Southern Housing (202224263)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224263

Southern Housing Group Limited

22 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 is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of leaks and associated damp and mould affecting her property.
2. The resident’s reports of an inefficient heating system.
The Ombudsman has decided to consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom, top floor flat. She holds an assured tenancy with the landlord.
The resident reported leaks from the roof which affected her flat when it rained. The leaks were intermittent from 2020. The landlord completed repairs throughout 2020 and 2021.
In response to leaks reported in mid-2022, the landlord completed repairs to the roof. Following this, the resident re-reported damp affecting 2 bedrooms in September 2022. The landlord completed a roof inspection and raised further repairs.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 23 January 2023. She reported that the leaks had worsened since 2021 and the roof leaked following repairs when it rained. She said that the damp conditions affected her children’s health. She was dissatisfied that she had not received call backs or updates from the landlord on what actions it intended to take. She added that she was in debt with her energy supplier as her property did not retain heat well and the heating had to be left on all day.
On 8 February 2023, the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response. In summary it said:
1. It completed roof repairs in February 2023 after the roof leaks recurred. Remedial works to address the internal redecoration were scheduled for the end of the month.
2. It would complete a heat loss assessment of her home on 20 February 2023.
3. It offered the resident a total of £90 compensation. It awarded £15 for failed call backs and £75 for where its service had fallen below its expected standard.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 22 March 2023. She remained dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered and felt this was not reflective of the excessive energy costs incurred from heating her property. She said that the landlord had not considered the time she had spent chasing repairs. She felt the works to address the leaks were too late and the landlord should have investigated the matter thoroughly in the first instance.
On 14 April 2023, the landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response. In summary it said:
1. It had undertaken works to address the ongoing roof leaks. Tiles had been replaced and the leaking guttering had been repaired. It understood that there had since been a further, new leak.
2. A contractor addressed all the leaks by 13 March 2023.
3. A heat loss survey was completed on 15 March 2023. It found that the radiators in the kitchen, bedroom and bathroom were undersized.
4. The resident should provide the landlord with energy bills from 2020 so that it could review these along with the bills already provided.
5. It would fix new radiators in the property on 17 April 2023.
6. It increased the offer of compensation to £345 to account for impact, inconvenience and disturbance caused by its handling of the leaks.
7. It would review its handling of the repairs and put steps in place to remind the team of the importance of communication with residents.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 22 March 2024 and provided further information on 16 August 2024. She remains dissatisfied that the roof leaks recurred and remain an ongoing issue. She said that her family’s health has been impacted by the damp and mould conditions in the property. She was also unhappy with the landlord’s communication and added that the radiators have still not been installed. To resolve the complaint, she wants the landlord to repair the roof to ensure it is watertight, the upgraded radiators to be installed, and an increased offer of compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident reported that the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould in the property impacted her children’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about her household’s health. However, we cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the damp and mould and problems with the resident’s health. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says that we may not consider complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure. Nonetheless, consideration will be given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident reported that damp and mould affected her property from 2020. In accordance with paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints which were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within 12 months of the matters arising. As the resident raised a complaint on 23 January 2023, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s reports from 2022 onwards. The assessment will not consider events between 2020 until December 2021 as these matters did not occur within 12 months of the complaint. However, the Ombudsman may make reference to historic events for context.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 February 2024 to inform her that it would not be able to open a new complaint in response to her concerns about recurring leaks affecting her property and delays for new radiators to be fitted. It explained that this decision was made as there were still outstanding actions from the stage 2 complaint response. As the landlord did not open a new complaint and instead treated the issues as a continuation of the stage 2 response, this investigation will consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints beyond the final response and up to the present day.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks and associated damp and mould affecting her property.

The landlord’s repair policy categorises 2 types of repairs: emergency (category 1) repairs which cause an immediate risk to health and safety, or immediate damage to the property’s structure, fixtures and fittings. Such repairs will be attended to and made safe within 24 hours of the original report. Routine (category 2) repairs account for repairs which can be completed without serious discomfort, inconvenience or nuisance to the resident. Such repairs tend to include minor plumbing issues including dripping taps and leaking gutters. Routine repairs will be attended to as quickly as possible, and the landlord aims to resolve these within 1 visit.
It is evident in this case that the leaks into the resident’s property from the roof were longstanding and recurring. Records show that in response to reports of water ingress in mid-2022, the landlord completed roof repairs and post inspected the property in June 2022. It confirmed that all remedial and redecoration works had been completed following the leak and the resident was satisfied with this.
In September 2022 the resident reported damp in her front room and bedroom. Given the history of similar reports of leaks and associated damp, it was appropriate for the landlord to inspect the roof and the affected areas in October 2022. The landlord recorded that there was slight damp in the 2 affected rooms. It identified that that the roof was in an “ok condition” but required a full inspection. Further, gutters at the rear of the property were overflowing and leaking into the brickwork which caused damp. It noted that gutters needed to be fixed and repointing was required. The landlord’s investigations into the damp at this stage were timely.
However, after the landlord identified these repairs it did not take any further action or raise the required work orders. These are steps that it should have taken in accordance with its repairs policy and to reassure the resident that it was handling the matter. As the resident had not been updated, she chased up the landlord in November 2022 to enquire about the outcome of the inspection which had been completed 3 weeks prior. The call handler recorded that there were no jobs on the system but raised a call back. Records suggest that this was not returned.
Following this, the landlord responded to an emergency call out in November 2022 relating to a separate leak from the resident’s kitchen sink which caused flooding in her property. The landlord addressed this as per its emergency timescales and resolved this leak.
The landlord delayed completing the repairs identified in October 2022 until 16 January 2023. Records suggest that the leak was intermittent during this time. It was unacceptable that the resident was not provided with a reason for the delay. Further, the landlord had not completed a full roof inspection as a previous contractor noted was required. A full roof inspection would have been prudent given the recurring nature of the leaks from the roof. The leak was not resolved after the repairs which were carried out in January 2023. Although records do not confirm the impact on the resident during this time, the delays and failed repairs were likely to have caused detriment to the resident particularly given the landlord’s lack of communication.
The resident reported in December 2022 that damp and mould affected her flat from the leaks. The landlord’s webpage on damp and mould states that it takes reports of damp and mould seriously. It commits to inspect a property within 10 days of a first report and find a resolution within 6 weeks. The landlord did not adhere to this or respond to the resident’s initial report to outline what action it intended to take.
It was positive that after the resident’s complaint was logged, the landlord swiftly identified the need to agree an action plan and timescales to complete the outstanding repairs by. The landlord met with the resident on 4 February 2023 and shortly after this, completed further roof repairs to address the water ingress. It said it would complete works to address damage caused to decoration by the damp and mould by 20 February 2023. The landlord reassured the resident that it would oversee this to ensure works were completed within the prescribed timeframe.
The mould treatment was completed outside of the landlord’s prescribed timeframe. However, the delays were not significant, and the resident did not report the property condition as deteriorating. Further, the recorded works were thorough to address the damp and mould. The landlord damp proofed the walls and completed a full redecoration. The landlord also fitted a new laminate flooring in the kitchen following the sink leak. This was a suitable step for it to take because the resident said that she had previously paid to replace the flooring on other occasions due to historic damage from leaks.
Although it was likely frustrating for the resident that leaks from the roof recurred, the landlord completed recommended repairs to address this. Additionally, the landlord evidenced good practice by completing post inspections to ensure works had been completed to an acceptable standard. Its service fell short where it delayed actioning the roof repairs and failed to complete a full roof survey as was recommended in October 2022. However, the landlord identified its shortcomings within its complaint response. It was positive to see that it acknowledged the importance of repairs being completed quickly and asked its contractors to complete a review of their handling of the roof repairs.
Similarly with the damp and mould, although there were delays for the landlord to respond to the report, it identified its shortcoming in its complaint responses and took action to remedy the damp and mould. As such, the £345 compensation offered, acknowledgement of the service failings in its final response, and commitment to review its handling of the roof repairs is considered proportionate to put things right for the failings identified from May 2022 until April 2023.
Following the landlord’s final response, the resident reported recurring leaks from the roof in September 2023, January 2024 and July 2024. In response to the further roof leak in September 2023, the landlord completed minor repairs to the roof within 7 days. It re-pointed a 2-meter section of the roof and refixed a tile. The contractor recorded that the whole roof needed an overhaul if the roof continued to leak after these repairs. It was positive that the landlord took some steps to address the leak. However, given the previous failed repairs of the roof and associated disruption caused to the resident, it was troubling that the landlord did not complete a survey of the whole roof at this stage to identify the water ingress points and cause/s.
The resident reported a further leak from the roof which “poured through the ceiling” on 5 January 2024. Although the landlord marked the repair as urgent, there are no records to evidence that it responded to this within its prescribed category 1 repair timescale. The landlord recorded that it agreed to meet with the resident on 19 January 2024 to go over previous work orders as the leak had not stopped following multiple past jobs. Although this might have been appropriate, there are no records to substantiate this visit. The resident reported that the leak continued to affect her property into February 2024 and that mould had returned in most rooms. She said that she had been told there were still 3 holes in the roof, but no actions had been taken. The landlord’s lack of response to the urgent repair and damp and mould was unreasonable. This likely caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience. A record showed that some repairs were completed in May 2024. However, there was no confirmation of what these were.
The landlord took no further investigatory action until June 2024 when it completed a drone survey to check the property’s roof for defects. It was unsatisfactory that the landlord did not prioritise investigating the matter until 5-months after the resident’s report of the leak in January 2024. The resident chased up the landlord during this time but received no updates. Records suggest that the leaks were not continuous, however the water ingress continued to affect her property during adverse weather conditions.
A further out of hours report was made by the resident on 11 July 2024 where the resident reported again that water was pouring through the ceilings. It appears that on the same day, the resident was decanted into alternative accommodation by the landlord. The Ombudsman has seen videos supplied by the resident which suggested the leaks were significant when it rained. The landlord failed to proactively address the recurring roof leaks between January 2023 until July 2024. This is likely to have damaged the landlord-tenant relationship as the matters had been longstanding. The resident did not feel that the landlord took any accountability for its failings. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for its handling of the recurring roof leaks which affected her property.
The landlord should have prioritised addressing the reported recurring damp and mould, particularly as the resident raised concerns that the living conditions had caused health issues with her children. Records suggest that the mould was inspected by the landlord in March 2024. However, no records confirm the outcome of this or whether any follow-on works were carried out. It was unreasonable that the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s reported health concerns throughout the case. The landlord should have been aware of the potential prejudicial health impacts of damp and mould and responded proactively as its website suggested it would.
The landlord advised that it is currently completing roof works to the resident’s property whilst she is decanted. However, it is unclear what repairs it is undertaking and whether these are in line with its recent survey findings from June 2024. The Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of any survey outcomes. Additionally, the resident informed the Ombudsman that she is unclear on the outcome of the recent survey, or what repairs the landlord is actioning. As such, the landlord is ordered to share the roof survey outcome with the resident, act upon all the recommendations, and issue her a schedule of works which outlines the repairs it is carrying out to ensure the roof is watertight. Additionally, it should survey the property to assess any damp and mould and adhere to the survey recommendations. Given the prolonged failings in the landlord’s handling of this case, the landlord should complete all required repairs in a timely manner.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s communication fell short with the resident throughout the case. In its final response, the landlord said that it would remind the team to communicate better with residents and action call backs when these are requested. Although this was a positive step, the landlord offered the resident £15 for failed returned calls. This is not considered proportionate to the extent of the communication failings. Further, since the final response the landlord’s communication did not improve. In June 2024, the landlord recorded internally that there had been a series of failed call backs to the resident. The evidence showed that the landlord repeatedly failed to provide updates to the resident regarding survey outcomes, proposed works, and timescales for repairs. The landlord’s offer of £15 is not reflective of the repeated time and trouble incurred by the resident. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to compensate the resident an additional £135 compensation for its communication failings.
The landlord did not appropriately investigate or resolve the recurring leaks in the resident’s property between September 2023 up until the present day. Additionally, it did not prioritise addressing the damp and mould. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to award the resident a further £400 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused. Overall, the Ombudsman has identified maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an inefficient heating system.

The resident reported that she had to keep the heating on at all times during winter months and the flat did not retain heat well. She said she had to turn the heating on during the early hours of the morning so that the flat was slightly warm when her children woke up. Given these concerns, it was appropriate that the landlord agreed to complete a heat loss assessment of the property on 15 March 2023. This was a proportionate response.
The heat loss assessment found that the radiators in the kitchen, bathroom and 1 of the bedrooms were undersized and required replacing with larger sized radiators. It was appropriate that the landlord shared these findings with the resident in its stage 2 complaint response. It said its contractors would renew the radiators on 17 April 2023. The landlord was transparent with the resident about its findings and committed to complete the repairs in a reasonable timeframe.
However, the landlord failed to complete the repair on this date. The Ombudsman has not seen records as to why the replacement radiators were not installed on 17 April 2023. The landlord did not offer an explanation to the resident or an alternative appointment as the Ombudsman would expect it to do in such circumstances. It provided no update until the resident followed up in January 2024 to advise that the landlord had still not replaced the radiators. Further, it did not keep its commitment as per its stage 2 response. This is likely to have caused significant frustration and inconvenience to the resident who was left without a resolution to her concerns about heat retention in the flat.
The landlord informed the Ombudsman that it faced challenges in ordering the correct sized radiators. Although this may have caused some delays, the Ombudsman does not consider that this accounted for the total delays of over 12 months. Records suggest that a job to install the radiators was closed in error. Following another appointment in February 2024, a contractor recorded that they were unable to install radiators with no further explanation provided. It was unacceptable that the landlord did not communicate the reason for the delays with the resident.
The landlord informed the Ombudsman in July 2024 that it had booked to fit the new radiators in the resident’s property on 15 July 2024. However, the resident advised the Ombudsman on 16 August 2024 that the radiators have still not been installed. She said the radiators are in her property but awaiting installation. Due to the time elapsed and inconvenience caused to the resident, the landlord is ordered to install the radiators in the resident’s property within the next 4 weeks.
As part of her complaint, the resident reported that she was in debt with her energy supplier due to the excessive energy costs for heating a cold flat. It was reasonable that within its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had received a recent energy bill and asked the resident to provide her with a comparative energy bill from 2020. It requested this information by 12 May 2023. The resident did not provide this information. As such, the landlord would not have been expected to take any further action at this time. However, given the significant length of time that the resident has been living in a flat with inadequate sized heaters, the landlord should review the situation and consider whether the inefficiencies of the heating system caused increased energy bills for the resident. It should request further evidence from the resident to make this decision.
Overall, the landlord’s failings in this case were significant. The landlord repeatedly failed to install the radiators over a prolonged period of time, and the matter remains outstanding. This was exacerbated by the landlord not providing updates or communicating with the resident about what steps it intended to take. It showed a disregard to its stage 2 response by not installing the radiators when it said it would. The resident incurred time and trouble from unsuccessful appointments and chasing the landlord. The landlord is ordered to compensate the resident £400 to put things right. The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies outlines that such levels of compensation are appropriate for circumstances where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident, and the landlord has not put things right. Given the above, the Ombudsman has identified maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an inefficient heating system.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaint’s policy outlines that it is unable to consider or accept complaints if: it has already followed its process and provided a final response, it has directed the customer to approach the Housing Ombudsman, or if the Ombudsman has already investigated the complaint.
In its handling of this complaint, the landlord provided both stage 1 and stage 2 responses within a timely manner. It investigated the outstanding issues, identified where its service fell short, and created a plan with timeframes to put things right. This was appropriate.
However, following the landlord’s final response, leaks, damp and mould recurred and the radiators had not been installed. The resident reported this to the landlord on 26 January 2024. In response, the landlord wrote to the resident on 1 February 2024 and said that it was unable to proceed with a new stage 1 complaint for actions in its previous stage 2 response which remained outstanding. Whilst this was a reasonable response in relation to the resident’s dissatisfaction that the radiators had not been installed, the landlord did not have any remaining outstanding actions regarding the leaking roof.
Further, the leak from the roof had recurred a couple of times since the previous final response 10 months prior. As such, the Ombudsman considers that best practice would have been for the landlord to open a new complaint regarding the recent roof leaks. This would have been appropriate given the resident’s dissatisfaction. Without opening a new complaint, the landlord did not investigate the more recent roof leaks or identify whether there had been any service failings.
Although the landlord’s policy outlines that it cannot accept new complaints if it has referred the matter to the Ombudsman, the new leaks would have constituted a new complaint given the lapse in time since the previous final response. The landlord is recommended to considereach case by its own merit to identify whether a resident’s reported issues relate to a continuation of a matter that has already been considered, or a new problem that warrants a new complaint investigation.
Having said this, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the resident specifically requested for a new complaint to be opened. Therefore, overall there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks and associated damp and mould affecting her property.
2. Maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an inefficient heating system.
3. No maladministration regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
The landlord is ordered to compensate the resident a total of £1,280 comprised of:
1. £330 as already offered by the landlord for the impact, inconvenience and disturbance caused by the landlord’s handling of leaks, damp and mould between May 2022 until April 2023.
2. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of recurring leaks, damp and mould between September 2023 until the present day.
3. £150 to account for the landlord’s poor communication with the resident in relation to the roof leaks and associated damp and mould. This amount is inclusive of the £15 previously offered by the landlord at stage 2.
4. £400 for the landlord’s delays to upgrade the resident’s radiators.
The landlord is ordered to share its survey findings from June 2024 with the resident and ensure it carries out all recommended works to the roof. Additionally, it should provide the resident with the following:
1. An action plan outlining all repairs which contractors are completing to the roof.
2. Expected timescales outlining when the roof repairs will be completed. The landlord should ensure the repairs are completed in a reasonable timeframe given the previous delays and that the resident is decanted.
The landlord is ordered to complete a damp and mould survey of the resident’s property. Following this, it should complete all recommended works and provide an update to the Ombudsman on remedial action taken.
The landlord is ordered to review whether the inefficiencies of the heating system caused increased energy bills for the resident. It should request further evidence from the resident to make this decision. The landlord should share an update on its decision with the Ombudsman.
The landlord is ordered to install the upgraded radiators in the resident’s property as per the heat loss assessment findings within the next 4 weeks.
The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with all of the above orders within 4 weeks from the date of this report.

Recommendation

The landlord is recommended to consider each case by its own merit to identify whether a resident’s reported issues relate to a continuation of a matter that has already been considered, or a new problem that warrants a new complaint investigation.