Southern Housing Group Limited (202000414)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000414

Southern Housing Group Limited

20 September 2021


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 handling of the resident’s reports of:

a)     Various defects at the property including poor sound insulation, snapping floors, an unsecure bathtub and a clicking thermostat.

b)     The landlord’s complaints handling and record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has been a shared leaseholder at the property since March 2018, the landlord is a housing association. Both parties are subject to the covenants under the leasehold agreement.
  2. Under Section 3.4 of the lease agreement it is the resident’s responsibility to keep the interior of the premises including walls, ceilings, floors, radiators, gas and electrical apparatus in a good state of repair. Furthermore, the building and the fixtures and appliances belonging to the premises are clean and in good and substantial repair and condition.
  3. Under Section 5.5 of the lease agreement it is the landlord’s responsibility, subject to the payment of the rent and service charge, to repair and maintain all external parts of the premises including common parts, external and load bearing walls, windows, doors and the outside of the building.
  4. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. The policy requires that the complainant is kept updated throughout the complaints process. If the resident makes a complaint at the first stage, the landlord should respond within 10 working days. If the resident is dissatisfied with the response, the resident can request a review of the decision and it aims to provide a response within 20 working days. The policy highlights that the landlord does not have to accept complaints that are more than 12 months old.
  5. Under the landlord’s compensation policy it can make a goodwill payment where there is evidence that there has been a service failure that it is responsible for, that had caused loss, damage or inconvenience.

Summary of events

  1. Documents provided by the landlord show that the builders defect period ended on 21 November 2018. An end of defect inspection was carried out by the landlord and the developer on 19 November 2018. Issues were raised about the level of sound the resident was experiencing, that the grout tiles were difficult to clean and that the gripper rods penetrated the carpet. No other defects were noted.
  2. On 31 December 2018, the resident contacted the landlord and provided a list of past and current defects at the property which included that the bedroom thermostat clicked on and off every 2-3 minutes, a leaking skylight, flooring making a cracking sound throughout the property, the bath was unsecured and there was poor sound insulation.
  3. On 9 and 15 January 2019, the resident asked for an update in relation to the issues raised in Paragraph 8 above. The landlord responded on 30 January 2019 and advised that they would be in touch to advise on the next steps.
  4. On 19 February 2019, the resident contacted the landlord and asked for an update in relation to issues he reported in paragraph 8 above and advised that he had not heard anything. The landlord responded on 25 February 2019 and advised that it would be provided a response shortly. It also stated that the bath at the property was not a defect and had not been misrepresented.
  5. On 28th February 2019, an independent contractor performed a full acoustic survey which included gaining access into neighbouring properties, the removal of any pets or other acoustic disturbances. The results of the test were that the dwelling passed and exceeded building regulations for airborne and impact noise transference.
  6. On 3 April 2019, the landlord contacted the resident and issued a response in relation to the issues raised by the resident in relation to the defects:

a)     Bedroom thermostat clicks on and off every 2-3 minutes – it contacted the manufacturer and was advised that the sound was not a defect.

b)     Leaking Skylight – It advised that this will be addressed by the builders as part of the defect works.

c)     Flooring lifting throughout the property – it would inspect the issue and provide an update. 

d)     Bath unsecured –it stated the video provided by the resident showed him standing in the bath rocking from side to side and advised that the bathtub was not designed for this.

e)     Sound Testing – It had an independent contractor assess the level of noise at the property which found the noise to be of an acceptable level.

  1. On 4 April 2019, the builder contacted the landlord and advised that it would provide an update in relation to the leaking skylight and the flooring.
  2. On 10 May 2019, the resident responded to the landlord’s comments and asked about the repair to the skylight and who would be responsible for the residual damage. The landlord responded the same day and asked to speak with the resident about these comments, it was unclear what was advised.
  3. On 18 June 2019, the developer contacted the landlord and stated that it had contacted the resident to book the repair to the skylight. The resident said he wanted all outstanding work to be performed at the same time. It advised the resident that the only outstanding items reported before the end of the defect period would be performed. 
  4. On 11 July 2019, the resident contacted the landlord and asked about particulars in relation to the defect period that the landlord had with the builders. He said that he felt there was a lot of ‘finger pointing’ between the landlord and the builders in relation to responsibility. He asked if the landlord had contacted its IT department in relation to evidence he had submitted in relation to his complaint. He raised that he had not been provided the pre-sale materials that specified that the bath was not standard.
  5. On 22 July 2019, the landlord contacted the resident and apologised for its delay in responding and advised the following:

a)     It informed the resident that it had a one-year contractual defect liability period with the builder which meant that the builders were responsible for any defects during that period. It advised that it also had insurance on new builds for a 10-year period for latent defects (structural). It advised that issues raised by the resident were going through the insurer’s resolution service which needed to be completed before a claim could be made and this process could not be expedited.

b)     That it had systems and procedures in place for receiving, handling and resolving ‘Home Buyers’ service calls and complaints. It highlighted that it was undergoing a review of its IT system.

c)     It advised that the details in relation to the bathtub (depth / measurements of the bathtub) would not have been specified in the marketing materials. As previously discussed with the resident this is not a defect and was not an issue which would be taken forward.

  1. On 6 November 2019, the landlord contacted the resident and advised the resident’s floor was inspected by the developer and the landlord and deemed to be within an acceptable range / tolerance and laid in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. It highlighted that it was unable to replicate the sounds with the thermostat. The landlord advised that its Aftercare Team stored the resident’s emails on a database that was tagged to a specific defect case reference number. It explained that when it had logged a defect for the resident it provided him with that reference number.
  2. On 8 November 2019, the resident spoke with the landlord and asked it to provide a list of the defects which he had previously reported. He asked for information about if there was action pending as a valid defect, any past defect which is now resolved, past issues raised that were not a valid defect and a rough time frame for any pending works.
  3. On 12 November 2019, the resident contacted the landlord and asked for a written update. The resident asked if the landlord had a purpose-based system in place for logging, tracking, recording next action points for defects reported by homeowners.
  4. On 15 November 2019, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord through its online website. He raised that he had been unable to get a response in relation to a number of defects at the property or a list of items reported to the landlord. He asked the landlord why there were so many defects and why the landlord did not have an adequate system for tracking and responding to his reports.
  5. On 19 November 2019, the landlord contacted the resident to clarify his stage one complaint and advised that it would be providing a stage one complaint response as soon as possible. The landlord provided the resident with an update on 28 November 2019 and advised that a meeting had been set to discuss the issues raised by the resident and a response would be provided in the week commenced on 9 December 2019.
  6. On 27 November 2019, the landlord issued the resident an update to his email sent on 8 and 12 November 2019. It provided the resident with information about the defect period and advised that the liability period ended on 19 November 2018. It advised that there were no more pending actions for defects on the system and provided the resident with a table outlining past defects. The landlord acknowledged that there had been failures in its complaints handling and committed to improving its reporting system and increasing the size of the team that deals with complaints. It offered the resident £250 as a good will gesture for acknowledged complaint handling failures and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  7. On 12 December 2019, the landlord issued the resident with its formal stage one complaint response and addressed the following:

a)     It advised that with every new home there was some snagging and defects which can be raised during the defect liability period where the developer was responsible for the repair. If the issue was not found to be a defect no further action will be taken by the developer.

b)     That it does not have an effective defect log or way to track complaints – It stated that it runs an online reporting system on a spreadsheet but does not always have a repair number for an incident to match as some of the issues raised by the resident were not defects and therefore did not have job numbers. It advised that the resident needed to report defects within a 12-month period and some of the issues raised were after this period however it agreed to investigate them as a gesture of goodwill.

c)     That it was doing everything it could to work with the resident and the developer to resolve the issue. It would need to carry out an assessment of each issue and then the terms needed to be followed up with the developer.

d)     It stated that it would provide the resident with a list of defects once they were assessed. It assured the resident that all of his complaints and concerns had been logged and tracked and reviewed. It said that it would provide an up to date list of the issues raised by the resident.

e)     It carried out a site visit on 1 November 2019 to assess the flooring as a gesture of goodwill.

f)       The landlord stated that its staff were dealing with multiple other properties and this sometimes means there is a delay in replying to the resident. It apologised for any delay and stated that there had been regular contact between the landlord and the resident and the landlord and developer in relation to the issues raised. It stated that the developer and the landlord would meet on 10 December 2019 to discuss all the points raised by the resident. It apologised to the resident for any inconvenience caused and the feedback would be taken into consideration to improve future service.

  1. On 12 December 2019, the resident responded to the landlord’s stage one response and raised a number of issues which included:

a)     That a number of defects had been closed by the landlord whilst they were still ongoing. The resident raised that he wanted the landlord to explain exactly which issues were considered defects and which were not.

b)     That in November 2019 he was told to wait for a response from a member of the landlord’s staff who was on leave for a month which caused delay in receiving a list of the defects reported to the landlord.

c)     That the landlord had not responded to his complaints or attempts to add further defects to the defect list including broken and leaking roof gutters, walls creaking and corner cracks and noisy appliances.

  1. On 16 December 2019, the resident contacted the landlord and complained about the level of service that he had received. The resident asked the landlord to respond to a number of questions which included:

a)     Why it waited months to raise defect concerns with the builders.

b)     Why the landlord said it would contact him in relation to the list of defects in November 2019 but he did not hear anything until mid-December 2019.

c)     Why was he not able to get a list of defects from landlord when he called.

  1. The landlord replied to the resident’s email on 16 December 2019 and advised that he would not be able to reopen the complaint to include the new issues as they should have been raised by the resident when it clarified the complaint. It advised that it had forwarded the complaint to its Aftercare Team to respond and provided the resident with a complaint reference number.
  2. On 20 December 2019, an independent contractor provided a report in relation to the ongoing defects at the resident’s property. Upon inspection it advised that no further action was needed in relation to leaking skylight, lifting floors, bath not being secured or the unpointed bricks on the maisonette. It advised that the issues with the thermostatic radiator needed to be inspected by a heating engineer.
  3. In January 2020, the landlord issued the resident with a £250 goodwill gesture cheque for its acknowledged and identified complaint handling failures.
  4. On 16 January 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and raised a further complaint in relation to the gutters at the property. The landlord advised that it was responsible for the gutters.
  5. On 16 January 2020, the landlord provided the resident with its stage two final response and addressed the following:

a)     It advised on the distinction between defects and latent defects and stated that the defect liability period began from when the landlord took ownership from the property and not the resident.

b)     It advised that its Aftercare Team had closed out all issues raised and that the defect liability period had ended. It referred the resident to the insurance provider to explore what is covered under the policy.

c)     It provided the resident with a list of what had been reported and the status of each item as requested by the resident.

  1. The resident responded to the landlord’s final response on the same day and advised that the itemised specific responses on where the landlord stood to each defect or concern raised was all he ever wanted and could not comprehend why it was so hard to obtain.

Assessment and findings

Various defects at the property including poor sound insulation, snapping floors, unsecure bathtub and clicking thermostat.

  1. Documents provided to this Service show that the builders defect period ended on 21 November 2018. This service does not have the remit to make orders in relation to the liability of a third party in respect to defects and therefore this investigation report will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the defects at the property.
  2. The resident raised a complaint in relation to a number of defects at the property on 31 December 2018, under the landlord’s complaints policy it had an obligation to respond to complaints from the resident within a 10-day time frame. Evidence provided by both parties demonstrated that there was a delay with the resident having to chase updates on at least three occasions between 9 January 2019 and 19 February 2019. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to comply with its complaints policy and respond in the required timeframe.
  3. Evidence shows that going forward the landlord took a resolution focused approach and raised the defects with the builders even though the defect period had oficially ended. It worked with the builders to inspect and assess the issues raised by the resident with a majority of the issue being resolved inline with its repairs obligations. There were some delays in issues being assessed and repairs performed due to the process of the landlord having to liase with the builders who were potentially responsible for the defect works. It was reasonable for the landlord to check which works were covered as it was a new property and it carefully articulated its position. The landlord offered the resident an apology for the delays in service which was approprate in this situation due to the distress caused to the resident.
  4. The landlord took a resolution focused approach and inspected the resident’s property and had a contractor perform a full acoustic survey to assess the noise issue raised by the resident. It was found that the dwelling passed and exceeded building regulations for airborne and impact noise transference.The landlord also investigated the resident’s complaint in relation to the thermostat and contacted the company that made the product and it was advised that the product was not defective. The builders inspected the flooring at the property and it was found to be installed inline with the manifacturers standard and advised the resident of the correct way to use the bath. The landlord appropriately set out its position and the basis on which it has reached that decision, however, it is beyond the scope of this service to determine the correct interpretation of a contractual term and the subsequent implications. Such a determination would be better suited to the courts.
  5. Overall, the landlord made appropriate investigations into the resident’s reports of outstanding defects and repairs at the property. Following its investigations, the landlord used its discretion and appropriately explained its position on what it was responsible for and on what basis it had reached that decision. There were some delays as the landlord communicated with the builders responsible on behalf of the resident and attempted to have all issues resolved. The landlord had been resolution focused and overall there is no evidence of service failure.

The landlord’s complaints handling and record keeping.

  1. There were acknowledged failures by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint. The documentation provided shows the initial formal complaint by the resident was made on 15 November 2019 and the landlord supplied a formal response on 12 December 2019. This represents a nine working day delay however given that it had communicated with the resident about the delay it was a minor shortcoming.
  2. The resident asked for escalation of his complaint on 12 December 2019 and the landlord provided two different stage two responses dealing with different issues, it would have been clearer if the landlord collated the response from its different teams and provided the resident with one response.
  3. The landlord addressed the issues raised in relation to its record keeping and advised that it did have a system in place to track and log complaints from the resident in line with best practice. It appropriately apologised to the resident for the delay in providing him with all of his reports of defects at the property as requested. The landlord took a resolution focused approach and advised that it would be looking into upgrading its IT system in order to improve service which was approprate given the circumstances.
  4. The landlord acknowledged its failure and offered the resident £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused and advised that it would be hiring more staff to help improve service delivery. The actions taken and the compensation offered by the landlord were appropriate and reasonable to compensate its acknowledged landlord failure.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Scheme, there was an offer of reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling and record keeping.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect to various defects reported by the resident at the property including poor sound insulation, snapping floors, unsecure bathtub and clicking thermostat.

Reasons

  1. The complaint handling by the landlord was not in line with its policies and procedures at stage one or two of the complaints process which caused confusion and delay. The landlord acknowledged its recordkeeping failure and advised that it would be looking into upgrading its system. The landlord acknowledged its failures and offered the resident £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This was approprate to compensate for its failure.
  2. The landlord made appropriate investigations into the resident’s reports of outstanding defects and repairs. Following its investigations, the landlord appropriately explained its position on what it was responsible for and on what basis it had reached that decision. The landlord communicated with the builders responsible on behalf of the resident and attempted to have all issues resolved.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already been paid, the landlord should reoffer the resident the previously offered £250 compensation for its acknowledged complaints handling failures.