Southern Housing (202227212)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227212

Southern Housing Group Limited

31 May 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:
1. Repairs to windows in the property.
2. Flooding outside the property.
3. Repairs to the bathroom floor.
4. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a 2 bedroom ground floor maisonette in a low rise block (the block). The resident has several vulnerabilities that the landlord was aware of.
The resident reported a leak from her bathroom sink on 22 November 2021. The leak had damaged some of the linoleum bathroom floor covering (lino). The records show that the leak was repaired on 2 December 2021. The resident reported a sewage smell in the bathroom on 16 December 2021 which she believed was caused by water sitting underneath the damaged lino.
On 8 June 2022 the lino was reported to be in a poor condition and a repair was raised. The landlord’s contractor inspected the lino on 6 July 2022 and agreed to replace it. A follow up visit was scheduled for 11 July 2022. The resident made a further report of smells from underneath the lino on 18 July 2022.
The resident raised her first complaint on 28 July 2022. She said:
1. Following the leak in November 2021 she could smell damp coming from under the lino and it was bubbling.
2. The contractor attended on 6 July 2022 and said it would lay new lino. It was dismissive of her concerns regarding the cause of the smell. She had been upset by the contractor during a call and this impacted her mental health. She wanted the flooring to be replaced as soon as possible.
3. She had chased the landlord after 1 week of the visit, but had no start date for the works to replace the lino.
The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint on 5 August 2022. It set out the details provided by the resident that reflected the complaint made.
The landlord issued its first stage 1 response on 11 August 2022. This was around 10 working days later. It set out the issues raised by the resident in her complaint. It apologised for the inconvenience and stress the bathroom floor issues caused. It confirmed that operatives attended but had not resolved the issues raised. It said:
1. A surveyor would conduct a full survey of the bathroom floor and investigate the cause of the smell on 12 August 2022. It would share the surveyor’s findings with the resident.
2. It offered £100 compensation. This comprised of:
  1. £25 for delays.
  2. £25 for service failure.
  3. £50 as a goodwill gesture.
The resident reported concerns about a lack of drainage at the front of the block and damaged guttering on 9 August 2022. She emailed on 18 August 2022 to say that the issue had not been resolved.
On 26 September 2022 the resident called to say that flooding outside prevented her from leaving the property. She also said that the guttering had burst and the sound of water was disrupting her sleep.
The landlord’s internal records show that it discussed the damaged drains and guttering with its contractor on 17 October 2022. It noted that water was cascading against the side of the building. It highlighted the impact on the resident’s health and asked for the works to be done urgently.
The contractor replaced the lino on 19 October 2022.
The resident called the landlord on 7 November 2022. She said:
1. There had been issues with the contractors laying the lino. There were layers of lino laid on top of one another. The bad smell was still present. The contractor attended but had to be called back because it did not seal the flooring. She felt the contractor’s attitude towards her during the visits was poor.
2. There were issues with flooding against the external wall. She was anxious about the wall being saturated with water and it seeping into the property. It appeared to be a drainage issue. She asked the landlord to survey the problem.
The resident called the landlord on 11 November 2022 to say the lino was coming unstuck. She was concerned about the quality of the works and asked for an inspection.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 7 February 2023. She was assisted to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure. Her request for a stage 2 said:
1. She had not received any compensation.
2. There was no update regarding her repairs.
3. The problems with the bathroom floor were unresolved.
The landlord acknowledged the request for stage 2 on 10 February 2023. It said that it would issue a response by 10 March 2023. On the same day the landlord’s internal correspondence shows that it spoke to the resident. She said:
1. There had been no inspection from a surveyor following the stage 1 response.
2. The bathroom flooring would be laid again as the fitting was not to a good standard.
3. All the seals had gone in the windows back and front.
4. The contractor had cancelled 3 appointments in 10 days to repair the rain water coming into the living room. The repair was still outstanding.
5. There were issues with flooding outside the property each time there was heavy rain. The flooding went the length of the flat and covered all air bricks.
6. The lintel above the bedroom window was corroded.
7. There was an issue with the guttering at the front which was making the bathroom wall wet.
The landlord conducted a survey of the property on 15 February 2023. The survey was shared with both parties on 20 February 2023. It showed:
1. No defects could be seen in the lino by the inspector. It noted that the contractor was due to attend the same day and replace the flooring.
2. There were hairline cracks above the window frame in the living room. The resident was concerned about water penetration. The inspector noted that it was the result of normal movement. It agreed to fill the cracks around the window.
3. The windows in the living room and bedroom had damp around the edge. The inspector noted that it told the resident this was caused by condensation. There was no evidence of water ingress. It agreed to replace the internal sealant to both bedroom and living room windows.
4. The inspector viewed the drainage gullies in the road which appeared to be clear at the time of inspection. It noted that the ground contour had changed around the edge of the gutter which could allow water to flow towards the block. It agreed to monitor the area in heavy rainfall.
The landlord’s contractor replaced the lino on the same day.
The landlord called the resident on 28 March 2023. She said:
1. The contractor had missed 5 appointments between January and March 2023. However it came that day to clear the guttering at the front of the property. It had fixed other issues with windows and cladding on the block.
2. The bathroom floor had been skimmed on 20 February 2023, but was bubbling up again.
3. She asked for further repairs to be delayed until May 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 30 March 2023. This was around 34 working days after the request to escalate the complaint. It apologised for the delay in issuing its response. It set out its understanding of the complaint to be broadly about the non payment of compensation and time taken to repair the floor. The resident was also seeking additional compensation. The landlord said:
1. Compensation had been paid to the resident on 15 February 2023.
2. It upheld the complaint regarding delays to inspect the bathroom floor. The surveyor’s report from 20 February 2023 showed that there were no defects found in the floor. It had partially skimmed the floor previously, which had since started bubbling up again.
3. It would send a senior surveyor to inspect the flooring. An appointment would be made outside of the complaint response with the resident by 7 April 2023.
4. It offered additional compensation of £150. This comprised of:
  1. £100 for missed appointments.
  2. £50 for complaint handling.
The landlord’s records show the guttering was repaired on 5 April 2023.
The landlord conducted a further inspection of the bathroom floor on 26 May 2023. There were no further repairs raised.
The landlord’s contractor inspected the windows at the rear of the property on 13 June 2023. It recorded that the sealant and lintel needed to be replaced. A specialist contractor was required.
The resident reported that the gutters were leaking again on 21 August 2023.
The resident made a second complaint to the landlord on 2 October 2023. Amongst other things she said:
1. The gutters had not been repaired.
2. There was mould in her kitchen cupboards.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 20 October 2023. This was around 14 days after the complaint was raised. It provided a timeline of events reflective of the information available to the Ombudsman. It said:
1. There had been a service failure in its completion of repairs in line with its timescales.
2. The window repairs were passed to its contractor on 13 January 2023. The records showed appointments booked in February 2023 were cancelled by the contractor. Further appointments booked in March and June 2023 were closed as no access. An appointment made for 25 July 2023 was cancelled due to a planning failure by the landlord. It planned to conduct repairs to the window on 23 November 2023.
3. The guttering was repaired on 5 April 2023.
4. It upheld the complaint based on the delays and inconvenience caused. It offered compensation of £260. This comprised of:
  1. £60 for delays to complete repairs
  2. £25 for service failure
  3. £25 for delays to respond
  4. £150 for inconvenience, time, and trouble.
The resident sought to escalate her complaint on 7 November 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 13 December 2023. This was around 26 working days later. It referred to outstanding repairs and poor communication. It said:
1. Operatives had attended to the guttering on 15 September 2023. No further repairs were raised at the time. There was an unsuccessful appointment to survey the guttering on 9 November 2023. A further survey was scheduled for 2 January 2024.
2. There were several appointments raised for the window repairs. It was unclear if the repair booked for 17 May 2023 was attended. There were some changes to bookings made in June 2023, however operatives attended on 13 June 2023. Further works were required and a follow up repair was booked for 23 November 2023. This was cancelled by the resident as she asked for a further inspection before any works were conducted.
3. A surveyor was to inspect the mould, windows, doors, flooring, gutters, holes in walls, flooding, and the brick walls on 9 November 2023. The resident said she would be unavailable for the appointment. A further appointment was scheduled for 2 January 2024.
4. It apologised for the delays experienced with addressing the gutters and windows. This resulted in repeat contact from the resident and repeat visits to the property. It acknowledged the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused to the resident.
5. It apologised for the delays experienced in its complaint handling. It set out the dates complaints were made and responded to. It acknowledged that they were outside of its published timescales.
6. It offered the resident additional compensation of £390. This was calculated as:
  1. £100 for its complaint handling.
  2. £60 for delays to complete repairs.
  3. £60 for service failures.
  4. £20 for a missed appointment.
  5. £150 for a discretionary payment for inconvenience, time, and trouble
The landlord conducted a survey of damp and mould on 25 January 2024. It found that there were high moisture readings in the utility cupboard related to the type of floor tiles used. There were other repairs raised by the resident during the inspection. It provided an action plan to repair windows in the kitchen, bathroom, and bedroom. It made recommendations to the resident about changing the use of the cupboard and that she referred the issue with flooding to the local authority.
The landlord passed repairs to the kitchen, bathroom and bedroom windows to its contractor on 2 February 2024. It sent some advice around preventing condensation by email to the resident. It also said it would like to install dataloggers to monitor the mould and condensation.
The landlord’s contractor attempted to repair the windows on 19 February 2024, but the repair was cancelled as no access. On 4 March 2024 it returned and replaced the window handles, but passed further work to a specialist contractor.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

During the complaint journey, the resident reported an impact on her mental health caused by delays to complete repairs. The Ombudsman does not dispute this however we are unable to make a determination about damages caused to the resident’s health. However, we will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to the resident’s health is more appropriate for the courts and the resident may wish to seek independent advice about this.

Policy and Procedures

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy does not set out timescales to complete non emergency repairs. It does set out that, where it is responsible for repairs, it aimed to complete them as quickly as possible.

Repairs to windows in the property.

The records show that the resident first reported problems with the windows in the property on 2 February 2023. The landlord’s survey on 15 February 2023 was conducted within 10 days of the reports. Despite finding no evidence of water penetration from the windows, it recommended the replacement of window sealant. This was a fair response to the reports made by the resident.
However, there were delays following the survey in February 2023 to conduct any repairs. There were visits made by contractors in June 2023 that suggest a lintel was rotten and required replacement. The contractor said that a specialist contractor was required to conduct repairs on 13 June 2023. The landlord’s stage 2 response on 13 December 2023 said that further works were initially scheduled for November 2023. This would have been around a 5 month delay to conduct repairs. However, the appointment was reportedly cancelled by the resident because she asked for a new inspection of the windows. The delays to conduct repairs in this case caused the resident undue time and trouble in her communication with the landlord.
The landlord apologised for the delay to repair the windows in its stage 2 response on 13 December 2023. It said that there had been additional visits to the property causing avoidable time and trouble for the resident. Its apology for the added inconvenience was reasonable. Its offer of £145 compensation (£290 when combined with the gutter repairs) for its failings to repair the windows was reasonable. It was reasonable to provide a timeframe for further inspections and a plan to resolve the repairs.
The landlord conducted a further inspection of the property on 25 January 2024. During this visit, it identified that some repairs to the windows were outstanding and passed the work onto its contractor. The contractor attempted to repair the windows on 19 February 2024, which was within 28 days of the inspector’s visit. However, the repair was cancelled as no access. It returned on 4 March 2024 and replaced some window handles, but it was unable to conduct all of the repairs and determined that a specialist contractor was necessary. The records show that during its inspection on 13 June 2023 the landlord’s contractor determined that a specialist contractor was required. Its failure to have proper oversight of this case has contributed to a delay of around 10 months to conduct repairs.
Overall the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to windows in the property. It knew early in the timeline that specialist contractors were required because the repairs may have been more significant than resealing the windows. It was fair to address the delays in its response to the resident. It was fair to offer compensation for the delays. However, there was a lack of oversight to progress repairs which remain outstanding. The landlord should now inspect the windows, determine if the lintel requires replacement and schedule any necessary works with a suitably qualified contractor. It should pay the resident additional compensation of £100 for its service failure.

Flooding outside the property.

The timeline shows that the resident raised issues with the guttering to the landlord on 9 August 2022. She made a report of flooding outside the property on 26 September 2022, saying that it prevented her from leaving the property. The landlord inspected the guttering on 17 October 2022 and noted that water was cascading against the side of the building. The landlord’s internal records show that it discussed the damaged drains and guttering with its contractor the same day, but no works were scheduled to prevent the flooding from the damaged drains. It should have arranged a repair and offered some assurance to the resident that it was investigating this issue.
On 7 November 2022 the resident made further reports of flooding against the external wall. She was anxious about the wall being saturated with water and it seeping into the property. The records show that the first inspection of the drains and guttering following her reports was on 15 February 2023. This was a delay of around 4 months before any action was taken by the landlord. The delays to provide a response or act on the reports would have contributed to a lack of trust in the landlord by the resident.
The resident’s communication with the landlord about the flooding shows that she was anxious about this issue. At times she said that she was unable to leave the property because of the flooding. She was also concerned about the impact that water cascading against the bathroom wall would have on the property. The landlord did not provide a response to these concerns within a reasonable period.
During the landlord’s inspection of the drains on 15 February 2023, it noted that there were issues with the ground contouring. It told the resident that it would monitor the area during inclement weather. There are no records available to the Ombudsman showing that this request was shared internally by the landlord, or that any follow up inspection outside of repairs was conducted.
In a call with the landlord on 28 March 2023 the resident said that there had been 5 missed appointments by contractors to repair the gutters. This would have caused time and trouble to the resident in her reporting and chasing up repairs. The landlord’s records show that the gutters were repaired on 5 April 2023. This was around 6 months after she reported the issue to the landlord.
It was fair for the landlord to apologise for the delays and time and trouble caused in its stage 2 response on 13 December 2023. It recognised that there had been an avoidable delay in missed appointments. Its offer of £145 compensation was reasonable for the delay to repair the gutters in the circumstances.
The landlord did not offer any redress for the impact flooding had on the resident, or the delays to conduct any repairs to prevent flooding. Instead, it arranged to survey the flooding on 2 January 2024. It was reasonable to arrange a survey, but it could have conducted this earlier in the timeline. It should have maintained greater oversight of this issue, especially as it would have impacted other residents in the same block.
It is not clear from the landlord’s records if it surveyed the flooding on 2 January 2024. However, its survey from 25 January 2024 shows that it did consider the issues with flooding outside the block. It determined that the flooding caused by the gulley was not the landlord’s responsibility and directed the resident to the local authority. It was unfair to pass this issue back to her. It had taken ownership of this issue earlier in the timeline, and it should have pursued the issues regarding responsibility with the local authority itself.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of flooding outside the property. There were substantial delays to conduct repairs. The landlord offered some compensation to put things right, but it did not offer redress for the impact the flooding had on the resident. It did not pursue the repairs to the gulleys until January 2024, when it said that the gulleys were not its responsibility to repair. It should have been proactive in its approach to the repairs. It should report the issues with the gulleys to the council itself and provide evidence of these reports to the resident and Ombudsman. If it is itself responsible then it should carry out repairs to prevent further instances of flooding in the future. It should pay the resident additional compensation of £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Repairs to the bathroom floor

The timeline shows that the resident first reported problems with the bathroom floor on 8 June 2022. The landlord inspected the floor on 6 July 2022, which was within a reasonable period. However, the records show that it did not conduct any repairs until 7 November 2022. There was an unreasonable delay of around 5 months to complete the initial repair. The resident took additional time and trouble chasing the landlord on 18 July 2022 and in her complaint on 28 July 2022.
The landlord recognised that there had been delays to complete repairs in its stage 1 response on 11 August 2022. Its decision to issue £100 compensation was reasonable for the delay. It was reasonable to schedule a survey of the flooring.
It is unclear from the landlord’s records what repairs were conducted on 7 November 2022. However, the records do show that it took around 3 months to complete the repairs from the inspection. The resident reported that the contractor installed a new layer of lino flooring atop the previous floor. This then began lifting from the floor and she had to report more repairs on 11 November 2022. There was more time and trouble taken by the resident to report further repairs for this issue.
It is important for the landlord to maintain the commitments set out in its complaint handling. A failure to do so can lead to a breakdown in the landlord/tenant relationship. There was no follow up from the landlord to ensure that the survey was conducted before the resident escalated her complaint on 7 February 2023. The delays and lack of communication caused the resident additional time and trouble to chase the landlord for the repairs.
The landlord did not conduct a survey of the flooring until 15 February 2023. This was around 6 months after it told the resident that it would. The delay to conduct the survey was reflective of the overall failures in the landlord’s management of this case.
The records show that the lino was replaced on 15 February 2023. This was around 3 months after the issues were reported again in November 2022. There were combined delays of around 8 months from June 2022 for the landlord to repair the flooring to an acceptable condition.
The landlord upheld the complaints regarding the bathroom floor in its stage 2 response on 30 March 2023. It recognised that there had been delays to complete repairs and arranged for a further inspection. It demonstrated learning from its stage 1 response and arranged to follow up the appointment with the resident. It was fair to acknowledge the errors in its handling of the repairs. Its offer of £100 additional compensation was reflective of the detriment caused.
The landlord’s follow up inspection on 26 May 2023 shows that it followed through with the commitments set out in its stage 2 response.
Overall the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom floor. Although there were substantial delays to conduct repairs to the flooring, the landlord recognised its failings in its stage 1 and 2 responses. It demonstrated learning from outcomes by arranging to follow up the stage 2 response with a further inspection. Its offer of £200 was reflective of the detriment caused to the resident.

Complaint handling.

The landlord’s policy states that an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, will be recorded as a complaint. It is important for the landlord to ensure that it maintains its complaint handling commitments, and that it complies with the timeframes set out in its policy. Overall, there were combined delays of around 24 working days to issue responses to the resident.
The landlord’s stage 2 response in March 2023 was issued around 34 days after the request was made to escalate the complaint. This was around 14 working days above the 20 set out in its policy. However, its response was fair. It recognised that there had been a delay, apologised, and sought to put things right. Its offer of £50 compensation for complaint handling failures was reasonable.
There was a delay of around 4 working days for the landlord to issue its stage 1 response on 20 October 2023. It continued to reflect on its complaint handling. It was fair when it apologised for the delay and its offer of £25 compensation sought to put things right for the resident.
The final response issued on 13 December 2023 was issued around 26 working days after the request was made to escalate the complaint. The landlord reflected on its overall complaint handling in its response. It recognised that there had been delays throughout its complaint handling. It apologised and made an offer of an additional £100 compensation for its complaint handling.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. We consider whether the landlord’s response was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes. We also consider if the landlord’s own compensation guidance.
The Ombudsman finds there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its complaint handling. It is important for the landlord to put the resident at the heart of its complaint handling. It should respond to complaints in line the timeframes set out in its policy and procedures. However, where it had failed to comply with these timeframes it apologised to the resident. Its combined offer of £175 was reasonable and demonstrated its intention to put things right for the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to windows in the property.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of flooding outside the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. An offer of reasonable redress made in respect of the complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom floor.
2. An offer of reasonable redress in respect of the failures in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident and apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
2. Conduct an inspection of the windows throughout the property to determine if the lintel requires replacement. It should schedule any necessary works with a suitably qualified contractor within 8 weeks.
3. Provide an action plan to the resident on how it can resolve the issues causing flooding outside the property, ensuring any works required are scheduled within 8 weeks. If it determines that the local authority bear responsibility for some repairs, it should report these itself and provide evidence of these reports to the resident and Ombudsman.
4. Pay the resident £1,150 compensation, including the £900 already offered. This sum is comprised of:
  1. £900 offered throughout its complaint responses.
  2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by flooding.
  3. £100 for its service failures in repairing the windows.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above to the Ombudsman.