Southern Housing (202318381)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318381

Southern Housing Group Limited

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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s transfer request to an accessible property.
   2. Handling of the resident’s request for a bathroom upgrade.
   3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is an assured tenant living in a third-floor 1-bedroom flat. Her tenancy began in 1997. She lives with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), chronic fatigue syndrome, Trochanteric bursitis, fibromyalgia, anorexia, impaired mobility, agoraphobia, complex hernia, neuropathic pain, and swelling.
3. The resident had previously informed the landlord of difficulties she experienced following surgery in 2010. She said this led to her being housebound due to her pain and exhaustion. Her flat had 52 steps and no lift, and she only left the house for hospital appointments and occasional visits to her parents. She received a class A banding for a property transfer, and her kitchen was also adapted in 2010. She had received recommendations from 2 Occupational Therapist (OT) reports in 2012 and 2013 for a wet room level access shower.
4. The resident complained to the landlord on 18 August 2023. She reiterated her banding and the OT recommendations and said it had not acted on them. The landlord had said the reason for this was because she would not be in the property for long enough to justify the expense. The resident explained:
   1. The landlord had omitted her property from cyclical bathroom replacement works when the rest of the building had new bathrooms fitted. She had a 26-year-old bathroom.
   2. She had been unable to wash properly daily for nearly 14 years and this depressed and demoralised her. She felt like the landlord was discriminating against her due to her disability.
   3. She had been housebound for 13 years and 9 months. She had spent a decade of her life imprisoned in the home dealing with pain, exhaustion, and stress. She struggled to get out to see her elderly parents as they struggled to get up the stairs and she could not get down. She had received a diagnosis of agoraphobia as a direct result of being stuck in the property.
   4. Any trips out of the house meant several weeks of panic attacks, fear beforehand, and at least 3 days in bed afterwards to recover. She was reliant on carers, friends, and neighbours to get through every day.
5. The landlord asked the resident for an extension to provide its response until 13 September 2023. It then provided its stage 1 response on 18 September 2023. It explained its findings and said:
   1. The resident had a stock condition survey completed in 2020 to see if her bathroom needed renewing. The survey found the bathroom did not need renewal. It was in good condition, and due an upgrade in 2050.
   2. Due to it completing a survey 3 years ago, it had arranged for another one to inspect the bathroom and check if it needed renewal. Once done it would take action accordingly.
   3. It no longer had a transfer list, however there were several housing options available to the resident. It had arranged for a member of staff to contact her on 29 September 2023 to go through her housing options.
   4. She should have any medical documents available about her health needs as part of the visit.
   5. It provided a schedule of works/action plan together with target completion dates and advised who would oversee the actions. The schedule detailed:
      1. A surveyor was to inspect the bathroom for renewal by 25 September 2023.
      2. A housing officer was to contact her by 29 September 2023.
6. The resident tried to raise a new complaint, on 5 February 2024.The landlord however treated this as an escalation of her previous complaint. She expressed her disappointment about the way it treated her. The resident reiterated the concerns she raised in her stage 1 response and said:
   1. She heard nothing until the last day of the deadline for the bathroom issue. Someone showed up at her door asking for access to inspect the bathroom. The landlord had not provided her with an appointment or notice for the visit.
   2. As a resident she had the right to be told when someone was attending her property. She needed notice to ensure her carer was available, as a disabled resident. This was also to ensure she was dressed.
   3. She gave the operative access as she needed the bathroom sorted. They entered her property, looked at the bathroom and said they could tell it was very old from the suite. They agreed that the date the landlord provided to complete cyclical works in 2050 was “ridiculous”. The bathroom would then be 53 years old. They said they would recommend the landlord carry out a replacement as soon as possible. She had heard nothing since the visit.
   4. She emailed it twice following the visit asking for information and it ignored her. This was to find out when the other team would be calling about the housing issue. They were very good at keeping contact during the stage 1 and asked for at least 5 extensions. She could not contact the member of staff after they sent the stage 1 response.
   5. The other member of staff who called her about her housing issue said there was nothing they could do. It had said she was “a health and safety risk” over a decade prior and had done nothing to support or help her.
   6. She found it solely responsible for her situation and it had offered her no help or support and did not accept any responsibility. She asked for a follow up about her complaint and for it to address the bathroom issue properly.
   7. She was unable to escalate to stage 2 as she was waiting for it to reply about the bathroom after the visit and the deadline lapsed. She asked to open a new complaint about her points.
   8. She had placed a repair request as her bath tap did not run hot water. The date provided for the repair was 24 March 2024 which was 2 months away. As a disabled resident she was unable to get into the bath daily due to the pain and had to take alternative measures daily for hygiene. Hot water was essential for this. It was also a necessity for her to have a hot bath at least once a week (twice if lucky) to stop her body seizing up completely.
   9. This was the only physical therapy she had access to being stuck in the property. She asked it to bring the date for the repair forward, due to her level of pain as she could not run a hot enough bath.
7. The landlord asked the resident to allow for a response by 13 February 2024. It acknowledged her stage 2 complaint on 2 May 2024 and said as she was collating information, it would like to request an extension for her stage 2 complaint. It said it would provide a response by 22 May 2024.
8. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 22 May 2024. It summarised the issues she had raised and said it was upholding her complaint. It found:
   1. It was unsure which letter she referred to, but it had found a letter which mentioned the transfer list in 2011. It told her it no longer had a transfer list and apologised that it was not able to go into any more detail about her concerns about not completing actions mentioned in a later letter in 2012.
   2. It had spoken with the member of staff she had previously spoken with. It passed on her medical details, and it was exploring a managed move for her. It had told her the criteria needed.
   3. It had informed her about the average number of 2-bedroom properties that became available in the area. It also told her about the time taken after approval of transfers. It further said that she could still complete a mutual exchange and apply to the local authority during the process.
   4. It could see from the stage 1 letter that an inspection was due to take place, but it should have contacted her to advise when this was. It apologised that it had provided no feedback since the inspection and said it had discussed this internally. It said that according to its system it had upgraded the bathroom in 2014/2015, so arranged another inspection to check this.
   5. It understood that its member of staff had visited and since then she had said that it had not upgraded the bathroom. An OT report had recommended a wet room previously due to her disability.
   6. The recommendation would have needed to come through an OT. It had found a letter dated 2 December 2012 which confirmed this. It had also located contact between her and a member of its staff in which she said she was grateful for the option, but she did not want it to add a wet room at that time.
   7. Following the inspection, it had asked for the bath, basin, and toilet to be replaced.
   8. It apologised that its member of staff had not contacted her after completing the stage 1 response. It said they had moved on to a different area but could have advised that they had passed her details on so it could investigate and take things further.
   9. It provided an action plan for it to get a quote for works to the bathroom and to keep in contact with her about a managed move panel and review.
   10. It offered her compensation of £220, broken down as:
       1. £15 for having to chase.
       2. £125 for inconvenience.
       3. £15 for repeat visits (inspection).
       4. £15 for miscommunication.
       5. £50 for its complaint handling (not contacting her afterwards).
9. The landlord completed a direct offer assessment on 21 May 2024. The assessment recommended that a move would be appropriate to allow the resident to become more independent. The assessment also found a risk with fire safety due to her mobility. The landlord scheduled a meeting for 18 June 2024 for a management move panel to consider her application. The landlord told her on the same day that it had deferred her case as it required an updated OT assessment. As at 8 July 2024 the resident was awaiting an OT appointment.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. The resident previously brought a complaint to the Ombudsman about the landlord’s handling of concerns about the allocation of properties through the direct offer list. This was in fact a complaint in relation to the local authority and has been ruled outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction previously in 202318663. This is because paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in its opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint handling body. As the matter is in relation to the local authority’s handling of the allocation of properties, this would be a matter for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
11. The resident has raised issues with the landlord’s handling of her concerns going back to 2010. This is especially the case in relation to a letter in which it said it would complete monthly meetings with its lettings department to find suitable properties for the resident. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman in August 2023. The Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider issues which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matter arising. As the matters go back to 2010 this would be the case in this instance. The passage of time would also make it difficult for accurate information on the landlord’s actions to be provided around the resident’s concerns. The Ombudsman is also satisfied that the resident had the opportunity to raise a complaint about the issues prior to 2023. As such the Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s actions from August 2023 onwards.

Handling of the resident’s transfer request to an accessible property

12. Following her initial requests in 2011, the resident raised her concerns again in August 2023. These related to her property not being appropriate for her needs. She explained that the landlord had previously found her to be an emergency health and safety risk due to her vulnerabilities. The landlord has not shown that it took proportionate action to address this after she brought this to its attention, which was unreasonable. It should have completed a risk assessment to identify if it needed to take any immediate action especially as there had been a deterioration in her condition. Its failure to act caused the resident frustration and added to her distress with the situation.
13. The resident raised concerns with an inability to maintain her personal hygiene and the effects on her mental health. The landlord failed to signpost her to any organisations which may have been of assistance around her vulnerabilities and her mental health. It failed to show that it satisfied itself that she continued to have access to/details of any support. It also did not demonstrate that it considered its duties under the Equality Act 2010 or the Human Rights Act 1998 within a reasonable timeframe, and this was unreasonable. It should have shown that it considered whether she could benefit from any aids within her home to help her with keeping her independence, dignity, and private life within the property. It could have referred her to the occupational therapist far earlier than it did to ensure that she had the necessary aids within the property. This was especially important as the earlier OT assessments had recommended aids such as handrails around the property, and also a bath lift. The evidence suggests that it did not do so until June 2024, 10 months after she raised her concerns, and this was unreasonable.
14. The resident also raised concerns about discrimination in her complaint. The landlord should have discussed her concerns with her and considered further actions such as completing an equality impact assessment. It failed to show that it considered or investigated this aspect of the complaint, and this was unreasonable. It also did not respond to this within its complaint responses, and this forms part of its complaint handling failings. This further contributed to the need for it to consider its duties under the Equality Act 2010 and Human Rights Act 1998. The failure to show that it investigated or addressed this would have added to the resident’s frustration with the landlord.
15. The landlord appropriately arranged for a member of its staff to speak with the resident about her housing options as part of its stage 1 response. It explained them to her during a visit on 29 September 2023. The landlord also found that she stayed on the local authority’s housing list and received property offers. Aside from the property in 2012, nothing identified was suitable for her needs. The landlord’s approach to the situation was reasonable.
16. However, there were issues with the landlord’s communication around rehousing. The resident had to ask it before it provided her with a date for its attendance, and this was unreasonable. The matter was of great concern to her, given the length of time she had been looking for a transfer. It should have proactively communicated to ensure she was adequately informed. The failure to do so led to her taking the time to request this information from it. The landlord’s communication raised further concerns as the resident had been communicating with a member of its staff during the stage 1 complaint. They then stopped speaking with her following the response despite her attempts to contact them. The landlord has explained that they moved to a different area, however, they should still have provided her with a response or an update (or made arrangements for a colleague to do so). The resident should also have been given an alternative point of contact, and her messages passed on to the relevant member of staff. The failure to do so was unreasonable and added to her frustrations.
17. The landlord’s Housing Options and Lettings policy states that it will consider a management move to one of its homes if there is any evidence of a need to move due to medical needs, including mental health, which makes the home inaccessible and unusable. The resident had informed the landlord of her concerns in August 2023. She told it she had been “stuck” in the property for a substantial amount of time. It did not evidence that it took any prompt action around this. It asked her only in its stage 1 response and an email of 14 September 2023 to have any medical evidence ready for its visit in September 2023. It is unclear if the resident provided any medical evidence during the visit on 29 September 2023. However, the landlord’s direct offer assessment in May 2024 states that her doctor’s surgery had confirmed she had severe and debilitating physical and mental health problems, and was housebound due to her pain and fatigue, in 2019. This was around 4 years before she raised her concerns to the landlord in August 2023. It should have taken an inquisitive approach far earlier than it did and identified if it needed to act to ensure her welfare. The failure to do so was unreasonable.
18. As the resident had been a tenant of the landlord for a substantial amount of time, it should have been aware of her vulnerabilities and had these recorded on its systems. It should have been proactive and considered if it needed to act sooner around any aids and adaptations and the suitability of the property. The evidence shows that it did not consider a management move until April 2024, 8 months after she raised her concerns, and this was unreasonable. This would have contributed to the resident’s frustration with the landlord and distress in relation to her housing situation.
19. In summary, the landlord did not demonstrate that it considered its statutory duties. There were issues with its communication and with it acting on the resident’s concerns. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £170 for its failings. Whilst this goes some way towards addressing its failings, in the Ombudsman’s opinion it does not go far enough. This is because the offer does not specify which aspects of the resident’s complaint it relates to. It also covered 2 aspects of the resident’s complaint (the transfer request and bathroom upgrade). The Ombudsman also does not believe the offer appropriately reflects the level of frustration, distress and inconvenience faced by the resident. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration. An order for additional compensation to be paid to the resident has been made.

Handling of the resident’s request for a bathroom upgrade

20. The resident told the landlord when she raised her complaint in August 2023 that it had missed her property when carrying out cyclical works. The landlord investigated and found that it completed a stock condition survey in 2020 which identified she did not need her bathroom upgraded. It however sent a surveyor round to inspect in September 2023. This was an appropriate response for it to take in the situation. The resident said that it did not make an appointment with her, and the surveyor attended unannounced. This was unreasonable and the landlord should have ensured it appropriately informed her of the appointment. This was especially important given that she had reported concerns with her mental health to it. It should have spoken with her about the visit to ensure she was comfortable and queried if she needed to organise for any additional support to allow her to meet with it. This also raises concerns with the landlord’s communication with the resident.
21. The resident explained on 5 February 2024 that she had heard nothing from the landlord since the visit about her bathroom in September 2023. She said she had emailed it twice for an update and did not receive a response. The evidence shows that the landlord did not provide the resident with any information around the bathroom works until its stage 2 response on 22 May 2024. This was 8 months after it had visited, and this was unreasonable. The delay contributed to the resident’s frustration and distress, raised further concerns with its communication, and also highlighted issues with its record keeping. It should have been aware that it needed to provide the resident with a decision around the upgrading of her bathroom. The failure to appropriately record this appears to have led to the lack of communication with the resident.
22. The landlord also arranged for a survey of the resident’s bathroom on 14 May 2024 prior to its stage 2 response. The surveyor noted in their report dated 21 May 2024 that the landlord upgraded the bathroom in 2014/15, but the resident disputed this. She reiterated that OT reports recommended a wet room and the landlord refused this. The report found issues with the bath enamel, the hot water tap not getting hot, and the basin taps dripping. It found that the toilet also did not flush correctly. The survey recommended that it raise a job for replacements to the bath, basin, and toilet “including the vinyl”. The landlord approved the works to the resident’s bathroom on 2 June 2024.
23. The landlord appropriately found that the resident’s bathroom did not require an upgrade but needed repairs/replacements. It agreed to complete the required works, however, there were delays in its approach. The resident raised her concerns in August 2023, and it did not approve the works until June 2024. This is a delay of 10 months, which was unreasonable. This added to the resident’s frustration and distress with the situation.
24. In summary, there were issues with the landlord’s communication around the works. There were also concerns with its record keeping. The issues with both of these led to unnecessary delays and the resident having to chase for responses. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £170 for its failings. This does not go far enough to address the distress, inconvenience, frustration, and delay caused to the resident around the issue. Based on this the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration. The Ombudsman has ordered for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation.

Complaint handling

25. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days. It says it will provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days. The resident raised her complaint on 18 August 2023. The landlord asked her for an extension and said it would provide its response by 13 September 2023 It then provided its response on 18 September 2023. This is a further 3-day delay which was unsatisfactory. It has provided no evidence that it explained the reason for the delay to the resident, that it requested a further extension to provide its response later than stated, or that it considered any possible effects of this on the resident. Prompt and effective communication are especially important during delays. Effective communication may have helped in starting to rebuild the relationship between the parties. It would have allowed the resident reassurance that it would deliver on its commitments. The failure to appropriately communicate in this instance was unreasonable.
26. The resident then wrote to the landlord in February 2024. She was unsure if she could escalate and tried to raise a new complaint. The landlord appropriately exercised its discretion and dealt with the matter as a stage 2 complaint. It is however unclear whether it explained its decision making around this to the resident prior to the response. This raises further issues with the landlord’s communication.
27. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 22 May 2024. It has explained to the Ombudsman that the delay was due to an administrative error. It assigned a task to its complaints team but did not attach the resident’s email to the task. It then closed the complaint in error with no added notes provided. The landlord did not subsequently raise a stage 2 complaint until the Ombudsman’s involvement. It said it had also received no correspondence from the resident about the outstanding complaint. The landlord did not respond to the stage 2 for over 3 months as a result. The Ombudsman acknowledges that mistakes can occur, however, this was unreasonable. The landlord should not be reliant on chasers from its residents and should have measures in place to ensure that complaints are processed appropriately at the point of closure. This also raises concerns with the landlord’s record keeping practices and led to a delay in the resident receiving a resolution to the issue.
28. In summary, although the landlord requested an extension for the provision of its stage 1 response, it did not abide by the timeframe. There were issues with its communication with the resident. It has not demonstrated it requested a further extension, or that it explained its decision making on why it dealt with her complaint at stage 2. There were also administrative issues which contributed to the delay in it issuing its final response. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £50 for its complaint handling. Whilst this goes some way towards addressing its failings, it said the payment was in relation to its failure to contact her following the stage 1 response. As such it has not appropriately addressed all of its complaint handling failings. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation.

Determination (decision)

29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer request to an accessible property.
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a bathroom upgrade.
    3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

30. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must:
    1. Provide the resident with an apology around the findings within this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £1,600 consisting of:
       1. £750 for its handling of the resident’s transfer request to an accessible property.
       2. £600 for its handling of the resident’s request for an upgrade to the bathroom.
       3. £250 for its complaint handling.
    3. If the landlord has already paid the resident the £220 it offered at stage 2, it should deduct this from the amount above, meaning that the difference of £1,380 is now due.
    4. Ensure it has updated its records to accurately reflect the resident’s health conditions and any requirements about contact and appointments. It must provide evidence and confirm to the Ombudsman that it has done this.
    5. Provide the resident with a named point of contact. It must also agree a communication method and frequency with the resident until it completes the agreed bathroom works or it arranges a move from the property for the resident.
    6. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.