Soho Housing Association Limited (202121347)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121347

Soho Housing Association Limited

28 February 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. A planned bathroom replacement.
2. Its knowledge and information management, in relation to the handling of a leak.
3. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy for a second floor 1 bedroom flat with the landlord, which is a housing association. The tenancy started on 22 June 2015. The landlord says that the resident is registered as disabled but has not provided any further details.
On 8 January 2019 the landlord wrote to a group of residents individually and informed them that it would be carrying out a major works programme, which would involve renewing major internal components within their homes, such as new kitchens and bathrooms.
On 24 July 2019 the landlord wrote to the residents again and informed them that since the last letter in January 2019, its consultant surveyors had visited every building to gain an accurate up to date picture of any works that were needed to the fabric of the building. It went on to say that as a result of these surveys, it had identified that certain works were needed to the communal areas in order to keep the building safe for all residents.
The letter further explained that the communal works identified would now form the initial element of the major works program, instead of the works detailed within the letter of 8 January 2019. It apologised for the resulting delay and that it may need to request access to some homes in order to carry out additional surveys to ensure that it had up to date information. It further provided an email address and contact number for its customer service team if residents had any queries.
On 9 August 2021 the landlord carried out a stock condition survey within the resident’s property. The survey determined that the kitchen required replacing, and that the bathroom was in a fair condition and due for renewal in 10 years. The resident’s kitchen was subsequently replaced in June 2022.
On 12 August 2022 the resident emailed his housing officer and said that he wanted to complain about the distress, inconvenience and frustration he had suffered while waiting for his bathroom to be renewed since 2019. The resident said that in order to resolve his complaint he wanted 30% of his rent refunded for the period of 2019 and 2022 as compensation.
On 16 August 2022 the housing officer responded to the resident and acknowledged the resident’s email. The housing officer explained that the letter he had forwarded did not promise that the bathroom work would be carried out and asked that he send a copy of an email or letter which promised him a new bathroom would be installed.
The housing officer further explained that the landlord would not offer compensation for postponing any programmed bathroom works. Furthermore, the 30% rent reduction was for situations where a resident had suffered a loss of room, and whilst the bathroom may not have been refurbished, it was still usable. It also asked the resident to elaborate on the stress he said the landlord had caused.
On 4 November 2022 the resident contacted the Ombudsman for assistance with his complaint as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response in August 2022. On 18 November 2022, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord and asked it to provide the resident with a response to his complaint.
On 2 December 2022 the landlord provided its stage 1 response where it:
1. Apologised for not logging his complaint sooner and offered £100 compensation.
2. Said that his bathroom and kitchen had been assessed in August 2021 and that his bathroom was deemed to be in a fair condition and did not need to be renewed for another 10 years. It further apologised that this was not made clearer.
3. Acknowledged a repair had been raised on 6 October 2022 regarding a leak, which was completed on 2 December 2022. It said that while there had been delays it was a mixture of trying to get hold of the resident to book an appointment and approving the quote for the works needed. In recognition of the delay in approving the works, it offered £130 compensation.
4. In relation to the request for a rent refund, this was only applicable for when there was evidence that a resident had lost the use of a room, which was not the case.
On 27 December 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and asked to escalate his complaint as he was dissatisfied with the response. The resident said:
1. £100 compensation for the delay was not enough.
2. His bathroom and kitchen were due to be replaced in 2019.
3. He had many bad experiences with the leak and it had still not been resolved.
4. Operatives never attended appointments.
5. He had mice in his flat and could not use his bedroom due to them.
6. He had broken windows in his bedroom.
7. His bathroom needed to be renewed and the tap was not in use.
8. He wanted £8690 compensation.
On 6 January 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation and said that it would investigate the matters raised and review his request to escalate the complaint.
On 17 January 2023, the landlord responded to the resident and gave the following reply to each of the other points he raised:
1. The £100 compensation offered was in line with its policy.
2. The evidence provided by the resident about a missed appointment was a text message, which said that the appointment needed to be rearranged due to the operative’s family emergency and did not show that an appointment was missed.
3. In relation to the mice and pests, residents were expected to remove in the first instance, but his housing officer will be in contact to discuss further.
4. The report of an issue with a tap would be dealt with outside of the complaint process, as it was a new report of a repair.
5. In relation to the evidence the resident had provided about the replacement bathroom, it acknowledged that the surveyor has stated that both rooms would be renewed and this was an error and should not have been worded in this way. In recognition of this, it would like to offer an additional £30 compensation.
The email concluded that it would not be escalating his complaint to stage 2 based on his request for increased compensation. It acknowledged that although the resident had provided evidence of an old conversation about his bathroom renewal and had increased its compensation offer in relation to this, there was not enough additional evidence to merit further escalation and that the resident had now exhausted the internal complaints process.
On 15 May 2023 the resident contacted the Ombudsman and said that he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.
In February 2024 the Ombudsman contacted the resident for an update on his circumstances. The resident provided a number of pictures and videos of a blocked sink which had flooded the kitchen. The resident confirmed that the pictures were from December 2023 and had happened continually since.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

The resident has informed the Ombudsman that he is experiencing issues with a leak, maybe from the property above or kitchen, which has been ongoing since December 2023. The resident says that this has happened a number of times and has been reported to the landlord as recently February 2024.
The above issues have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure and so cannot be investigated by this Service. As such, this investigation focuses on the resident’s dissatisfaction in August 2022, the landlord’s final response in December 2022 and whether the landlord has acted fairly when resolving the resident’s complaint.
If the resident completes the landlord’s internal complaint process about these additional matters and remains dissatisfied once he has received the final response, he could refer the matters as a new complaint to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman’s approach.

The Ombudsman’s role is to determine complaints by reference to what is fair in all the circumstances and decide if the landlord is responsible for maladministration or service failure.
When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right, and
3. learn from outcomes.

The landlord’s handling of the planned bathroom replacement.

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint may not be investigated
Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states:

‘’The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not bought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matter arising’’.

After carefully considering the evidence in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the planned bathroom replacement is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and will not be investigated as part of this investigation.
The resident’s dissatisfaction relates to communication from the landlord over the past 4 years, more specifically the communication received in January 2019 where the landlord said it would be replacing major components within properties and its subsequent letter, dated July 2019. Furthermore, a stock condition survey was also completed in August 2021, where it was determined that the bathroom was in a fair condition and would not be replaced for 10 years.
While there is reference to a complaint raised by the resident about his bathroom in February of an unknown year, there is no evidence that it had exhausted its complaint process or that such a complaint was escalated to this Service within the timescales set within our Scheme rules.
Furthermore, the complaint referred to this Service was not raised with the landlord until August 2022, which was beyond the reasonable timescale set out in the Scheme and therefore outside of jurisdiction.

The landlord’s knowledge and information management, in relation to the handling of a leak.

The residents tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair any installations it has provided for sanitation and for the supply of water, gas and electricity.
The landlord’s repair policy states that it has made a commitment to its residents, that they will not have to wait more than 20 calendar days for its contractor to complete a routine repair.
When the Ombudsman is investigating a complaint about a repair, such as a leak, the Service asks the landlord to provide full and comprehensive records to evidence how it handled the repair. The Ombudsman asks the landlord to provide information such as copies of repair logs, contractor worksheets, copies of phone logs and any other relevant correspondence.
In this case it is not clear from the evidence provided what leak the resident is referring to, however within the landlord’s stage 1 response, it refers to a leak which it says was reported on 6 October 2021. It also gives a further breakdown of the steps that were taken by the landlord and contractor.
While the landlord has provided its repair records which detail a list of works raised against the resident’s property, there are no corresponding records which show that an order was raised on 6 October 2021. There are also no records which show any leaks were reported prior to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord says that the leak was fixed on 2 December 2021, however there is no evidence which shows the steps the landlord said it took, or the work that it completed.
Furthermore, when the resident informed the landlord on 27 December 2022 that a leak remained unresolved, there is no evidence to show that the landlord took any action to investigate the resident’s concerns.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management states that “good knowledge and information management is crucial to any organisation’s ability to perform and achieve its mission…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 and partial information… The failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress. Incorrect information can also cause real detriment…[and] contribute to an increased risk to a resident’s health and safety…[Vulnerabilities] may also mean that reasonable adjustments are appropriate to actively prevent harm or distress.”
The spotlight report therefore recommends that landlords take steps to improve their knowledge and information management, including by implementing a strategy for this, benchmarking against other organisations’ good practice, reviewing internal guidance. However, there is no evidence that the landlord has taken such steps to do so in light of its poor record keeping in the resident’s case, as outlined above.
In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors including any distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort spent pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s acts and/or omissions. We consider whether any redress is proportionate to the severity of the failing by the landlord and the impact on the resident, taking into account the evidence that has been provided.
Ultimately the Ombudsman considers what would be fair and proportionate. The aim of compensation is not to be punitive, but to provide redress for the impact of any failings by the landlord on the resident. In the case of compensation for time, trouble, distress and inconvenience, we are not able to quantify a definitive loss, and the intention of such an award is to recognise the overall distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident.
The Ombudsman has considered the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failure to keep appropriate records in his case. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, where there has been a failure which had an adverse impact on the resident, a payment from £100 recommended. In light of the fact that due to the landlord’s failure, the resident does not have the opportunity for his complaint to be investigated, the Ombudsman has made an order below for the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation. This includes the previous offer of £100 from the landlord.
The landlord has also been recommended to take steps to learn from the outcome of the resident’s case by reviewing its record keeping practices in light of the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaint policy shows that when a resident is unhappy with the service they have received, residents are asked to inform it of the issue so that a resolution can be found as quickly and effectively as possible. This is called the immediate resolution stage. It asks residents to consider 2 important things before submitting a formal complaint:
1. Has the resident already told the housing officer or another member of staff about the issue?
2. Has the resident allowed adequate time for the team to put right the situation?
The policy further confirms that if it cannot resolve an issue immediately and a formal complaint is made, then it operates a 2 stage formal complaint process. Stage 1 complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days and a timescale will be provided for when a response will be received.
The policy also states that in some circumstances, there may be reasons where the landlord may decide not to escalate a complaint to stage 2. Where this decision is made, it will clearly outline the reasons why and explain the resident’s right to approach the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code April 2022 (the Code), point 5.9, specifies that if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage one it must be progressed to stage two of the landlord’s procedure, unless an exclusion ground applies. In instances where a landlord declines to escalate a complaint it must clearly communicate in writing its reasons for not escalating as well as the resident’s right to approach the Ombudsman about its decision.
Point 4.14 specifies that a landlord must not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaints procedure and must have clear and valid reasons for taking that course of action. Reasons for declining to escalate a complaint must be clearly set out in a landlord’s complaints policy and must be the same as the reasons for not accepting a complaint.
When the landlord received the resident’s complaint email, dated 12 August 2022, it dealt with it at its informal immediate resolution stage, however, did not tell the resident this. The landlord responded to the resident’s issues and asked him to provide some additional details relating to the stress he had suffered.
Although there is no evidence to show that the resident responded to the landlord’s email, there is also no evidence to show that the landlord took any further action, until the Ombudsman contacted it in November 2022.
While the landlord’s policy enables staff to log any incoming complaints at an informal stage of its policy, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to inform residents that it was dealing with the complaint in this way.
The resident’s email was clearly marked as a complaint and it should have been logged at stage 1 of its process. The landlord’s decision to deal with it at its informal stage meant that the resident experienced an unnecessary delay in receiving a formal response to his complaint. Furthermore, as the resident was unaware that his email had not been dealt with at the informal stage, it prompted him to seek the Ombudsman’s assistance with obtaining a reply.
Following the landlord’s stage 1 response, the resident requested that his complaint be escalated to stage 2 and listed a number of reasons why he remained dissatisfied. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the email and said it would respond to him after it had reviewed the request.
The landlord responded to the resident and said that it would not escalate his complaint to stage 2, as there was not enough additional evidence to merit further escalation of this complaint. Although the decision the landlord took was in line with its own policy, it did not follow point 5.9 of the Code as the resident clearly explained that the complaint was not resolved to his satisfaction.
Despite not officially escalating to stage two, the landlord’s response dated 17 January 2023 did contain a reply to the points the resident raised. This included the new points raised within the stage 2 escalation and details of why it would not be offering any additional compensation. The landlord also provided the resident with details of how to refer the complaint to this Service.
While the landlord provided a response to the majority of points, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s point that he had an outstanding leak, which had not been fixed. There is no indication that the landlord took any further steps in relation to this point and simply said that it would not increase its offer of compensation relating to this. This was a failure by the landlord.
The landlord failed to handle the resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage two fairly and this amounted to service failure in the circumstances.
In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, where there has been a failure which had an adverse impact on the resident, a payment of around £100 is recommended. The landlord failed to appropriately record the resident complaint in August 2022 which led to an unnecessary delay. It further failed to escalate the complaint in line with the Code, which led to a missed opportunity in fixing a potential ongoing leak. In recognition of this, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42c of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the planned bathroom replacement is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s knowledge and information management, in relation to the handling of a leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to write to the resident and apologise for the failures identified in this report, within 4 weeks of the date of the determination.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £400 compensation, which includes the £160 offered via its internal complaints process. The compensation is made up of:
1. £250 in total for its failures associated with its knowledge and information management.
2. £150 for its failures associated with complaint handling.
The landlord is ordered to contact the resident and inspect the resident’s property to determine whether a leak is outstanding within 2 weeks of the date of this determination. Any remedial work must be completed within 2 weeks of the date of the inspection.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews its complaint policy to ensure complaints are logged and escalated in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
It is also recommended that the landlord review its record keeping practices in relation to inspections and repairs, including in light of the findings of this report and the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.