Southern Housing Group Limited (202204723)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204723

Southern Housing Group Limited

29 February 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

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of various repairs.
   2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s enquiry about upgrades to his kitchen, bathroom, and windows.
   3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request that the landlord regularly inspect the block.
   4. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

2. The resident lives in a first floor one bedroom flat, under an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord. The landlord is a housing Association. The resident informed the landlord during the complaint that he suffered with anxiety and depression.
3. In September 2021, the resident reported a window had been cracked due to scaffolding being installed in the block. A month later the landlord attended to measure and order replacement glass. An appointment was scheduled then cancelled by the landlord in February 2022 due to its operative being unwell. In March 2022, the resident reported the window had now fallen off its hinges. The landlord attended on the same day and boarded the window. A further appointment was made in April 2022, but the glass was not ready, so the appointment was cancelled.
4. In April 2022, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. He said the living room window had not been repaired and remained boarded. The lack of security was affecting his anxiety and depression. He wanted to know why scaffolding was still up. No works had been done and the scaffolding was being vandalised. When the scaffolding was erected, the contractors damaged his fence, and this still had not been repaired. He said he had reported damp and mould in the communal area which had not been attended to. He said that repairs in the communal area had taken weeks to fix in the past. He provided an example of an occasion when raw sewage had leaked, and the landlord had taken weeks to repair it.
5. The resident also wanted to know why upgrades were not being done to his kitchen, bathroom, and windows. He wanted to know why a resident manager was not regularly visiting and monitoring the block. He considered the block was not being managed. The resident asked the landlord to review the service charges for the block and explain how these had been spent.
6. The landlord responded and agreed that it had delayed in completing the window repairs. It agreed to complete all repairs to the window by 6 June 2022. The communal areas were due to be treated on 31 May 2022. It had no knowledge of the fence repair and suggested the resident raise this. It apologised for the impact of the scaffolding and said it would be removed at the earliest opportunity. It offered £125 compensation for its delays.
7. In June 2022, the matters raised by the resident were still outstanding, so he requested an escalation to stage 2. In August 2022, the landlord responded. It said it would arrange for the scaffolding to be removed and a deep clean of the communal cupboard. It said it would ensure that its manager would monitor and check for issues, but estate inspections were now completed by its estate team. It agreed it had delayed in attending to the water leak in January 2022 it did not know why but would feed this back to the relevant team.
8. In December 2022, the resident contacted this service as the communal area walls were peeling and still not treated for damp. The damp and mould was returning in the communal cupboard. He was not happy with the landlord’s response to the upgrades and how long the repairs had taken. He was also unhappy that the manager would not be attending the block regularly as this arrangement had worked in the past. He wanted the outstanding works completed and compensation for the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delays in completing the repairs.

Assessment and findings

The various repairs.

The cracked window.

9. The landlord appropriately acknowledged that it had delayed repairing the crack in the window and that appointments had not been adhered too. Its repair policy states that the landlord will complete routine repairs as quickly as possible. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, states once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs or works it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
10. The records show that the resident contacted our service in July 2022 to advise that the cracked window repair was booked for 2 August 2022. We asked the landlord to provide evidence and confirmation of when the repair was completed. The landlord advised it was completed in October 2021 but that it had no evidence to support this. This was clearly incorrect and did not align with the evidence provided including the landlord’s complaint response. This is a failure in the landlord’s record keeping and information management which has been considered in the order below. The resident confirms that the repair has now been completed but is unsure of the exact date. The evidence shows that the repair must have been completed on or around August 2022. This was 11 months after the landlord had been put on notice in September 2021 which was unreasonable.
11. This Service acknowledges that the landlord offered compensation for the delays of £50 and then a further £25 for its missed appointment in March 2022. This amount however does not fully reflect the time and level of impact on the resident. The resident had explained how it was affecting his depression and anxiety as the window was not secure which in turn made him feel unsafe. He had to continue to live with the boarded window and the uncertainty for 11 months which was unreasonable and a failing by the landlord. Therefore, a series of orders are made out below.

The broken fence.

12. The landlord was not made aware of the broken fence until the resident raised his complaint in April 2022. This Service does not doubt that the resident raised the issue prior to this with the contractor. However, this Service is unable to determine the behaviour or the contractor as they are a non-member. Once the landlord was put on notice the repair should have been raised. The evidence provided to this Service shows that the repair to the fence was completed on 2 May 2023 which was 13 months after the landlord was put on notice. The evidence does not provide any reasonable explanation for the delays. It also fails to show that the resident was kept updated in respect of the delays. It is acknowledged that an appointment booked in April 2023 had to be re-scheduled as the resident was away, but 13 months is unreasonable. This would have caused the resident stress and inconvenience living with the broken fence and the uncertainty of when it would be repaired. Furthermore, the resident had to spend time chasing up the repair and pursuing his complaint. Therefore, a series of orders have been set out below.

Damp and mould in the communal area.

13. The landlord has a responsibility under Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy.
14. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should:
    1. Adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this.
    2. Ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and effective resolution.
    3. Ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
    4. Identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used, share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner.
15. This Service asked the landlord to confirm when the damp and mould was first reported. It was unable to confirm. The resident advised that he raised the issues in the middle of 2021. The evidence shows that a surveyor did attend the block after the stage 1 complaint was raised to inspect as he met with the resident on 10 May 2022. This is also referenced in the landlord’s complaint responses. However, the complaint response in June 2022 does not confirm whether any works had been completed to treat the damp and mould. When the resident contacted this Service in December 2022, he advised that the water cupboard had been plastered but the mould was beginning to return.
16. The landlord advised that it attended on 26 September 2022 and works were completed. It has not advised what those works were or provided any supporting evidence. The landlord states that it attended again in June 2023 and identified mould on its report but failed to raise a repair. It advised it had now raised a repair.
17. The landlord’s records are not clear. Record keeping is a core function of a housing service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its obligations and in management of its assets. Furthermore, it enables the landlord to provide accurate information to its residents.
18. The lack of records showing what it had done and how it communicated with the resident means that this service cannot fullyassess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the communal area. This is a failing in its record keeping and has caused the resident further time and inconvenience in having to pursue his matter further. This has been considered in the order below.
19. The evidence from the resident and the timing of his complaint does indicate that the landlord was highly likely to have been put on notice of the damp and mould in 2021. The landlord states it did not complete any remedial works to resolve the damp and mould until September 2022 which is at least 12 months after the resident said he had reported it.
20. While it is acknowledged that the damp and mould was in the communal area it is concerning to note the landlord’s lack of urgency to get the issues resolved. This issue would have impacted all resident’s using the communal area on a daily basis. Given the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on damp and mould was published in October 2021. The landlord’s delays and lack of clear communication was unreasonable and did not demonstrate the “proactive interventions” called for in the Spotlight report on damp and mould. It is also further noted that the landlord has inspected again after the complaint but failed to take any action in response to sightings of more damp and mould.

Scaffolding still erected

21. The scaffolding was erected in September 2021. In April 2022, the landlord said in its stage 1 response that it was unsure why the scaffolding was still up and that it would get it removed. It offered the resident £50 compensation for the inconvenience. It also said that it would address this issue immediately in its stage 2 complaint response in June 2022. The landlord has advised this Service that the scaffolding was removed in August 2022.
22. The landlord only became aware the scaffolding was still up when the resident raised his stage 1 complaint. It is evident that the landlord had not been monitoring its own works. Furthermore, the resident was not informed that scaffolding was required and what works the landlord was doing which was also a failing.
23. Once the landlord was on notice to remove the scaffolding it failed to take immediate action.The resident had made the landlord aware that he was unable to get his fence repaired until it had been removed and that the scaffolding was attracting anti-social behaviour. The resident had already told them he suffers from anxiety and depression. The landlord showed no regard for his reported vulnerabilities or for their duties set out in the Equality Act 2010. The landlord offered the resident £50 in response to his stage 1 complaint for its delays in removing the scaffolding but then failed to ensure that it was removed until 4 months later. This was unreasonable and a further failing. The compensation offered did not put the issue right.
24. In summary the repairs were excessively delayed, record keeping, and information management was poor. Failure to take down the scaffolding attracted anti-social behaviour. The damp and mould was not treated nor was it treated with a zero-tolerance approach. The landlord also failed to show due regard for its duties set out in the Equality Act 2010. These cumulative failings therefore amount to severe maladministration. A series of orders are set out below.

Response to the resident’s enquiry about upgrades to the kitchen, bathroom, and windows.

25. The Decent Homes Standard, a standard for social housing introduced by the UK government, advises that properties should have reasonably modern facilities such as kitchens, bathrooms, and windows. The landlord’s obligations therefore include repair or replacement of old components where this is considered required.
26. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine at what point such modernisations are required, as this Service considers that the landlord, its staff, and contractors are best qualified to determine whether components are still functional and fit for purpose and when repairs or replacement are required. However, this investigation can assess whether the landlord has responded reasonably to the resident’s request for a kitchen, bathroom, and window upgrade.
27. In this case, the landlord reviewed the resident’s request; informed him that the kitchen, bathroom, and windows were not due an upgrade and provided the estimated life span when an automatic upgrade would be due. It advised that any required repairs in the meantime could be raised in the normal way.
28. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s response to the resident about upgrades was reasonable, as it reviewed his request and set out a reasonable position based on the evidence. The landlord could have arranged an inspection at that point given the issues that the resident was experiencing with his windows. However, it is acknowledged that in June 2023 the landlord had arranged for a surveyor to inspect the kitchen, bathroom, and windows in the property as post complaint the resident had raised further issues with condensation in his property which he considered were linked to the windows.
29. Aside from the delays in the repairs to the windows which has been assessed within this report there was no evidence that it was failing its obligations to repair or replace the kitchen or bathroom. Furthermore, it was not evident that the resident provided any information to the landlord about the bathroom and kitchen which should have caused it to reconsider its position.

Response to the resident’s request that the landlord regularly inspect the block.

30. The landlord has a duty to carry out inspections of blocks to ensure its fire regulations are met. Regular inspections are also part of good management of a block. The landlord advised that its housing services manager would be requested to visit the block regularly to inspect. It also said that a separate team now completed estate inspections although it did not state how regular these were.
31. The landlord’s response was vague and did not provide clarity on how it intended to monitor the block. This was a failing as the landlord failed to demonstrate how it had monitored the block. Furthermore, the resident should have been given clear reassurance that the block would be monitored moving forwards. That it did not is a further failure. An order has therefore been made for the landlord to clarify to the resident how it proposes to monitor the block this should also include details of the frequency of its inspections.

Handling of the complaint.

32. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure under which it is required to provide a stage one response, within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. It took 20 working days to respond at stage 1 and 42 working days to respond at stage 2. The landlord did not therefore meet its policy timescales which was a failing.
33. The landlord’s stage 1 response was vague and failed to investigate and address all the issues raised. It did not provide any response to the resident’s complaint about the kitchen, bathroom, and window upgrades. It failed to consider and address the resident’s concerns about how the block was being monitored. It mentioned that the resident wanted as part of the outcome a review of the service charges but then failed to address this and whether this was possible within its response. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) makes it clear that landlords must address all points raised as a complaint and provide clear reasons. By failing to address these aspects of the complaint it missed an opportunity to demonstrate that it has heard and understood the resident’s concerns raised.
34. It then sought to rectify this in its stage 2 response but still failed to address the upgrade enquiry and the fact that the resident had asked for information about the service charges. This caused the resident further time and effort having to pursue his complaint with this Service.
35. The landlord failed to explain what had gone wrong and show any learning outcomes within its complaint responses. By not investigating what had gone wrong it was unable to put matters right. It was also not clear what records the landlord referred to during its complaint investigations as the information does not appear in the records that have been provided to this Service.
36. The Code states that any remedy proposed by the landlord must be followed through to completion. The landlord did not do what it said it would do in respect of completing the repairs and removing the scaffolding. It clearly had not followed its remedies offered through to completion which was a further failing. This caused the resident further time and effort having to pursue his complaint further.
37. This Service considers the above complaint handling failures amount to maladministration. In determining an appropriate order for compensation, consideration has been given to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

Determination (decision)

38. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of various repairs.
39. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s enquiry about upgrades to the kitchen, bathroom, and windows.
40. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request that it regularly inspect the block.
41. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

  The Ombudsman orders that the landlord, within 4 weeks:

42. Provides a written apology to the resident for the service failings identified in this report.
43. Pays the resident £3050 compensation broken down as follows:
    1.        £125 compensation it offered at stage 1 if it has not already done so.
    2.        £700 for the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident in the landlord’s response to the report of a cracked window.
    3.         £600 for the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident in the landlord’s response to the report of a broken fence.
    4.        £700 for the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident in the landlord’s response to the report of damp and mould in the communal area.
    5.        £600 for the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident in the landlord’s response to the report of scaffolding still in situ.
    6.           £75 for the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request that it regularly inspect the block.
    7.        £250 for the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
44. The landlord to provide the resident with an action plan of what works it will be doing in respect of treating the damp and mould in the communal area. This action plan should include timescales. A copy of this should also be provided to this Service also within 28 days.
45. The landlord to write to the resident and confirm how it will monitor the block. A copy should be sent to this Service also within 28 days. The letter should include confirmation of how often it will visit the block and what its inspection will include.
46. The landlord should also write to the resident with a breakdown of the service charge and what this includes if it has not already done so. A copy of this should also be provided to this Service also within 28 days.
47. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1.        Consider the failings identified within this report and:
       1. Review how it will improve its future repair service in relation to damp and mould reports. Reference should be made to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report of damp and mould (October 2021) to demonstrate how it has or will improve its handling of future damp and mould reports.
       2. Review its repair policy. The review should include priority timescales for routine, and planned works and how the landlord intends to communicate with residents if works are delayed.
       3. Carry out a review of its record keeping in relation to its repairs service and in particular in relation to records of visits and inspections. The landlord should refer to the Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Report (KIM) May 2023 to demonstrate how it will improve its service.
48. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with orders also within the timescales set out above.