak on 4 November 2022 she had confirmed that she was away from the property from 6 November 2022. She had then contacted the landlord on 13 November 2022 to explain the leak had not been resolved following the landlord having attended B in the intervening period. Given this, the resident would have lost the use of the bedroom from this date. As a result the landlord has offered reasonable redress in line with its compensation policy for the loss of use of the bedroom.
The landlord made an offer of compensation to the resident both at stage 1 and stage 2. At the time it issued the stage 1 response the repairs had not been fully completed. It had at the time of stage 2 increased the offer by two aspects. One of these concerned the complaints handling which will be considered later in this report. The other aspect had been in relation to service failures and repeated visits. Overall the landlord had offered the maximum allowed under its policy for service failure and delays at £50 each. In addition to the loss of use of the room discretionary compensation of £300 had been offered. This amount was in keeping with a medium impact under the landlord’s revised compensation framework for claims after December 2022.
The amounts offered by the landlord for service failure, delays and discretionary compensation at stage 1 were in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact on the resident. It is clear that the landlord took some attempts to put things right, however it had failed to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay to find a suitable remedy to the ongoing leak and the impact this had on the resident and her family. However in the landlord’s stage 2 response it offered the resident some additional compensation for this. This was, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the flat above her.

The landlord’s record keeping

The landlord has confirmed that in relation to the communication between it and the resident that this was primarily done via a work mobile given to its representative. It added that, due to a change in the work mobile, the communications including text messages between the parties were not saved by it. The landlord has accepted that its representative had the responsibility to record notes on its customer dynamics system but had not done so. It has added that since the complaint and in keeping with the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management it has provided refresher training on existing databases and the importance of recording data.
Clear record keeping and usage of held records is essential to the effective operation and delivery of landlord services. This has not been the case in its management of the resident’s repair requests including updates. These recording failures all amounts to a serious failing on the part of the landlord. Whilst it is evident that the landlord has learnt from this case, it does not detract from the shortcomings in respect of this complaint. The impact on the resident was that the lack of any notes recorded on a central system meant that the resident was continuously chasing the landlord for updates on the situation. This would have caused her a degree of distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The resident had originally raised a complaint with the landlord on 5 December 2022. The landlord acknowledged this complaint on 7 December 2022 in keeping with the complaints policy. However it had not issued the stage 1 response until 13 February 2023, over two months later. This was not in keeping with its complaints policy, even if allowing for an extension which needed to be agreed with the resident. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it had provided an update or discussed when it would provide its stage 1 response to the resident, which was not in keeping with the complaints policy.
Following the resident having escalated the complaint to stage 2, the landlord did not appear to send an acknowledgment to the resident in keeping with its complaints policy. Even after the resident chased the landlord on two occasions in April 2023 it did not issue the stage 2 response until 13 June 2023, 15 weeks after the resident had requested the escalation. This was substantially outside the timescales as set out in the complaints policy.
The landlord in its stage 2 response did apologise for the delay taken in providing its response. It also made an offer of £350 compensation in relation to the service failure in providing the response. This award was, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, reasonable redress for the delay.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53.bof the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of a leak in the flat above her.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Order

Within the next four weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £100 in relation to its failure in record keeping.

Recommendations

The landlord should provide the resident with details of its own insurance in relation to any claim the resident may wish to make for damaged personal possessions.
The landlord should pay the resident an amount of £1,128.04 in keeping with its stage 2 response, if it has not already paid this to the resident. The landlord’s stage 2 letter provided a breakdown of what the payment represented.