Southern Housing Group Limited (202010510)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010510

Southern Housing Group Limited

16 April 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

The complaint refers to the landlord’s handling of:
1. repair works to improve the security of the property following a break-in.
2. the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.
3. communication with the resident and record keeping.
4. the associated complaint and offer of compensation.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
The complaint was raised by the resident and, at times, by her representative. For clarity, this report will refer to both the resident and her representative as “the resident”.
The resident called the landlord on 19 June 2017 to report a break in at the property which left her windows insecure. The landlord’s records show that the windows in the property were screwed shut the following day. The resident was only able to open one window in her property once the windows had been screwed shut. The resident made further calls to the landlord in June 2017 to ask for additional security measures to be put in place on her windows as she was concerned about the security of the property and her safety. A surveyor attended the property on 29 June 2017.
On 4 July 2017 the landlord requested a quote for metal grilles to be fixed to the lounge, kitchen, and bedroom windows to improve the security at the property.
The resident experienced a further break-in at the property on 2 August 2017. This was thought to have been through the same window which had been previously screwed shut.
The landlord’s records show that a contractor attended the property on 11 August 2017 to inspect the mould issues at the property. They identified mould in the bedroom, living room, hallway, and kitchen.
On 13 September 2017 the landlord raised a repair order to supply and fit the window grilles in the property.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 19 November 2017 and advised the following:
1. She wished to claim compensation from the landlord in relation to the repair issues she had experienced at her property.
2. She noted that there was mould in her property which had been exacerbated by the landlord’s response to a burglary which took place on 19 June 2017. She noted that the landlord had visited her property in July, August, and September 2017 in relation to the mould and security issues and on many occasions the contractors had not attended, and she had spent time following up appointments.
3. She advised that the burglars had taken everything of financial value and had used the fact that there were no security cameras at the back of the property, as well as the camera at the front of the property were not working, to their advantage. She advised that there were also tall, overgrown bushes which acted as camouflage for the burglars. She felt that the burglars had viewed her property for months beforehand and the lack of security led to them gaining access with ease.
4. She advised that the landlord had later inserted security screws to the windows under the advice of the police on the day of the burglary. The security screws were applied to her kitchen window and two of the three windows in her living room, leaving her with a single window that she could open. She advised that none of her windows had ever been secured. She added that her bedroom window was also jammed shut and that this was the reason that mould began to affect her clothes, which she then had to discard.
5. She noted that the landlord and contractors had attended her property on a number of occasions, although nothing constructive was implemented for her health, security or wellbeing.
6. She said that it was the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that its properties were let to a suitable standard which included checking that the property was free from damp and secure. She provided an overview of the landlord’s responsibilities in line with the Housing Act 2004 on tackling hazards.
7. She advised that she felt vulnerable in her current property following the security issues and frustration caused by mould. She advised that she had contracted a chest infection and had been attending trauma counselling as a result of the issues she was experiencing at her property.
8. She asked the landlord to arrange a transfer to a more suitable accommodation as a matter of urgency and added that she had been on the waiting list for two years.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 November 2017 to acknowledge her complaint. It summarised the resident’s reasons for complaint and her desired solution. It advised that she would receive a response within 20 working days.
The resident contacted the landlord on multiple occasions throughout November and December 2017 asking for an update on the works due to take place. On 6 December 2017 she again raised concerns about her security, the mould which had been exacerbated by the lack of air due to the windows being screwed shut, and her overall health. She advised that she had not been staying at the property due to poor health and fear for her safety following two break-ins. She asked the landlord to compensate her for the four weeks she had been unable to stay in her property, the loss of items due to the burglary and mould, and the trauma she had endured. She asked the landlord again to arrange for her to be transferred to a suitable property due to the issues she had experienced.
The landlord’s records show that the damp proofing treatment had been completed on 22 December 2017.
The landlord contacted the resident on 5 January 2018 to confirm that a surveyor had attended the property on 3 January 2018. The damp works, including plastering, were reported as completed and would need another two weeks to dry out before any decoration could take place.
The landlord’s records show that a post-inspection was carried out and on 9 February 2018 the window grilles had been installed and the redecoration was reported as completed. The records note that the safety screws to the resident’s windows had been removed as the grilles were now in place.
The landlord’s records note that a telephone call took place on 14 February 2018. The resident was advised that the windows and damp works had been completed and the resident confirmed that she was happy for the complaint to be closed. She raised further concerns in relation to the floorboards in the property and was advised to raise this issue separately.
The resident reported further issues with the extractor fans in the property and the condition of her flooring throughout 2018 although these issues did not form part of her formal complaint to the landlord.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 20 November 2018 and requested compensation for her belongings which had been damaged by the previous damp in her property. She asked the landlord to provide an update on this matter and its policy on paying compensation for damaged goods.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 June 2019 and referred to the previous letter of November 2018 regarding her request for compensation. She advised that she had received an initial response and some communication in March and April 2019 but no communication since. She asked the landlord to provide details of the status of the complaint and provide information about its compensation policy for damaged goods.
The landlord responded the same day and advised that the complaint was resolved with the resident’s consent on 14 February 2019 during a phone call. (This date was incorrect; the landlord’s records show that the telephone note was actually left on 14 February 2018). It explained that it was company policy that it did not compensate for damaged personal property as this would be covered by the resident’s contents insurance, which residents are advised to purchase.
The resident sent a further email on 26 June 2019 and advised that she had no recollection of the phone call previously mentioned. She had asked the landlord to liaise with her representative in regard to her request for compensation on 6 November 2018 and had received no information until its previous email of 20 June 2019. The resident asked whether a letter had been sent at the time her complaint was closed. She confirmed that she did not have contents insurance so could not raise a claim on such a policy.
The landlord emailed the resident on 2 July 2019 and advised that she had been given the correct information. It noted that it was part of its process to discuss the closure of a complaint case over the phone, and this would not be followed up by letter unless the resident had specifically asked for this. It advised that there was no further communication from the resident in relation to compensation and the landlord would only award compensation where there had been service failure on its part. It advised that there was no evidence to suggest that the burglaries had been a result of any service failure by the landlord. It confirmed that it would discuss this internally and it could review any evidence the resident provided to support her claim. It advised that the complaint would remain closed.
The resident emailed the landlord on 30 July 2019 and confirmed that she had not received a telephone call to close her complaint. She maintained her position that following the burglary in June 2017 her windows were sealed up and these were not unsealed until January 2018 which had exacerbated the issues with mould, leading to her belongings having to be discarded.
The landlord responded on 13 August 2019 and confirmed that the notes recorded on its system were correct in relation to the phone call which took place in order to close the complaint. It noted that it did not keep its call recordings for more than 12 months so it could not verify what had been said on this call. It said that if the resident intended on pursuing compensation, it would have expected her to have mentioned this during the call or in the following few weeks. It noted that the resident had advised that she had experienced damp and mould in the property for 17 years and it would not look at offering compensation for that time period. It would only look at issues raised within 12 months and would only offer compensation if the issues were a result of something it had done. It explained that the windows were sealed to provide the resident with additional security following the burglary and it was unable to provide any further comments.
The resident responded on the same day and asked for her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s process. She denied receiving a phone call on 14 February 2018 to resolve her complaint. She questioned why, if her complaint was resolved on this date, her representatives were not informed.
The landlord emailed the resident on 13 August 2019 and advised that the next stage of the complaint would be a compensation review. The resident would need to provide evidence of the damage along with the amount of compensation she would be looking to receive. It confirmed that when the complaint was closed on 14 February 2018, it was handled by the resident and her relative. As the resident discussed the case directly, there would not be a need to confirm these details with a third-party. It noted that the other representative was not involved in her case in February 2018.
The resident sent evidence of the damage to her personal belongings to the landlord on 30 December 2019. There had been a delay due to the resident’s poor health and ability to send photographic evidence. She included photos of her damaged clothes and a professional cleaning bill of £39.80.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 January 2020 to advise that it had completed a review of her compensation request. The landlord offered the resident £129.80 compensation, comprised of £50 for the overall delay in completing the works to the resident’s windows, £40 for overall service failure, and £39.80 for the financial loss she had incurred for professional cleaning.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has reported that the mould and her concerns related to her safety and security within the property have exacerbated her medical conditions. She has provided a letter from her doctor to both the landlord and this Service to support this. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s testimony concerning her health; however, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the security issues and damp and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent legal advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of repair works to improve the security of the property.

The landlord’s repairs policy states that a repair will be treated as an emergency and made safe within 24 hours where there is a serious risk to safety, security, or health. Once an emergency repair has been ‘made safe’, the contractor will reattend as soon as possible to complete the job.
Following a break-in on 19 June 2017, the landlord arranged for the windows in the resident’s property to be screwed shut for her security. This was completed within 24 hours of receiving the report which was in line with the landlord’s repair policy for emergency repairs and therefore appropriate. The resident then requested for additional security measures to be provided for her windows to prevent any future break-ins. The landlord requested a quote for metal grilles to be installed on the windows to improve the security of the property on 4 July 2017.
A further break-in occurred on 2 August 2017. The landlord would not be able to guarantee that the property would not be burgled, although it is understandable that this would cause the resident significant distress and worry as she did not feel safe in her property. Whilst the burglaries were not the landlord’s fault, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to make every reasonable effort to safeguard the property and prioritise any work needed to ensure the resident’s safety at this stage, in view of the break-ins she had experienced.
The landlord would not have necessarily been able to provide a timeframe for the window grilles to be installed as the metal grilles would have needed to be manufactured by an external company, which would be outside of the landlord’s control. However, this work was raised on 4 July 2017 and the grilles were not installed until 9 February 2018; this period of time seems excessive and is likely to have had an emotional impact on the resident who did not feel safe at the property due to the burglaries.
The landlord has acknowledged this delay within its compensation review and offered the resident £50 in recognition of the delay in completing these works. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord’s offer of compensation was made in line with its compensation policy, although is not sufficient to reflect the impact on the resident of the delay. The landlord does not appear to have adequately taken into consideration the emotional impact this delay is likely to have caused the resident who expressed concern about her safety within the property on multiple occasions. For this reason, there has been service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of repair work for the security of the property. In view of the delay and emotional impact on the resident, the landlord should offer a further award of compensation as set out below in this report.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.

It is unclear from the evidence provided to the Ombudsman, when the resident first reported issues with damp and mould at the property, but the landlord has advised that the resident said this has been ongoing for 17 years. It is clear that the resident feels that this matter had been exacerbated by the lack of airflow in the property when the windows had been screwed shut. Whilst the Ombudsman notes the resident’s comments, there is not enough evidence to establish whether the sealed windows were a direct or sole cause of the damp and mould in the property. The landlord identified issues with mould on 14 August 2017, shortly after the windows were sealed, it is therefore likely that the damp and mould in the property was an issue prior to the burglaries and windows being sealed.
The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for insuring the structure of the property whereas the resident is strongly advised to take out contents insurance to cover their personal possessions. The resident has asked the landlord to compensate her for the value of clothes and belongings damaged as a result of the damp. As the cause of the damp in the property remains unclear, the landlord would not be obliged to reimburse the resident for the cost of the items damaged by dam. This is because it has not been confirmed that the damp occurred because of negligence by the landlord or its contractors. It was, however, reasonable that the landlord offered to reimburse the cost of the resident’s cleaning bill as a gesture of goodwill.
There has been service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property. The landlord inspected the damp and mould in the property on 11 August 2017 and identified dampness throughout the property as well as mould in the kitchen, hallway, bedroom, and living room. Following this the landlord arranged for a damp-proof course which was reported as completed on 22 December 2017. There was a significant delay in completing the damp-proof work between August and December 2017 and there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord has acted proactively in investigating the matter and taking steps to resolve this sooner.
The resident has advised that the landlord had arranged for further damp works to be completed in early 2021 which highlights that problems with damp and mould at the property are still apparent. In view of this, it is recommended that the landlord takes steps to establish the underlying cause of the damp by completing a survey of the property and carrying out further repairs where needed. The landlord should also offer a further award of compensation in recognition of the delay in completing damp proof works to the resident’s property once an issue was identified in 2017.

Handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s Complaints Policy at the time of the complaint states that it had a two-stage complaint process. At stage one the landlord should provide a response to the resident within ten working days. If the complaint is unlikely to be resolved within ten working days, the landlord should let the resident know what steps it is taking to resolve the matter. The policy confirms that a complaint would be closed once a solution or response had been provided. If the resident feels the landlord had failed to respond appropriately, the complaint could then be escalated to stage two. If the only reason to escalate the complaint to stage two is a compensation claim, then the complaint would not be escalated. If the landlord decided that it was not appropriate to escalate the complaint to stage two, it should make the resident aware of the reasons in writing.
There has been service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint. The resident initially raised her complaint on 18 November 2017. The landlord’s records show that a telephone conversation took place on 14 February 2018 where it was confirmed that the complaint was closed. The resident has maintained her position that she did not receive a telephone call to close the complaint, nor did she receive any written communication to confirm this. The landlord has also advised that it did not have a record of any written complaint response. This Service cannot establish with certainty whether this phone call did or did not take place due to conflicting accounts from both sides. The landlord would not be expected to have call recordings dating back to 2018, as it has said it only keeps recordings for 12 months which is in line with general industry practice for retention of call recordings.
Where complaints are closed over the phone, the landlord would be expected to have clear records of how the complaint was resolved for audit and review purposes. If the stage one complaint was closed on 14 February 2018, this would have been 59 working days since the complaint was raised and therefore outside of the landlord’s timescales for handling a stage one complaint. Furthermore, the records of this phone call are limited and therefore there is no reliable record to show that each aspect of the resident’s complaint had been addressed, including her request for compensation.
It may have been reasonable for the landlord to understand the complaint to be closed on 14 February 2018 as there was a gap in communication regarding this matter until November 2018, where the request for compensation was raised again. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the resident was given clear advice on how to escalate her complaint to stage two of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure if she wished; this may have made it more difficult for her to take further action at the time.
Following a request for compensation in November 2018, the landlord did not explain how the resident could pursue this matter or ask the resident to provide any evidence to support her claim until August 2019. This is an unreasonable delay and has extended the complaint timeframe significantly. It is noted that the resident was unable to provide evidence to support her claim until December 2019 which is likely to have extended this timeframe. Whilst it is understandable that the resident needed time to provide evidence, it was reasonable for the landlord to request evidence so it could assess her compensation claim. The landlord would not be responsible for this further delay as it was beyond its control.
The landlord offered a total of £129.80 in its compensation review on 2 January 2020. Whilst these figures may have been in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, this review did not explain why these figures were appropriate in view of all the circumstances; nor did it explain the reasons for any delays or service failure. The landlord has therefore not demonstrated that it had learned from the resident’s complaint or taken appropriate steps to put things right. Furthermore, the £40 offered for ‘overall service failures’ did not explain what these service failures were and can therefore not be considered reasonable redress in this case.
In summary, there has been service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint. Its stage one complaint response was issued outside of its published timescales. The landlord’s record keeping in regard to its response at this time was inadequate and we cannot ascertain whether each complaint point was addressed at this stage. In view of this, and the time and trouble the resident has spent pursuing the complaint, the landlord should offer further compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused. The landlord should also ensure that any future complaints are handled in line with its complaints handling policy and detailed call notes are kept for audit purposes where a complaint is to be closed in this manner.

The landlord’s communication and record keeping.

It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If the Ombudsman investigates a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. In this case, the investigation has been able to reach a determination based on the information to hand. However, the omissions related to the handling of the complaint indicate indadequate record keeping by the landlord in that it was not able to provide the relevant information when asked.
Similarly, the landlord provided incorrect information to the resident on multiple occasions in regard to the date her complaint had been closed. This is likely to have caused further uncertainty and inconvenience for the resident and highlights further underlying issues with record keeping and accuracy in communication by the landlord.
Furthermore, it is also clear on viewing the landlord’s internal emails and communication related to the compensation review that the dates and information provided in regard to when the repairs were raised and completed were inaccurate and contradictory in places. In view of this, it is recommended that the landlord carries out staff training and a review of its record keeping processes to ensure that accurate, detailed records are kept of any communication between itself and its tenants to ensure information can be provided to this Service when required for review purposes. The landlord should also offer compensation in recognition of the uncertainty and inconvenience cause by its communication with the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of:
1. repair works to secure the residents property.
2. the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.
3. the associated complaint and offer of compensation.
4. Communication and record keeping.

Reasons

There was a significant delay in completing the work needed to install the window grilles at the resident’s property. There is little evidence to suggest that the resident was satisfactorily updated on the progress of these works which is likely to have caused further uncertainty. The landlord has acknowledged this delay in its compensation review, although does not appear to have adequately taken into consideration the emotional impact this delay may have had on the resident who was afraid to reside in her property following two burglaries.
It is clear that the issue of damp and mould is still apparent at the property and has been ongoing for a number of years. The landlord identified an issue with damp and mould at the resident’s property in August 2017 but did not complete the relevant repair works needed within a reasonable timeframe which is likely to have caused the resident some inconvenience. The landlord would not be expected to compensate the resident for her damaged items as the cause of the damp has not been established and therefore it has not been proven that the landlord is liable for the damage.
The resident has denied receiving a phone call to close her complaint in February 2018. Whilst this Service cannot establish whether or not the phone call took place due to the passage of time, the landlord’s telephone note for this call is lacking and we therefore cannot establish whether each aspect of the resident’s complaint had been addressed when the complaint was closed. Furthermore, this response was significantly outside of the landlord’s proposed timescales for handling a stage one complaint and there is no evidence to suggest that the resident was made aware of how to escalate her complaint at this point if she remained dissatisfied.
The landlord has likely caused the resident some uncertainty as it provided incorrect information as to when the complaint was closed in this case. The investigation has been able to reach a determination based on the information to hand. However, there has been a lack of clear records related to the handling of the complaint as well as inaccuracies within the landlord’s internal communications which highlights room for improvement.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that the following actions take place within four weeks:
1. The landlord is to pay the resident £489.80, comprised of:
  1. £200 in recognition of the delay in repair works to the windows at the resident’s property, the damp works, and the distress this caused. This amount includes the landlord’s previous offer of £90 compensation for delay and service failure.
  2. £100 in recognition of the uncertainty caused as a result of the landlord’s communication and record keeping.
  3. £150 in recognition of the time spent pursuing the complaint and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
  4. £39.80 as previously offered in view of the receipt provided for the resident’s cleaning bill, unless this has already been paid.
It is recommended that the landlord carries out staff training and a review of its record keeping processes to ensure that accurate, detailed records are kept of any communication between itself and its tenants to ensure information can be provided to this Service when required for review purposes.
The landlord should consider carrying out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that complaints are handled in line with its policies and procedures and clear records are kept where complaints are closed over the phone.
It is recommended that the landlord takes steps to establish the underlying cause of the damp by completing a survey of the property and carrying out further repairs where needed. A copy of the findings should be sent to the resident.