Southern Housing Group Limited (202111872)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111872

Southern Housing Group Limited

25 March 2024

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 handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of an ongoing leak and water ingress, resulting in damp and mould to the property.
2. The resident’s complaint and offer of compensation.
The Ombudsman also investigated the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is a shared ownership tenant of the property, which is a 2-bedroom flat.
The landlord told the Ombudsman that it had no medical vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The resident informed the landlord that she has asthma and her husband has chronic sinusitis.
The resident holds a lease with the landlord. The landlord does not own the freehold of the building, which is managed by a management agent on behalf of the freeholder.
The resident submitted a formal complaint on 23 August 2021. She stated that she had water ingress in her bedroom since 2009 and it was impacting both her own and her husband’s health. The resident said a repair was attempted in 2019 in which silicone was applied but it had not worked. She said the patch in the bedroom was wet, mouldy, and becoming worse every time it rained. The resident confirmed that she would like the leak and consequent water damage to be fixed, so that it does not reoccur.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 23 September 2021. It said that the leak had been investigated and it was traced to a component behind the external cladding of the building. It confirmed that it did not own the building and was not responsible for the external structure. It said the managing agent had made reassurances that it would be resolved during the reinstatement works to the building following a fire incident the previous year. It said the managing agent was to arrange a joint inspection with the resident and their contractor. The landlord confirmed that the complaint would remain open, with an action plan, until the works were completed. It said its complex case manager was in contact with the resident and would be monitoring the repair.
The managing agent arranged an appointment with the resident on 7 October 2021 to further investigate the water ingress into the property. On 24 November 2021, the managing agent contacted both the resident and landlord to state that the quote for the works had triggered a section 20. They said they were obliged to comply with the section 20 which had a consultation period, which was a minimum of 70 days.
The resident contacted the landlord on 3 December 2021 to say that the most recent “attempted fix” had created a new issue on the window and did not fix the main issue of water ingress in her bedroom. She said it was also now in her living room. She said the bedroom had mould again and it was significantly impacting her health. The landlord responded and referred her to its previous stage 1 response. The resident responded on 6 December 2021 to state that she had responded to the stage 1 response but did not receive a reply. The resident’s complaint was escalated to stage 2 on the same day.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 18 January 2023. It acknowledged that her stage 2 escalation was not followed through and apologised that it did not provide a response until contact was made by the Ombudsman. It offered £50 for its failings. It said:
1. The resident initially reported the water ingress in 2018. It said the managing agents at the time investigated and found the cause was due to an issue with a component behind the external cladding. It said the current managing agent was aware of the issues and had said it would be resolved during the reinstatement works. It said the managing agent was to arrange for a joint inspection with their contractor and the resident, as the resident understood the issue as it had been investigated previously. It said it had requested an update from the managing agent.
2. It had inspected the property last week. It noted that a repair was raised to inspect and remedy the window, but the job was cancelled as it was concluded the water ingress was from the external cladding from the building.
3. It had tried to obtain more information on the reports and surveys the managing agents had carried out. It said the current managing agent did not commence until 2020 and was not provided with any reports from previous ones. It confirmed that historical information on managing agents should be stored centrally and it would consider where improvements could be made.
4. It confirmed that the leak should not be ongoing from 2018 to present and that it should have assisted the resident more with a conclusion to the issue.
5. It said it remained committed to tracking the case and ensuring a resolution was sought by the managing agent or its insurance partners.
6. It confirmed the following actions were for it to continue pursuing the historical managing agents to obtain reports related to the leak. It said the target completion date for that was February 2023.
The resident responded to the landlord to confirm that the issue was ongoing since 2009. She also confirmed that the property was not inspected the previous week as the inspector did not enter her flat. She was surprised that no surveyor reports existed, she said there were times when the landlord sent out a surveyor, so she would have expected to see those reports. She felt the £50 compensation offer did not recognise the impact on her health or the effort expended in getting the issue resolved. She felt it was not clear what repair was being proposed and what the timeline was. She referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 8 February 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Neither the freeholder nor its management company are members of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and as such have not been contacted by the Ombudsman during this investigation. If the resident has logged a complaint against either organisation and remains unhappy with their response, she may wish to refer a complaint to the Property Ombudsman who have jurisdiction over property management companies.
The Ombudsman notes that a settlement agreement took place between the landlord and resident in 2020 for a total of £5,700. At the time of the settlement, it was agreed that the remedial works had been completed and the resident’s property was no longer damp. The settlement was offered for the delays in remedying the water ingress. The landlord said it did not accept any liability for the delays as this was down to the superior landlord, however, it was prepared to offer the compensation as a full and final settlement of her complaint. For those reasons, the Ombudsman will not consider any of the reports made prior to the agreement. This investigation will focus on the period of 6 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint to the landlord’s final response in January 2023.
The resident has referred to her health and that the landlord’s handling of the repairs could have had an impact on this. It is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there would have been a direct link between the actions or lack of action by the landlord and any subsequent impact on the resident’s health. The resident may wish to seek legal advice on making a personal injury claim if she wishes to pursue this. Although we cannot assess the impact of the landlord’s actions on the resident’s health, consideration has been given to the distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of the situation affecting her property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an ongoing leak, and water ingress resulting in damp and mould to the property.

The landlord’s repairs policy states that for shared owners, if a repair is the landlord’s responsibility, then the repair should be processed. It states if it is the resident’s responsibility then they will be advised of this and asked to carry out the repair themselves. It states if there is any doubt about who is responsible for the repair, then to consult the leasehold surveyor or the leasehold specialist team for information. It states that the lease will detail the respective obligations of both the landlord and resident. It states in general it is responsible for repairs to the internal structural elements of the building and repairs to the external structure and outside of the property. It advises there may be legal agreements with other parties, for example management companies or superior landlords.
The headlease is made between the landlord and superior landlord which is a separate private limited company that is not a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman has not received a copy of the headlease; therefore, it is difficult to determine the responsibilities of the landlord and superior landlord in this case. As the landlord is not the freeholder of the building, it has stated that it is not responsible for the exterior works. However, as the resident’s contract for the property is with the landlord, the Ombudsman would expect to see proactive engagement by the landlord with the freeholder or its managing agents, to assist with the resident’s concerns.
In this case, it is difficult to determine the exact course of events due to the lack of evidence. The Ombudsman has not been provided with a comprehensive record of communication between the landlord and the managing agents or reports from site visits. It is vital landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. This helps the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s actions and decision making at the time. From the evidence available, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that the landlord proactively engaged with the managing agents regarding the resident’s concerns. As such, it is concluded that the landlord did not effectively represent the interests of the resident. A separate finding has been made for record keeping.
It is apparent that the resident had experienced water ingress in her property and the managing agent had taken responsibility for the repair which was on the exterior of the building. This is evidenced in an email sent from the current managing agent in May 2021 to both the resident and landlord. They stated that they were confident the water ingress was from the balcony above. They said they needed to undertake a water test to pinpoint the defective area on the balcony and were hoping it could be undertaken in July. There was no further correspondence in relation to the leak until the resident’s formal complaint in August 2021. Accordingly, in its stage 1 response, it was the landlord’s view that it was not responsible for repairing the leak.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed that it would request an update from the managing agent. It said the complaint would remain open, with an action plan, until the works were completed. It said its complex case manager was in contact with the resident and would be monitoring the repair. That would have been a positive plan from the landlord if it had fulfilled it. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that it did.
Following the landlord’s stage 1 response, the managing agent’s contractors further investigated the water ingress and updated the landlord and resident regarding the section 20 consultation. In an internal email on 14 December 2021, the landlord confirmed that it was aware of the section 20 consultation and said it would end in February 2022. A further internal email in May 2022 stated that the resident was refusing to pay rent until the leak was fixed. There is no evidence of the landlord taking any further action in relation to the leak or the managing agent until its stage 2 response in January 2023. Its confirmation of requesting an update from the managing agent in its stage 2 response was too late and the £50 compensation did not adequately address the difficulties and delays experienced to date.
In her formal complaint, the resident informed the landlord that mould in her property was affecting both her own and her husband’s health. The landlord’s stage 1 response referred to the water ingress but it did not address the concerns around mould in the property. The resident contacted the landlord on 3 December 2021 to say that the bedroom was mouldy again and that the leak had spread to the living room. The resident also referred to a most recent “attempted fix” but no records have been provided from the landlord to suggest when this took place and who it was by.
The landlord failed on more than one occasion to risk assess and respond to the resident’s concerns regarding the mould. It did not appear to recognise the potential health and safety risk and the impact it may be having on the resident. In line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System guidance, a landlord must promptly assess any potential health and safety risks that are brought to its attention, which it failed to do. The resident stated that the leak had spread but the landlord did not take any action in inspecting the property or informing the managing agent. It is also concerning that the landlord stated it had no medical vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, even though the resident highlighted them on more than one occasion.
It is acknowledged that without remedying the leak, it may have been difficult to complete remedial works to any damp and mould in the property. However, it is unreasonable that the landlord did not demonstrate any proactive attempts to inspect the resident’s property and offer a view on any of the living conditions that she reported. If it had done so, it could have assessed whether it had any responsibility and whether there were any simple actions it could take to provide temporary relief to the resident. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this would have made the resident feel heard and understood, improving the landlord/resident relationship.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said it had inspected the resident’s property the previous week, however, it did not provide the outcome of the inspection or what actions were taken in relation to it. By not providing this information, it was unclear what the landlord inspected and why. The resident disputed that the landlord inspected her property and it is concerning that no records were provided to substantiate the landlord’s visit. It then stated that a repair was raised to remedy the window but it was cancelled due to the water ingress being from the external cladding of the building. The landlord’s actions were confusing and failed to clarify what, if any, of the repairs it was responsible for.
The landlord failed to clearly set out whose responsibility it was to carry out the repairs to the damp and mould. Its view was that the problem was with the external cladding of the building and this was the building owner’s responsibility. However, it failed to consistently pursue this with the managing agent, either by persuasion, investigation or threatened enforcement of the head lease. The lack of planned approach, thorough investigation of the root cause, and communication to resolve issues is evident throughout. The issue is outstanding, and a full resolution appears to be a distant prospect. The Ombudsman has found maladministration in the overall handling of the resident’s reports of an ongoing leak and water ingress, resulting in damp and mould to the property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and offer of compensation.

The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It aims to give a response within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. If it is not possible for the landlord to respond within these timescales, it will explain why and agree an extension with the resident.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will make a payment when there is evidence that there has been a service failure that it is responsible for. The failure will have caused loss, damage or inconvenience and it would have been recorded on its case management system as a complaint. It said service failures include not following policies and procedures, and failure and delays in undertaking repairs.
The resident made her formal complaint on 28 August 2021 and the landlord responded on 23 September 2021, 18 working days after. While this was outside of the landlord’s complaints timescales, the landlord did contact the resident on 9 September 2021 to advise that it needed to extend the response time as it was still gathering information. In the landlord’s final response on 18 January 2023, it said the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 in October 2021. This means that the landlord took a year and 3 months to respond to the resident’s complaint, which was not acceptable. It is also disappointing that the Ombudsman had to contact the landlord on more than one occasion to request it provide the stage 2 response to the resident. While the landlord acknowledged that it did not “follow through” on the resident’s stage 2 escalation, it did not provide the reasons why or what it would do differently in future.
The landlord stated that it was committed to tracking the resident’s case and ensuring a resolution was sought, however, it did not sufficiently outline how it would do so. It raised one action for itself following the complaint which was to pursue the historical reports regarding the leak. This action alone would not resolve the issue. It is unclear why the landlord felt this information was so important when the current managing agent had undertaken inspections since. The response suggests a lack of direction on behalf of the landlord and understandably did not reassure the resident in how the issue would be resolved.
In its stage 2 response the landlord offered £50 for its complaint handling service failure. Given the significant delay in responding to the resident without good reason, the amount offered to the resident was inappropriate. The compensation offered did not consider the additional failures it acknowledged in its stage 2 response. It should have offered compensation for the length of the time the leak had been ongoing, its failure to proactively assist the resident in resolving the issue, and the impact on the resident as a result.
Overall, there was a significant delay in the landlord issuing its stage 2 response. This was not reasonable or in line with what the Ombudsman would expect. Further, it is not in line with the landlord’s own complaints policy. It offered no tangible explanation for the delay which would have contributed to the resident’s distress. The landlord’s offer of compensation did not adequately reflect the failings made by the landlord or the impact on the resident. The final response did not provide an appropriate remedy to reflect the extent of its failings and therefore the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

The landlord’s record keeping.

As previously stated, we would expect the landlord to demonstrate that it had taken reasonable steps to engage with the managing agent or, if they were unresponsive, the freeholder. As highlighted in the Housing Ombudsman Spotlight report on landlord’s engagement with private freeholders and managing agents, a gap in the landlord’s record keeping can weaken its ability to diagnose problems and resolve the issues, as well as holding the managing agent to account. This information is also necessary to enable the landlord to monitor, and if necessary, chase, the performance of the managing agent against its responsibilities.
The landlord in this case provided limited information regarding correspondence with the managing agent, its own contractors, and what actions were agreed to. It is disappointing that the resident also highlighted that there was an issue with the landlord’s record keeping. While it highlighted that no records were available from the previous managing agent, no explanation was provided for why it could not produce its own records or those of the current managing agent. The gaps and omissions have meant the landlord has not been able to clearly demonstrate what steps it had taken to resolve the resident’s concerns, its overall handling of the issues, and the associated risks.
The Ombudsman considers it appropriate to make a separate finding of maladministration in relation to the landlord’s record keeping in this case for the reasons highlighted above.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an ongoing leak and water ingress, resulting in damp and mould to the property.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and offer of compensation.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must carry out an inspection of the property. Once this has been completed it must contact the resident with its findings in relation to damp and mould, and any additional damage as a result of the water ingress. It should complete a risk assessment and a written action plan for all required repairs. If any of the repairs are not the landlord’s responsibility, it should outline who is responsible and the actions it intends to take to ensure they are carried out. It should consult with the managing agent and include an estimated timeframe for the works.
The landlord is to pay the resident a total of £1,200 comprising of:
1. £800 for the delays in the landlord’s handling of the repairs and any distress and inconvenience caused as a result.
2. £300 in recognition of the failures in the landlord’s complaint handling. This is inclusive of the £50 already offered by the landlord.
3. £100 for the landlord’s poor record keeping which led to further delays.
The landlord must undertake a review of its record keeping procedures in relation to repairs and communication with external parties such as managing agents, taking into account the comments in this investigation report. If it has not done so previously, it may wish to consider the recommendations set out in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management published in May 2023. This is to ensure that it has robust record keeping arrangements in place which allow it to provide clear audit trails of all actions taken.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 6 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord review its internal processes to ensure it provides clear and accurate information about respective repairing responsibilities to shared ownership leaseholders. This is particularly important when there are a number of parties involved in managing the property.
The landlord should consult with the resident to ensure its records reflect any vulnerabilities within the household.