Southern Housing Group Limited (202012080)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012080

Southern Housing Group Limited

29 November 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 resident complains about the landlords handling of:

repairs to the kitchen.
a gas leak.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant in a three-bedroom house.
The responsive repairs policy states – Emergency Repairs 3.1; A repair will be treated as an emergency if there is an immediate risk to safety, security or health. The landlord will repair or, if that is not possible, make safe as soon as possible and always within 24 hours of it being notified.
The Policy also states ‘Where we provide any furniture, fixed floor coverings or equipment as part of the tenancy, we will aim to keep them in good repair and working order.’
For the loss of use of cooking or bathroom facilities the compensation policy states that the resident should be paid net rent per day ÷ 2 x number of days. A SHG employee or contractor would need to confirm room unusable to qualify. Payment would commence 2 working days from the date we inspected until the defect had been repaired.
Compensation policy – In recognition of poor service, failure to follow policy/procedure or act in a reasonable manner a goodwill payment up to £25 can be made and this can be given in vouchers, money or flowers. For multiple service failures and/or the customer is requesting compensation for an unquantifiable loss such as inconvenience and distress caused by the failure(s) a payment of between £25 – £50 can be made.
The resident had her kitchen replacement by the landlord’s contractor between 26 July 2019 and 19 August 2019 and at the time the resident purchased a new cooker that was installed alongside the kitchen replacement on 13 August 2019. A gas safety certificate was issued on 13 August 2019.
The gas safety certificate was issued with the incorrect date of 12 August 2019 and the make and model of the cooker were recorded incorrectly.
On 31 August 2019, the resident reported a gas leak to the gas distribution network, who attended the property and confirmed there was a gas leak from the cooker connection and immediately shut off the gas at the property.
On 1 September 2019 the resident contacted the contractor to advise of the gas leak and the shutting off of the gas supply. The contractor attended the property on 2 September 2019 to investigate the issue and observed that the pipework was at an angle and the fixings for the chain and gas supply had been swapped over. The contractor returned to make the required repairs to the gas system and ensure the necessary re-testing and re-certification were undertaken however the resident refused the operative entry as she advised she would prefer the landlords own gas contractor to undertake the works.
On 2 September 2019, the resident contacted the landlord to raise concerns about the gas leak. The resident also raised concerns about the contractor who did the kitchen replacement as she felt that it was not taking her gas leak concerns seriously. The landlord arranged for its own gas engineer to attend the property on 4 September 2019 to inspect the pipework and reconnect the cooker as the resident did not want the contractor who did the installation to attend the property again.
The landlords gas engineer did not have the correct part during the appointment on 4 September 2019 to safely reconnect the cooker. Therefore, it made safe the cooker connection and turned on the gas to ensure that the resident had heating and hot water.
The landlord attended the property on 5 September 2019 to carry out an investigation and speak to the resident about her concerns. She advised the landlord about her concerns including the gas certificate that states the property was safe when this was not the case.
On 6 September 2019, the gas operative who carried out the gas safety check provided his statement advising of the actions he had taken. He further advised that when he revisited the property on 2 September 2019 following the report of the gas leak, the resident refused him access to the property.
The landlord’s gas engineer returned on 9 September 2019 to reconnect the cooker with the correct part.
Following the landlord’s visit on 5 September 2019, the resident contacted it back on 13 September 2019 as she had not heard anything back following the visit. A meeting was subsequently arranged for 25 September 2019 with the landlord, the contractor who did the kitchen replacement and the resident.
On 17 September 2019 the MP wrote to the contractor and the landlord about the concerns the resident had raised, particularly about the contractor’s engineer who did the installation and the gas safety certificate and whether any actions were taken with regards to investigating this matter.
On 25 September 2019, the landlord and the contractor visited the resident. The contractor offered the resident £2000 in recognition of the distress relating to the gas leak however it did not accept full liability. This offer was in recognition of the service failures in relation to the length of time taken to complete the works and the losses the resident incurred for food and laundry expenses. The redress also covered the replacement kitchen blind, the gas leak and the non-compliant gas certificate. The resident requested time to consider the offer and came back a few days later to decline the offer. She felt that she was entitled to a more substantial amount for the gas leak and the contractor advised she would need to take this up with its insurer.
The resident accepted £500 from the contractor in recognition of the inconvenience suffered due to the time taken to replace her kitchen and the damaged goods.
The landlord sent a response to the MP on 27 September 2019. It confirmed that it was proactively looking into the resident’s concerns and acknowledged its failing. The landlord also advised that the gas operative who issued the gas certificate was no longer working for the contractor and additional measures had been put in place going forward to ensure this situation did not happen again.
On 8 October 2019 the contractor wrote to the resident. It apologised for the disruption that was caused and offered her £500 for the associated expenses caused. It advised that the cheque represented a full and final settlement of the matter.
The contractor wrote to the MP on 18 February 2020 advising that it had paid the resident £500 in full and final settlement of the claim.
The contractor provided an incident overview. In the document it investigated the matter and went on to advise that the pipe behind the cooker was likely tampered with as the pipe was in the incorrect position. It said the root cause of this incident could not be confirmed however it is highly unlikely that a gas fitting would have been installed in the manner it was discovered on 2nd September 2019 following an inspection. It further stated that it was likely that any gas leak caused by works in the property would have been observed in less than 12 days following completion however the resident only reported the smell of gas on 30 August 2019. Therefore, the contractor believed that the locations of the gas fitting and cooker retention were swapped over by other parties. The contractor also provided photos of the fittings at the back of the cooker to show that these were incorrectly installed
On 10 September 2020, the landlord noted that the resident raised a complaint in May 2020 which did not get logged. It further said that the complaint letter was sent again in July 2020 however this was still not logged as a complaint.
On 11 September 2020 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and confirmed the case handler investigating the case. The resident emailed the landlord back to advise that she had not received any reference information from the insurer in regard to informing their insurance company about the gas leak. She said she had asked for the matter to be chased up by the landlord however she had received no response.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 14 September 2020 about her concerns.
On 15 September 2020 the landlord noted that the case was closed incorrectly on the understanding that the compensation offered from the contractor was a full and final settlement of the resident’s gas concerns
On 18 September 2020 the landlord provided the resident with an update on her complaint. It advised it expected to provide a response by the next week.
On 25 September 2020 the landlord issued its first response. It provided a background to the sequence of events that took place from the installation of the cooker to the rectification of the errors with the pipe connections. It also acknowledged the errors with the gas safety certificate and confirmed the immediate actions that it had taken following the notification of the error which included:

Introducing enhanced and stringent quality control measures with its contractors.
Reviewing all the gas safety certificates issued under the programme of works with each home on the programme.
The gas operative in question was removed from the contractor and landlord works and reported to Gas Safe.
Monitoring of every property undergoing works daily to ensure that properties have been left in a satisfactory state and that the resident is aware of the remaining works within their property.

In the first response the landlord also covered the handling of contact after the gas leak and reconfirmed the offer made by the contractor for the delays in completing the works to the kitchen. The landlord also advised that the contractor had contacted the MP to advise that the claim for perceived loss rather than actual loss would not be covered by its public liability insurance. The landlord explained that as the resident was pursuing the insurance matter with the contractor, the delays to her receiving information from the contractor’s insurer was not considered to be a service failure on its part.
The landlord acknowledged the misunderstanding about the compensation provided to the resident from the contractor as it thought that the offer of £500 was in full and final settlement for the gas related issues however this was not the case. The landlord also acknowledged its service failures with relation to the handling of the resident’s complaint and its misplacing of her original complaint letter. In recognition of the overall service failures, the landlord offered the resident £200.
The resident wrote back on 19 September 2020 to advise that she did not accept the outcome and wanted to take the complaint further. The resident also advised that she had not had any contact from the contractor’s insurer.
On 29 September 2020 the landlord noted that after speaking with the contractor it advised that it had not been in contact with the resident directly, but with her MP. The contactor assumed that the MP would pass its response onto the resident.
On 1 October 2020 the landlord responded to the resident acknowledging her dissatisfaction with its first response and the compensation offered, it provided its stage two response leaflet for her reference if she wished to escalate the matter with it. The landlord confirmed the contractor wrote to the MP and advised that she should have received a copy of this.
Following a further email to the landlord from the resident on 6 October 2020 chasing the response from the contractor’s insurer, the landlord responded the same day providing a copy of the letter sent to the MP. The landlord apologised that this was not sent to the resident previously.
On 9 October 2020 the resident wrote back to the landlord with further queries about the contractor’s insurer and concerns about how the case was investigated. The landlord responded on 15 October 2020 providing more information about the insurer and also confirming that the resident’s complaint had been escalated to stage two of its own complaint procedure.
On 21 October 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord to chase up her stage two response, reiterating her concerns. The landlord responded the same day to confirm that that the information provided would be considered in her stage two response and to allow 10 working days for it to provide her with a response.
On 2 November 2020, the landlord emailed the resident to advise her that there was a delay in issuing its stage two response until the new year. It offered her a conversation or meeting with a senior manager or director to discuss the complaint as an alternative to a stage two response. The resident responded to advise that she was fine with this option, requesting clarity about whether she was still able to escalate the case if she was not satisfied with the response.
The resident emailed again on 13 November 2020 requesting an update about the meeting arrangements offered on 2 November 2020. The landlord responded to apologise for the delay and advised that it did not have a date set for the meeting yet.
On 11 December 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord to chase up the meeting arrangements as she had no confirmation yet. On 14 December 2020 the landlord wrote back to advise it was still unable to arrange a date for the meeting and would update her in due course.
On 15 December 2020 the landlord emailed the resident to arrange for the meeting to take place on 21 December 2020 at 2pm over the phone or via a video call. The resident responded to advise she had a hospital appointment that date at 2.15pm and requested if the time of the meeting could be amended.
The case was updated on 22 December 2020 to note that the meeting was conducted with the resident on 21 December 2020. Following the conversation, the resident was sent the stage two letter on 24 December 2020.
In the landlord’s second response it agreed with all the resident’s concerns and took ownership of the errors. It made the resident two options of offers to resolve the complaint which were:

Option 1
1. It would offer the resident £300 in recognition of its service failures, made up of:
2. £50.00 – Service failure – incorrect gas safety certificate issued
3. £50.00 – Service failure – mishandling and missing letter dated 19th May 2020
4. £50.00 – Service failure – misunderstanding of the previous compensation offer made
5. £50.00 – Service failure – length of time taken to provide a full response to the complaint
6. £50.00 – Service failure – for the delay in getting the cooker back in safe working order
7. £50.00 – Service failure – for failing to repair the hole left when the cooker was installed
8. In addition it would arrange to carry out a further gas safety inspection by one of its own contractors of the pipework and the connection to the cooker. After doing this, it would check back with the resident that she was happy to use the cooker.
Option 2
1. The landlord would buy a new electric cooker up to the value of £350.00 and install it. It would also rectify the small remaining problems in the kitchen which were:
2. Repair or replace the cracked tiles
3. Replace the cupboard door handle with a matching new one
4. Replace and ensure that the hook holding the cooker in place was working and secure
5. Conduct a further gas safety check to reassure the resident that the cooker was safe to use.

The resident replied on 9 January 2021 requesting details to escalate the complaint. The landlord advised the resident to contact her MP to escalate the complaint with it or contact this Service directly after eight weeks.

Assessment and findings

The landlords handling of the repairs to the kitchen.

The landlord’s policy states that if it provides any furniture, fixed floor coverings or equipment as part of the tenancy, it will aim to keep them in good repair and working order. As the kitchen was replaced by the landlord (except for the cooker which was bought by the resident), it is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that the tile, and the cupboard handle are repaired or replaced. With regards to the cooker, the landlord’s contractor installed the appliance and therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to ensure that this was installed correctly.
The landlord has not provided any justification as to why the cracked tile and cupboard handle defect have not yet been repaired. There is no information to explain why this aspect was not resolved prior to the complaint being brought to the Service and this amounts to service failure

The landlords handling of the gas leak.

I have not considered the contractors compensation within this complaint as this was not an offer made by the landlord. I also note that there is nowhere within the landlord’s stage one complaint policy that suggests a response from its contractors would be considered it’s complaint response.
The contractor suggests that a third party tampered with the pipework at the back of the cooker, however there is no evidence to confirm or refute this. The contractor has not supplied any photos of the back of the cooker at the time of the installation therefore the information is inconclusive on who was responsible for the error. In the letter from the MP, she had raised concerns with the contractor and indicated that this was the second serious report she had received about it. The landlord has dealt with this aspect proactively as per the actions it has taken as explained within its responses to ensure this situation does not occur in the future.
Whilst there was an assumption from the contractor that the resident would get its response from the MP, the landlord reasonably informed it that the resident had not received this and arranged for the information to be provided. The landlord has demonstrated that it acted proactively about the gas leak by working with the contractor to take the necessary steps to ensure this situation did not occur again in the future. It amended its gas safety check process and steps were taken in regard to the contractors operative who attended the property to conduct the initial cooker installation and gas safety check.
When the resident contacted the landlord to advise of the gas leak on 2 September 2019, it sent someone out to inspect the issue on 4 September 2019. Whilst the landlord’s emergency repair policy states an inspection should be carried out within 24 hours, I have taken into consideration that the emergency had been attended to by the gas distribution network. Additionally, the original contractor offered to repair the problem on 2 September 2019 which would have meant the resident did not have to wait until 4 September 2019 for the landlords engineer. However, I appreciate the reasons that the resident did not want the original contractor to rectify the matter following the experience that she had. As a result of the above, although I appreciate the timescales within the policy were not met, the landlord’s contractor was ready to come out within the 24 hours of the resident’s report and the leak had already been rectified.
Following the landlord’s inspection, it took 4 working days for the cooker to be correctly fitted because the engineer did not have the required part. The landlord’s policy states for loss of use of cooking facilities, the resident would be compensated net rent per day (22.60) ÷ 2 x number of days. It further states that the payment would commence 2 working days from the date it inspected until the defect had been repaired. Therefore, the resident should have been compensated for the four days she did not have use of the cooker which equates to £45.
The above policy doesn’t not specify what would be classed as cooking facilities and it does mention the landlord or contractor would need to confirm room unusable to qualify. It is therefore unclear whether this policy point would be applicable in this instance as it was the cooking appliance that was out of use. It is reasonable to assume that the lack of the cooker during this period would be classed as cooking facilities. The landlord reasonably offered £50 for the delay in the repair.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

The landlord acknowledged its failings regarding when it registered the resident’s initial complaint. It apologised for losing her original complaint letter in May 2020 and it also noted that it had failed to log the complaint again in July 2020. The landlord did apologise for the overall handling of the complaint, including the lack of communication and misunderstanding the resident’s concerns.
The monetary offer of £300 for the breakdown detailed within the second response is fair and in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. The break down took into consideration all the failings with regards to the handling of the complaint.
However, It is unreasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to choose between compensation or the outstanding repairs to her kitchen following the kitchen replacement, particularly as the repairs were not accounted for within the compensation break down. Whilst the landlord has advised of these outstanding issues within its complaint response, it has not addressed this part of the resident’s complaint about its liability to fix these issues and it has not covered what will be done to put the kitchen in order. The landlord has offered to purchase a new cooker however I note the issue was not with the cooker itself, that the resident had purchase in 2019, but rather the connections to the gas supply. Therefore, whilst the landlord has taken ownership of its failings, the outcome offered has not provided a full resolution to all the issues outstanding collectively and this amounts to service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect to its handling of the kitchen repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in respect of its handling of the gas leak.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord replaced the resident’s kitchen, therefore it should have made arrangements for the kitchen tile and the cupboard handle to be repaired or replaced. The landlord’s contractor installed the cooker, therefore it was its responsibility to ensure this was installed safely.
The landlord was proactive in sorting out the gas leak, and it has considered its policy and offered £50 to cover the delay in getting the cooker fixed.
Whilst the landlord has acknowledged its failings with regards to losing the resident’s initial complaint letter, failure to register the complaint on time, and the overall complaint handling, it’s outcome was not fair by making the resident have to choose between the monetary offer and the offer to make the necessary repairs in the kitchen.

Orders

In light of the findings of this investigation, within three weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:

Pay the resident the £300 offered in its stage 2 response.
Arrange for the repairs to the kitchen to be completed to ensure it is in good repair and working order.
Ensure that the resident is provided with a new gas safety certificate.

Recommendations

The Service recommends the landlord update its complaint policy to include timescales of its alternative method to handling second stage responses if the panel is unavailable.
In instances where the resident is unable to use the cooker, the landlord should consider supplying an electric stove such as a top stove, to ensure the resident still has access to cooking facilities.