Southern Housing (202305661)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305661

Southern Housing

30 September 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:
1. Response to the resident’s requests for service charge information.
2. Handling of the resident’s request for repairs to an external water pump controller.
3. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a shared owner of a 2 bedroom, upper floor flat and the landlord became the freeholder following a merger. The resident’s tenancy started in May 2015. There is a managing agent appointed for the development. The resident pays rent and service charges to the landlord. The landlord has no known health vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The resident raised two formal stage 1 complaints to the landlord. The first on 6 July 2022. He said he was unhappy with how long the landlord was taking to respond to his service charge enquiries. He had made his request on 5 April 2022. He asked for a breakdown of service charge costs per flat. He asked for the landlord to explain annual charge increases and considered the charge for his property “ridiculously high.”
1. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 23 August 2022.
2. The resident asked to escalate this complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints process (ICP) on 11 January 2023.
3. The landlord arranged a stage 2 panel meeting on 30 January 2023 and a review meeting on 22 February 2023, as the resident remained dissatisfied.
4. On the 8 March 2023 the landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 final response. It offered £25 compensation. The landlord’s response included an action plan to provide the resident with the requested information by 30 April 2023.
The resident raised his second complaint on 21 December 2022. He expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of a repair to a water pump controller. He considered the landlord’s communication poor and said he was without water for an unreasonable amount of time. The resident says the lack of fresh water was dangerous to his health as he was undergoing chemotherapy at the time.
1. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 26 January 2023. It apologised for the water supply interruptions and offered £30 compensation.
2. The resident asked to escalate this complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s ICP on 23 February 2022.
3. The landlord arranged a stage 2 panel meeting on 16 March 2023 and a review meeting on 20 March 2023, as the resident remained dissatisfied.
4. The landlord provided its stage 2 final response on 31 March 2023. It apologised again and identified learning. However, it considered it responded to the repair appropriately and its offer of £30 compensation at stage 1 appropriate.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the outcome of the landlord’s stage 2 panel review meetings. He brought his complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service in May 2023. He said:
1. The landlord had missed its deadline of 30 April 2023 to provide the service charge information, including accounts for April 2021 to April 2022.
2. The landlord had “refused” to review all service charges and had not provided him with the means to query or scrutinise them.
3. He remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s explanation for the water pump controller failure and subsequent leak from a burst water pipe.
4. He considered the landlord’s offer of £30 for the loss of water supply “unfair.” Furthermore, he considered compensation due for the landlord’s “negligence, lack of communication, unnecessary delays, incompetence of the landlord’s repair team, and its failure to fulfil its responsibilities to supervise its contractor’s work.”
During a conversation with the resident on 29 August 2024 he advised that he had sold the property and was moving out week commencing 2 September 2024. He said his decision to move was a direct consequence of his negative experience of the landlord. Including its lack of presence on site, poor communication, and “mismanagement” of the service charge accounts.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman notes that the resident’s correspondence included an expression of dissatisfaction regarding the landlord’s service charge costs.
Any dissatisfaction regarding the reasonableness, liability, or the methodology used to calculate service charge contributions requires a decision by a court or tribunal service. Should the resident remain dissatisfied with this matter, we must advise this would fall outside of our jurisdiction and is within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The resident may wish to discuss the matter further with the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) www.lease-advice.org. Such matters will not form part of this investigation. However, we can consider the landlord’s communication.
We also note that the correspondence provided by both parties includes evidence dated after the landlord’s stage 2 final responses. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint through its ICP. This is to ensure that the landlord takes reasonable steps to resolve complaints within its 2 stage process. So, the findings made in this investigation will be based on whether the formal complaint responses provided reasonable redress, up to its stage 2 complaint responses, ending on the 8 and 31 March 2023. Any reference to events beyond these dates are made to provide context.

Response to the resident’s requests for service charge information

The legal responsibility of a landlord regarding notifying residents of annual service charges are governed by the terms outlined in the lease. Landlords are required to provide clear and transparent information to residents regarding charges, including the amount, breakdown of costs, and any changes.
Paragraph 7.2 of the resident’s lease states that service provision will be calculated before the beginning of the ‘account year.’ The lease shows that this is 1 April to 31 March each year.
Paragraph 7.5 of the resident’s lease states the landlord should calculate any adjustments of expenditure “as soon as practicable” after the end of each account year.
The evidence shows the resident first raised his request for service charge information, relevant to this complaint, on 5 April 2022. He asked the landlord about account years 2020 to 2021 and 2021 to 2022. His correspondence at this stage also queried increases in the landlord’s management charges and considered these to be “high and wrong.” While we are able to consider the landlord’s responses and communication, we are unable to assess the reasonableness of the charges applied.
There is evidence the resident chased and emailed the landlord to request updates and information on 7 and 22 April 2022 and 3 and 6 May 2022. While there is evidence the landlord provided the managing agent’s estimated annual statements, ending December each year, the resident asked for the actual costs for 2022. Furthermore, the information provided to the resident was costs for the development. It did not satisfy his request for a breakdown of his own charges, specific to his property.
On the 12 May 2022 the landlord advised the resident he would receive a response to his request within 10 working days. The landlord failed to respond by this date. It was unreasonable that it did not provide the information to the resident as promised. It inconvenienced him and caused time and effort as he felt it necessary to raise a complaint.
On 17 July 2022 there is evidence the landlord offered an apology to the resident. It said it was dealing with a high volume of enquiries. It was reasonable to acknowledge this failure and say sorry. Yet, the landlord failed to provide any assurance when he could expect the information he asked for.
On 21 July 2022 the landlord provided answers to some of the resident’s service charge questions. This included the resident’s concerns that management charges and communal electricity costs were “too high.” While this demonstrates the landlord had made progress, it had taken approximately 3 months at this stage to achieve. However, the evidence on this date shows the landlord was unable to answer all of the resident’s questions. While it said it would respond again on 29 July 2022 after speaking with the managing agent, it failed to do so. It was unreasonable the landlord failed to provide the information to the resident as it had promised.
The landlord provided the resident with a stage 1 complaint response on 23 August 2022. We note that its response was brief. It failed to provide detailed explanations to the resident’s questions and gave him documents which detailed the service charge costs for the development. It was not reasonable that the resident had waited since 5 April 2022. The landlord continued to fail to provide the information specific to his property. The landlord failed to apologise or offer redress for its delayed response, nor did it demonstrate any learning.
Given the delays and the time and trouble used by the resident, it is unclear why the landlord did not identify steps it would take to prevent similar failings happening again.
There is evidence the resident chased the landlord between August 2022 to October 2022 to progress matters. Due to the landlord’s delays, the resident approached the managing agent for information himself.
There is evidence on 27 October 2022 where the managing agent informed the landlord of its conversation with the resident. It explained the landlord’s need to provide what the resident had asked for. It was unreasonable the resident had to take matters into his own hands. This caused further time and trouble to him as he attempted to obtain the information asked for.
The resident continued to chase and express his dissatisfaction between October 2022 to March 2023. He had at this stage waited almost 11 Months. This was unreasonable.
The landlord provided its stage 2 final response regarding this matter on 8 March 2022. Its response demonstrated a more thorough investigation. It said sorry that it had not resolved matters sooner. It offered £25 compensation for the delays and gave the resident its proposed action plan and timescales to answer his questions. These commitments included:
1. By 30 April 2023 to:
  1. Provide the resident with a full explanation, covering the legal basis of the service charge, how they are apportioned, and what is covered under each heading.
  2. Provide the resident with a copy of the service charge accounting process.
2. Within 28 days of a request, respond to any specific questions raised by the resident.
We note from the evidence supplied that the landlord again failed to provide the information by the deadlines it set itself. The resident continued to chase the landlord multiple times each month between 5 May 2023 to February 2024. It appears the landlord potentially identified a refund of £259.46 for 2020 to 2021, but it had not yet finalised this account year. Nor had it completed 2021 to 2022.
This evidence demonstrates the landlord failed to resolve the residents complaint. Nor had it given him the information he asked for. That the evidence indicates he had waited almost 2 years at this stage is an unreasonable length of time.
The landlord provided us its recoverable service charge policy. Within which, paragraph 3.8, managing service charges, refers to the landlord’s service charge dispute resolution policy.
Having viewed the policy via the landlord’s website, it is clear this is used when matters arise which fall outside of its complaint’s policy. It is also used when resident’s feel they have not been consulted. Or that the landlord has not calculated service charges correctly or fairly. Given the resident’s complaint expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s communication and reasonableness of the service charge calculations, it is unclear why the resident was not advised of this process. This demonstrated the landlord’s failure to apply its own policies and demonstrated a training need.
The landlord has an obligation under Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to provide access to information about the service charges and relevant costs relating to the charges. The evidence shows the landlord failed to meet this obligation during the resident’s complaint. Furthermore, the resident was required to repeatedly chase the landlord for transparent information or specific information relevant to his property. The delays encountered did not demonstrate a landlord that maintained accurate records that could be accessed efficiently by its staff.
The landlord’s failure to complete its own action plans within its own timescales, did not demonstrate it learned from its acknowledged failures. The resident was caused time and trouble chasing the landlord for its responses. He was also inconvenienced by the fact the landlord has not provided the information he requested.
Given the identified failures, which were acknowledged by the landlord in March 2023, the landlord’s offer of £25 was not proportionate redress. He was caused time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience while trying to obtain the information to which he was legally entitled. The landlord set deadlines to provide responses and repeatedly failed to achieve the dates. His requests remained outstanding until he left the property in August 2024.
Therefore, we find maladministration with the landlord’s handling of this matter. An order of £250 has been made. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which provides for awards of compensation between £100 and £600. This is where the landlord has acknowledged failings but failed to appropriately address the detriment to the resident.

Handling of repairs to an external water pump controller

The resident’s lease agreement confirms the landlord’s repair responsibilities. This includes that it will maintain any installations it provides for supplying water, gas or electricity, and for heating, hot water, and sanitation.
The landlord said during its attempts to reset a cold water booster pump on 9, 10, and 13 December 2022, it identified a fault with the control board. While water supply was always reinstated, the manufacturer was contacted, parts ordered, and the permanent repair completed on 21 December 2022. While the landlord’s repairs policy is silent on the timescales for such a repair, this was reasonable. The landlord demonstrated its emergency responses to the reported interruptions and took steps to provide a lasting remedy.
There is evidence the landlord sent a text message to the resident on 14 December 2022. The landlord advised:
1. It was aware of water interruptions at the development.
2. Its engineer would be on site within the hour to investigate and reinstate the supply.
3. It would provide a further update later that day. In which, the landlord explained the identified control panel fault.
4. It would delivery bottled water to the development.
These actions were reasonable in the circumstances. It demonstrated the landlord taking steps to identify the root cause of the fault and ensure drinking water was available to all 112 properties within the development during any interruption.
However, it was reasonable for the resident to question why communication regarding the repair and the supply and location of bottled water had not started earlier.
There is no evidence prior to the water interruptions which shows the resident informed the landlord of his health. The resident says he contacted the landlord to ask if it would pay for him to stay at a hotel while supply was affected. He says the landlord did not respond to his enquiry. While we do not doubt the resident’s comments, we have seen no evidence which documents his correspondence. Therefore, we have been unable to assess any failure.
We note the resident’s dissatisfaction that the landlord did not communicate by text prior to 14 December 2022. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response acknowledged and apologised for this. It explained that the earlier attendances had been done on an emergency basis. Some of which were out of hours (OOH). It was therefore satisfied that it had responded appropriately to ensure an engineer attended and reinstated supply. It offered £30 compensation calculated using the water regulation authority guidelines (Ofwat). This was reasonable in the circumstances. It demonstrated the landlord took steps to put things right.
The resident’s complaint said the property had lost water supply on 21 December 2022 for longer than the landlord expected. The landlord does not dispute this. It explained after its contractor fitted the new pump controller and reinstated the water supply, an acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) fitting on the supply pipe failed. Resulting in water leaking into the developments carpark area. The repair was made safe and water supply reinstated that day. Upon inspection, its contractor concluded the pipe had failed due to high water pressure shock.
We note that the water pipe’s union failed again on 22 February 2022. There is evidence the landlord’s contractor attended as an emergency, made safe, and reinstated the water supply. The landlord said the contractor was unable to determine the cause of this failure. It recommended its replacement and was trying to source parts from its suppliers. While the interruption would understandably have caused upset, the landlord resolved the repair as an emergency. This was appropriate and in line with its repair policy and obligations under the resident’s lease agreement.
We note the resident’s correspondence to the landlord on 23 February 2023. In which, he says the water pipe did not burst. He says it had been left unscrewed following the 21 December 2022 repair. He considered the landlord should investigate and suggested there had been “negligence and incompetence.”
While we understand the resident’s frustration, the landlord is entitled to rely on the expertise of its qualified contractors. It demonstrated resolving the repair as an emergency and took steps to replace the part as it had failed for the second time. Its actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 final complaint response on 31 March 2023. It acknowledged the resident was dissatisfied with its stage 1 offer of £30 compensation. The landlord said that it was:
1. Sorry for a series of water supply interruptions.
2. Satisfied with its stage 1 compensation offer.
3. Satisfied that there was no failure by its contractor for the repair.
4. Addressing the contractor’s delayed communication about the water supply disruption. It would address this by a contractor improvement plan and bimonthly performance review meetings.
5. Raising repair flags on its housing management systems. It had learned from the resident’s experience and recorded which contractor specifically maintained the boosted cold water system.
6. Undertaking further reviews of the maintenance contracts for other boosted cold water systems.
7. Able to confirm that it could supply 100 bottles of water in the event of a mains water failure. In addition, it had confirmed arrangements with Water Direct to deliver larger quantities 24 hours a day if required. Furthermore, it had updated its OOH workbooks to reflect these arrangements. Its OOH would ensure someone was onsite to accept delivery of the water and manage distribution.
While interruptions to the resident’s water supply would understandably cause upset, there is no evidence of a total loss of supply or amenities. The landlord demonstrated acting in line with its emergency repair policy and resolved the repair. The subsequent leak was beyond its control, yet it demonstrated that it also resolved this as an emergency. Its stage 2 response apologised and demonstrated learning. It evidenced that it had listened to the resident regarding communication and his experience of its delivery of bottled water.
Based on the above, we consider that the £30 compensation for the water supply interruptions reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. It is therefore our finding that the landlord has offered reasonable redress in this matter.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s relevant complaints policy states it will respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days of the acknowledgement date.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out requirements for member landlords that will allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. The purpose of the Code is to enable landlords to resolve complaints raised by their residents quickly. Also, to use the data and learning from complaints to drive service improvements.
The Code 1 April 2022 required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days. Also, for landlord’s to respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
The landlord’s relevant complaints policy was not compliant with the Code. A complaint response at stage 1 should have been sent within 10 working days of the complaint being made, not from its acknowledgement date. This has been identified in recent investigations and the landlord ordered to pay particular attention to the complaint stages when it conducts a self-assessment of its complaints policy.
In this investigation, we found failures in the landlord’s complaint handling policy. However, we note that the landlord’s website includes a revised policy from 17 May 2024. The landlord’s changes are now in line with the statutory Code. Our assessment will continue based on the landlord’s relevant policy during its handling of the resident’s complaint.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint regarding service charges on 6 July 2022. To meet the expectations of the Code, the landlord should have provided an acknowledgement by 13 July 2022 and a stage 1 complaint response by 20 July 2022. There is evidence the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 18 July 2022. This was not appropriate and 3 working days beyond the timescales set out in the Code. Also, the landlord sent its stage 1 response on 23 August 2022, 24 working days beyond the expected response date.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint regarding a water pump repair on 21 December 2022. It was reasonable for him to expect an acknowledgement by 30 December 2022 and a stage 1 complaint response by 9 January 2023. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge this complaint on 23 December 2022. However, it failed to provide a stage 1 response until 26 January 2023, 13 working days beyond the expected response timescales as set out in the Code.
The resident asked to escalate both complaints to stage 2 of the landlord’s ICP. There is evidence the landlord spoke with the resident and acknowledged his requests on each occasion. While this was appropriate, it is unclear why the resident was required to complete separate review request forms before these matters were considered.
Paragraph 6.12 of the Code states residents must not be required to explain their reasons for requesting a stage 2 consideration. Landlords are expected to make reasonable efforts to understand why a resident remains unhappy as part of its stage 2 response. It is therefore unclear why the landlord did not accept the resident’s request, nor assist him in this matter during its telephone and email communication. This additional burden caused further time and trouble to the resident.
We note from the evidence the landlord arranged separate panel meetings to discuss each of the resident’s complaints. This was in line with the landlord’s relevant complaints policy. Furthermore, there is evidence it completed further review meetings as the resident remained dissatisfied. While this demonstrates the landlord seeking to take steps to ensure the resident’s concerns were addressed, the timescales to achieve a stage 2 final response was not in line with the expectations of the Code.
The Code states that landlords must address and investigate all points raised in the complaint. Had the landlord clarified the resident’s complaint’s during his escalation requests, the need for additional meetings may have been avoided. There is no evidence the landlord apologised for any complaint handling delays.
Paragraph 5.13 of the Code states landlords must respond to the stage 2 complaint within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
The resident remained dissatisfied with each of the landlord’s stage 1 complaint responses.
1. On 11 January 2023 the resident asked to escalate his service charge complaint. On completion of review panel meetings, he received a stage 2 formal response on 8 March 2023. This was 20 working days beyond the expectations of the Code.
2. On 23 February 2023 the resident asked to escalate his water pump repair complaint. On completion of review panel meetings, he received a stage 2 formal response on 31 March 2023. This was 6 working days beyond the expectations of the Code.
While there is evidence the landlord met with the resident and discussed his concerns, the landlord failed to recognise any complaint handling failures. Our investigation identified delays at each stage, a policy that did not meet the expectations of the Code, and an escalation process which burdened the resident with additional work. The landlord had opportunity to recognise these failures and offer redress to put things right. This did not happen and caused the resident time, trouble, distress and inconvenience while he sought to progress matters.
Therefore, based on the accumulation of identified service failures, we find maladministration. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation for this complaint point. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which provides for awards of compensation between £100 and £600 where there has been a failure which has adversely affected the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for service charge information.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the landlord’s handling of repairs to an external water pump controller.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. A senior member of the landlord’s staff to write to the resident and apologise for the findings of this report.
2. Pay the resident £450 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £250 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for service charge information.
  2. £200 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
Within 4 weeks, in accordance with paragraph 54.g. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to provide the Ombudsman and the resident with a review to include:
1. Provide the resident with the information he has requested. If the landlord is unable to achieve this, it must provide a written explanation which includes timescales which it will ensure all outstanding information is supplied. The landlord should commit to revisiting an additional offer of compensation should it fail to achieve the dates it sets.
2. An explanation of what it has understood its failures to be in relation to its handling of the resident service charge information request. This should include what it has learnt from the resident’s experience, and how it will improve services in the future to ensure residents requests are efficiently responded to.
3. What steps it has taken within the last 6 months to ensure:
  1. Its staff are trained on the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code which became a statutory requirement on 1 April 2024.
  2. Its service charge team are trained in the use of the landlord’s service charge dispute resolution policy and how it differs from the landlord’s complaints policy.
4. The landlord is ordered to demonstrate that it has provided refresher training, within the last 6 months, to staff involved with this case. Specifically regarding the use of its service charge dispute resolution policy. If it is unable to do so, we order it to complete this and provide evidence to us within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should reoffer the resident the £30 compensation offered at stage 1 of the resident’s water pump controller complaint, if not already paid.