Southern Housing Group Limited (201915929)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201915929

Southern Housing Group Limited

3 December 2020

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 resident has complained about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to his boiler
2. His concerns about the location of a picture frame in the communal hallway
3. His reports about the communal lighting
4. His reports of marks on walls in the communal hallway
5. His formal complaint

Jurisdiction

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 will not be investigated.
Paragraph 39(o) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme confirms that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints that seek to raise again matters which the Ombudsman has already decided upon. The complaint about marks on the communal hallway walls was investigated by the Ombudsman earlier this year and the determination issued in April 2020 (under complaint reference 201911707). Therefore, this complaint has already been investigated by the Ombudsman and will not be considered as part of this investigation.

Background and summary of events

On 20 February 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord about various matters. One of the issues he raised was the communal lighting. He said that he had reported to the contractor several times since January that the lights were coming on when no one had activated them. He said he was told someone would come out during February but there was no indication that anyone had attended. He said that electricity was being wasted which residents were paying for.
On 22 March the landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident. It said that the light fittings were replaced on the 21 January 2019 and the electrical sub-contractor advised at installation that some adjustments to sensors may be needed to ensure they were working in a way that all residents were comfortable with. It said the LED lamps were significantly cheaper in terms of running costs but it may take a little while to optimise how they were set up. It confirmed that it was in discussion with the contractor about the matter.
The resident raised the matter again in a letter dated 17 April. He was dissatisfied with how long it was taking to rectify the matter and asked the landlord to install light switches.
On 10 May the landlord wrote to the resident. It said that the contractor had carried out a number of visits and had been trying to find a solution. It said it would be arranging a meeting with all interested parties in order to progress the matter and invited the resident to attend so that he could explain what the problem was. It did not agree there had been a service failure as its contractor had been trying to find a solution.
The landlord subsequently wrote to the resident on 13 June. It said that it had not received any response in relation to its request to meet with the resident, so its surveyor met with the contractor on 28 May to check the lights. It said that no fault was found however the length of time that the lights stayed on had been reduced to 2 minutes and the sensitivity of certain fittings had been adjusted. It said it would appreciate the resident’s feedback on whether the adjustments had been effective.
On 28 June the resident reported that the lights were still coming on randomly. The resident subsequently chased the landlord about the matter on various occasions during July.
On 17 July the landlord’s heating contractor attended the resident’s home and identified that parts were required for his boiler (PCB and thermostat). The parts were subsequently fitted on 29 July however during the appointment the contractor identified a fault with other components to the boiler. Following this the contractor attended on 2 August and identified that a new 3-port valve was required. The new parts were subsequently fitted on 12 August; during the appointment the contractor noted that the boiler was tested and left working.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 August with an update on the communal lighting. It said it would continue adjusting the system where it was convinced there was a significant problem, but it was not receiving reports from any others in the block and the resident had not wanted to meet to provide more information about the problem. It confirmed it had looked at the electricity costs incurred and there did not appear to be much of an issue. It said the system was operating effectively, and based on what it knew at this stage, it did not think it would be a good use of money to replace the sensors with push switches.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 August after receiving a further letter from him. It said that it would not be escalating the matter to a complaints panel as it was still unclear on how significant the problem with the lighting was. In relation to the resident’s comment that the landlord could have called him, it said whenever it had tried to call the resident his phone went straight to voicemail. It said it was considering if there were any other ways it could reasonably evidence the extent of the issue, however it was still very keen to discuss the resident’s understanding of the problem and provided its contact details.
On 27 August the resident reported a boiler breakdown and on 30 August the contractor identified that several further parts to the boiler needed to be replaced. The contractor subsequently attended on 13 September and fitted a new gas valve and thermostat and noted they would call the resident the following Monday to see how the boiler was functioning.
The landlord wrote to the resident again on 30 September, a copy of which has not been provided. It is understood that in this letter the landlord said its surveyor would contact the resident about the lighting issue to see if further adjustments were required.
On 18 October the resident wrote a letter of complaint to the landlord. In this he said:
1. It had taken too long to repair his boiler; a contractor first attended on 10 July and on 13 September it was working
2. A picture frame containing information about the fire control panel had been placed in the wrong position in the communal hallway. This could cause damage to items being brought through the building and should be moved to the opposite wall
3. There had been no improvement in relation to the communal lighting issue. He asked for the light switches to be de-sensitised or replaced with light switches
The resident followed this up in a letter dated 29 November stating he had received no response to his complaint. He said he had contacted the service centre on 11 occasions seeking an update but not heard back. In addition to the matters he raised previously, the resident said that the information about the fire control panel contained incorrect information as it said there was a fourth floor flat but the building only went up to the third floor.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 28 November. In this it said that:
1. It had investigated the complaint by contacting the gas contractor and inspecting the picture frame and it was sorry that it had taken longer than it would have liked to provide a response
2. The boiler was getting older which meant that it may be a little less reliable than a newer appliance and it may be less easy to source parts when required. The contractor’s records showed that during July and August there were periods when the boiler was working. The boiler was faulty following the recall on 27 August and new parts were fitted on 12 September but throughout this period the resident had access to an immersion heater for hot water. There had not been a service failure as the contractor’s efforts appeared reasonable and the level of inconvenience had been modest
3. The frame would be better sighted on the opposite wall however it was concerned that relocating the frame would disturb the decorations and it was highly unlikely it would be able to provide an exact colour match to the disturbed paintwork. It did not feel it would be sensible or represent value for money to re-site the frame
4. It was sorry that since its previous letters, the last being the 30 September, it had not been in touch with the resident to better understand what he thought was wrong with the lighting. It had chased the surveyor involved and if it did not receive confirmation of efforts to contact the resident within the next ten days then it would consider escalating the complaint to the panel
On 3 December the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that it had received his letter of 29 November and it believed this letter and it stage one response had crossed in the post. It confirmed that if the resident had not received its letter then it would send another copy out.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 7 December. He said that:
1. The contractor did not know what the problem with the boiler was and changed the parts many times before the boiler started working. The contractor was unable to explain why this was. The boiler was usable but not working as it should and it had taken over two months to fix
2. The picture frame could be moved without causing any problems with the paintwork. It was screwed to the wall and he could fill the holes
3. There was no improvement in the lighting and no one had contacted him about this having waited 10 weeks
On 4 January 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord. He said that he had only recently been contacted by the surveyor about the communal lighting since waiting for this to happen since the end of September. He said that nothing had been agreed during the telephone call with the surveyor and he had not received a written response following this. He requested the escalation of the complaint to the panel if repairs were not carried out or light switches installed.
The landlord provided a stage two response on 6 January. In this it said that:
1. It had decided that the issues raised did not warrant a panel hearing and it was providing a final response to the complaint
2. The contractor had informed it that the boiler was working throughout much of the two month period concerned, at least intermittently. The contractor made reasonable efforts to complete repairs in a timely manner
3. It did not feel there was a compelling reason to spend additional money in moving the picture frame, and similarly, it was unlikely that it would change the wording of the notice unless it particularly conflicted with detail on the control panel. The confusion was caused by the flat at the rear of the property which was between the ground floor and the resident’s flat so it was quite possible for someone unfamiliar with the building’s layout, including the fire service, to assume there were four floors rather then three
4. Its surveyor had been in touch with the resident to discuss his concerns about the communal lighting but the resident had declined a meeting to show him exactly what the issue was. The surveyor had asked the contractor to minimise the time the lights could safely stay on which it hoped would resolve the matter
The landlord wrote to the resident with an update on 14 February. It said that its contractor had re-inspected the lighting at the end of January and they tried to make an appointment with the resident so he could talk through the problem, but they were not able to do so. It said the contractor again found no fault with the system but had reduced the time that each light stayed on.

Assessment and findings

Boiler

The repair records show that the contractor attended on five occasions after initially identifying that new parts were needed on 17 July. On three of these occasions new parts were fitted and therefore the records support the resident’s claim that new parts had to be fitted on various occasions before the boiler started working.
During the landlord’s investigation into the complaint the contractor confirmed that the boiler did work during the visits in July and on 12 August, but only worked intermittently during the subsequent appointment. The contractor noted that the delay in attending to fit the parts was due to the age of the boiler as the parts were not as common and took a while to arrive. The contractor also noted that the resident had an immersion heater so he had a source of hot water and did not need the heating on as it was summer.
Given that the contractor was clearly making attempts to diagnose and resolve the problem with the boiler and the resident was not without hot water during the intervening period, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that there had not been any service failures in its handling of the matter. However, it is of concern that so many different parts were fitted before the boiler started working. The landlord has acknowledged that the boiler is old and therefore it is recommended that the landlord reviews how the boiler is performing and confirms to the resident the likely replacement date.

Picture frame

There is nothing to suggest that the landlord was required to place the picture frame in any particular location. The landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s complaint by considering his concerns and explaining why it had decided not to move the picture frame.
In relation to the information contained in the notice, the landlord checked what this said, provided an explanation as to why this differed from the actual layout of the building and confirmed it did not conflict with details on the control panel. As there is nothing to suggest that the information contained in the notice would cause any particular problems, it was reasonable for the landlord to decide not to change it.

Lighting

The landlord took appropriate steps to investigate the resident’s concerns about the new lighting system by discussing the matter with the contractor that had installed the lighting, arranging for the contractor to visit, adjusting the settings and offering to meet with the resident so that he could demonstrate the problems he was experiencing. The landlord also considered the resident’s request to install light switches but decided this would not be a good use of money. This was reasonable in the circumstances particularly given that the landlord could not identify a problem with the lighting.
However, there were some shortcomings in the landlord’s communication with the resident about the matter. In its letter of 30 September the landlord committed to arrange for its surveyor to contact the resident but there is no evidence that the surveyor did so until early December. This was a service failure and it is therefore understandable that the resident was frustrated with the lack of contact from the landlord during this timeframe.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure. At stage one it aims to respond to complaints within 10 working days. If this is not possible then the landlord will let the customer know what steps are being taken to resolve the matter and a likely timescale. The landlord’s complaints policy permits it to decline to escalate complaints to its final stage complaint review panel if the only reason for this is a request for compensation or if it decides that it is not appropriate to do so.
It took the landlord just over five weeks to issue the stage one response after receiving the resident’s letter of complaint. There is no evidence the landlord kept the resident updated on the likely timescale to respond and therefore it failed to respond to the complaint in accordance with its complaints procedure.
The landlord had discretion under its complaints policy to decline to escalate the complaint to the stage two panel if it decided that such an escalation was unsuitable. Therefore, the landlord acted in line with its complaints policy in providing a final response in writing rather than escalating to the panel.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports about the communal lighting
2. Service failure by the landlord in relation to its complaint handling
3. No maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the boiler repairs
4. No maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports about the picture frame

Reasons

Whilst the landlord took various appropriate steps to investigate the resident’s concerns about the communal lighting, it committed to arrange for its surveyor to contact the resident about the matter but there was a significant delay in it doing so.
There was a delay in the landlord responding to the stage one complaint and there is no evidence it kept the resident updated on when he could expect to receive a response.
The landlord’s contractor made reasonable attempts to repair the boiler and the resident had an alternative source of hot water whilst the boiler was working intermittently. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to conclude that there had been no service failures in its handling of the repairs.
The landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s concerns about the picture frame by considering his concerns and explaining why it had decided not to move it. In relation to the information contained in the notice, the landlord also responded reasonably as it checked what this said, provided an explanation as to why this differed from the actual layout of the building, and confirmed it did not conflict with details on the control panel.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £50 compensation broken down as follows:
1. £25 for the delay in contacting the resident about the communal lighting issue
2. £25 for the delay in responding to the stage one complaint
It is recommended that the landlord reviews how the boiler is performing and confirms to the resident the l