Southern Housing Group Limited (202111282)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111282

Southern Housing Group Limited

3 March 2022

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 is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damaged items following a leak at the property

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a house.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy categorises its repairs as “Emergency” (respond within 24 hours) and “Routine” (respond as quickly as possible, at an appointment time agreed with the tenant). Repairs are treated as an emergency by the landlord when there is “immediate risk to safety, security or health.”. Examples given of emergency repairs include “burst pipes or other major plumbing repairs”.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaint process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to send an acknowledgement within three working days and provide a full complaint response within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response they can, within 20 working days of receiving the stage one response, request an escalation of the complaint. The landlord will then undertake a review and provide a stage two response within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
If the only outstanding issue to the complaint is the level of compensation offered at stage one, the policy states that the landlord will undertake a compensation review. As part of this review, a manager not previously involved in the case will contact the complainant to discuss the matter and a stage two response will then be sent.
The policy states that the landlord will not consider complaints concerning liability claims, as those are handled by its insurance provider. The policy also states that it would not normally consider complaints about matters that occurred more than six months from when the issue was reported.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider making a payment “when there is evidence that there has been a service failure that we’re responsible for, that has caused loss, damage or inconvenience, and has been recorded onto our case management system as either a service dissatisfaction or as a complaint”. Examples of service failure the landlord would consider compensating for include:
1. Missed or failed appointments.
2. Not delivering services in line with published standards.
3. Not following policies and procedures.
4. Failure and delays in undertaking repairs.
5. Quality of repair.
In its compensation payment guidance, the landlord states it will pay £25-50 compensation for the inconvenience and stress caused to a resident when service failure has been found.

Summary of events

The landlord’s repairs logs state that an emergency repair was raised on 27 May 2021 following a report from the resident that a pipe in the downstairs toilet had rusted away, burst and had caused a significant leak. This job was marked as being complete with 24 hours.
On 28 May 2021 the resident called the landlord and requested to raise a complaint. The landlord’s call logs described the elements of the complaint as:
1. The leak was as a result of poor workmanship from the landlord’s contractors, which had caused ankle-deep flooding throughout the ground floor of the property.
2. When the pipe burst, the resident attempted to shut off the water, but was unable to do so as the stopcock was behind a door which had been sealed shut by a contractor.
3. The flooding had caused damage to the flooring/carpeting and to the resident’s personal items (including a hoover and a treadmill).
4. As a resolution to the complaint the resident requested that the landlord covered the cost of damage to her personal items as she did not believe that she should have to claim off her insurance. She also asked the landlord to review the quality of work from its contractors.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 June 2021. It confirmed that it had opened a complaint and that it aimed to provide a response within ten working days. A stage one complaint response was then sent to the resident on 14 June 2021.
The landlord explained that it would not consider offering compensation to the resident as it had responded within 24 hours and that the cause of the pipe bursting was not as a result of service failure on its part. It also informed the resident that it had conducted a review of all jobs raised for the property and found that it had not been called out for 14 months prior to the pipe bursting.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 14 June 2021 and requested to escalate the complaint. She described the grounds for the escalation as:
1. She was unable to stop the leak when it occurred as access to the stopcock had been sealed shut. This was an unprofessional installation by the contractor acting on behalf of the landlord.
2. The plumber who visited on the day of the leak had informed her that the stopcock had been installed incorrectly.
The landlord replied on 17 June 2021. It confirmed that it had escalated the complaint and that it would review its decision to not offer any compensation.
The resident called the landlord on 25 June 2021 and expressed her frustration that she had not been able to contact anyone from the complaints team to discuss the complaint and discuss the outstanding issues she had.
The landlord arranged a telephone call for 29 June 2021 and then sent the stage two response on 1 July 2021. The landlord explained that it had taken into account what the resident had informed it during the telephone conversation and had agreed to replace the flooring in the affected rooms and also replace the carpet in the lounge. The landlord accepted that the leak had been caused by a ‘poor repair’.
The landlord then informed the resident that that it was working with its contractor, who would “contact you directly to arrange a suitable appointment” to replace the flooring/carpet.
The landlord concluded the response by informing the resident that she had exhausted its internal complaint process and advised her on the steps to take to bring her case to this Service should she remain dissatisfied.
The landlord’s call logs show that the resident called it on 7, 16, 22 and 26 July 2021 then on 3, 10 and 16 August 2021 requesting an update on the status on the work to replace the flooring.
During telephone conversations with this Service on 31 August 2021 and 2 September 2021, the resident explained the outstanding issues to the complaint were the unacceptable delays in completing the work agreed to in the stage two response.
The landlord’s repair logs state that a work order to install the new flooring was raised on 21 September 2021 and an appointment arranged for 5 October 2021. Follow-on work to plane then rehang the toilet door was raised on 6 October 2021. A further complaint from the resident was responded to in December 2021, which included an offer of compensation for delays in installing the flooring.
Recent correspondence from the landlord to this Service has also confirmed that the laminate flooring was replaced in January 2022.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s notes of the 29 June 2021 telephone call stated that its manager agreed with the resident that a poor repair by its contractor had contributed to the leak in the in property. In its stage two response the landlord agreed to replace the flooring and the lounge carpet as a resolution to the complaint.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and 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 acted fairly in acknowledging mistakes by its contractor and apologising to the resident. It put things right by agreeing to replace the flooring and the lounge carpet. It looked to learn from its mistakes by raising the complaint internal with senior management to identify any learning issues. It also explained to the resident how she could supply feedback that would be taken into account as part of the review.
As part of her complaint, the resident raised the issue with the stopcock, which she stated she could not be easily accessed during the leak as the door to the cupboard where it was situated had been sealed shut by a contractor during a previous visit. The landlord’s repair logs stated that a work order to supply and fit a new stopcock in the kitchen was raised on 15 February 2006 and marked as completed on 17 March 2006.
The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
This is in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that we will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord not to directly address specific matters relating to the stopcock repair which had occurred in 2006.
When raising the complaint, the resident had requested that the landlord compensate her for the damage to personal items as she did not believe she should have to make a claim on her own insurance. This was declined by the landlord, and it explained that it did not progress insurance matters through its complaint process.
This was a reasonable position for the landlord to take and in line with its complaints policy. Landlords are entitled to have insurance policies to cover the cost of liability claims and the landlord would not be expected to consider a claim for damage to the resident’s possessions outside the insurance process. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the actions of the landlord’s insurer and therefore we cannot comment further or the insurance process or the outcome of any insurance claim.
In any case, the resident’s correspondence with the landlord following its final response did not refer to the other items that she said had been damaged following the initial leak (a hoover and a treadmill). In the absence of any reference to these additional items, it is reasonable to conclude that the resident was satisfied with the overall resolution of having her flooring/carpet replaced.
Therefore, for the reasons set out above, at the close of the complaints process, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.
Whilst an Ombudsman investigation is limited to the specific complaint that progressed through a landlord’s complaints process, it is expected that a landlord will follow through on agreements made within that complaints process. In this case, it is evident that the resident experienced significant delays in the flooring/carpet replacement, with the laminate flooring finally being replaced in January 2022.
A further complaint was submitted in this respect, due to the delays and lack of communication from the landlord on this issue. This complaint was responded to at the final stage of the landlord’s complaint process, with an acknowledgement of service failure in this respect and an offer of compensation. This complaint, including the remedy offered, sits outside the remit of this investigation and shall not be considered any further here.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress to the resident in respect of how it handled the resident’s reports of damage to items following a leak at the property.

Reasons

The landlord recognised that its contractor contributed to the leak. It was therefore both reasonable and proportionate for it to agree to replace the flooring and carpet as a resolution to the complaint.