Southern Housing Group Limited (202205237)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205237

Southern Housing Group Limited

13 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of general repairs to the property.
   2. Response to reports of damp and mould within the property.
   3. Response to the resident’s concerns regarding ceiling tiles.
   4. Complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident was an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom ground floor flat. He resided in the property with his wife. Both had a number of medical conditions which the landlord was aware of when the resident began the tenancy. The property was within a sheltered housing block.
3. During a viewing of the property, the resident had raised some repair concerns with the landlord. The resident moved into the property on 30 May 2022. On moving in, the resident raised the same repair issues plus some additional repairs. On 7 June 2022 the resident requested a move to a neighbouring vacant property. This was due to the impact the outstanding repairs were having on the resident’s and his wife’s health.
4. The landlord did not agree to move the resident on the basis of health but said he could be put on the priority move list, as they only required a 1-bedroom property. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 15 June 2022. He was unhappy with how he had been treated. He stated that he had been advised the vacant property he had requested to move to was now taken, and that his only option would be to provide 4-weeks’ notice to get a move. He raised a number of concerns regarding his and his wife’s health. He also noted that none of the repairs had been completed.
5. The landlord responded to the stage 1 on 29 June 2022. It stated that a void inspection was completed, but that the repairs the resident raised would not have been identified during that inspection. It confirmed that all work was now booked in and apologised for the delay. The resident had requested a decant while the repairs were outstanding, but the landlord advised this was not necessary as works could be completed in situ.
6. On 30 June 2022 the resident emailed as he was not happy with the outcome of the complaint. He stated that no one had been out to look at the property. He said that he had been in hospital and the doctor advised this visit was due to mould in the property. The landlord responded on 6 July 2022 informing the resident that it needed more information to escalate the case to stage 2.
7. The resident continued to report that he was unhappy, and the landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 7 February 2023. The landlord responded on the 21 February 2023. It stated that mould had not been mentioned. It also felt it had addressed concerns with the ceiling tiles and noise issues which the resident had raised. It offered £80 in compensation. On 22 February 2023 it added a further £75 in compensation.
8. The resident was granted a priority move and no longer resides in the property. However, he remains unhappy with the compensation offer and the landlord’s complaints responses.

Assessment and findings

Handling of general repairs to the property

9. Before taking on the property the resident identified repairs that needed completing. He raised concerns that the pull cord for assistance was redundant, although there is no evidence supporting whether the resident required this service. He raised a concern about the living room window seal, and ceiling tiles not being secure, leaving exposed wires. The resident also asked whether the flooring was non-slip in the kitchen and living room. An internal email on 18 May 2022 has been seen by the Ombudsman, in which the landlord was trying to ascertain if these works would be resolved before the move in date. There was no email confirming that these would be completed, or evidence that this was communicated to the resident.
10. On the day the resident moved into the property, he raised the same repairs, plus some additional concerns. This included a request for a rail or ramp at the front steps for access to the property. The landlord considered these repairs and stated what action it would take. It also recommended that a referral be made to occupational therapy if a ramp was needed.
11. Between 7 and 9 June 2022 there were internal emails within the landlord as the resident had requested a priority move. The landlord recognised that there were repair issues that needed to be resolved and that the resident had reported these were having an impact on his and his wife’s health. It did not consider this to be enough for a priority move, however it did agree to a priority move on the basis that the property was 2-bedroom and the residents only needed a 1–bedroom property.
12. On 10 and 13 June 2022 the landlord shared further internal emails regarding necessary repairs. It also raised that a bathroom railing was needed. The landlord stated that if it knew which type of railing was required, it could raise an order for this. It also referred to an occupational therapy assessment for more complex repairs. Given the residents vulnerabilities and needs, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to refer them for an occupational therapy assessment. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence this happened.
13. The resident raised a complaint on 15 June 2022. He felt he had been treated badly by the landlord. He stated that the work was supposed to be done before they moved in. He also advised they had been promised a ramp or rail at the front door. The resident advised that both he and his wife were suffering, and it had significantly affected his mental health. The resident raised concerns the ceiling might not be insulated as he could hear excessive noise from above. The landlord noted on this day that a number of repairs needed to be completed. It also stated the priority move had been exhausted, which was different to earlier communications suggesting the move could go ahead.
14. On the 29 June 2022 the landlord’s records indicated that all repairs were booked and would be completed in July. It stated that the repairs were not visible at the time of the void checks, and that the property passed its electric checks. There was no mention on this record of the request for a rail or ramp from the front step or the request for a bathroom rail to be installed. It also did not acknowledge the resident’s question regarding whether the floor was non-slip. These repairs presented potential risk to the resident, given their mobility concerns. There was also no note regarding the resident’s concerns of excess noise due to poor ceiling insulation.
15. On 22 August 2022 an internal note stated that the repairs were outstanding. The landlord had stated that as the resident was intending to do a property exchange, repairs would not be carried out. However, the landlord also recognised that the resident had been informed he would need to remain in the property for a year before he could do an exchange. The landlord gave conflicting information to the resident regarding the completion of repairs and the potential priority move. It is noted that the landlord did not consider the repairs to be urgent, however, the resident had raised on a number of occasions that they were having an impact on him and his wife. The landlord’s policy states that non-urgent repairs will be done as soon as possible. There is no evidence regarding why the landlord did not attend the appointments it had booked in July, or that it communicated this to the resident.
16. On 15 September 2022, Citizen’s Advice wrote a letter raising concerns regarding the repairs. It also stated that the shower not draining was a slip hazard. It appears the landlord did not respond to this letter.
17. The resident moved properties on 23 January 2023. In its stage 2 response, (after the move) the landlord stated that the noise had been investigated and was considered day to day noise. Although the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of this investigation, day to day noise would not normally warrant further action by the landlord. The landlord acknowledged that it did not complete or follow up on the repairs which it had promised to do. The landlord offered compensation of £15 for staff not following the correct process for reporting repairs, £15 for lack of communication and £50 for repairs not being done. The landlord offered a further £75 the following day. The landlord was aware of significant vulnerabilities and that the residents were reporting concerns within the property that were having an impact on their health. It failed to do any risk assessment or communicate what was happening to the resident.
18. Although the landlord has acknowledged the failure to repair in its stage 2 response, its compensation has not made any allowances for the number of repairs that were required. The Ombudsman recognises that these were not necessarily emergency repairs, but they were impacting on the resident. It failed to demonstrate that it considered any of the adjustments that the resident requested. The resident was only updated when he chased the repairs and the information he was given was inconsistent. As such there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of general repairs to the property.
19. The Ombudsman has noted that the resident no longer resides at the property. As such no orders will be made in relation to uncompleted repairs.

Response to reports of damp and mould within the property

20. The resident advised the landlord on 30 June 2022 that he had been in hospital due to mould in the property. This was noted in an internal email. Citizen’s Advice also reported that mould spores were affecting the resident’s health in its letter of 15 September 2022. On 8 November 2022 a social prescriber wrote a letter to the landlord, in which they also cited mould as one of the concerns. The resident has also advised that he made his housing officer aware of the mould, although the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of this.
21. In its stage 2 response the landlord stated that it had not been made aware of any mould concerns. There were 3 evidenced reports of mould being a problem. The landlord had been made aware that there were concerns that this could be affecting health. This was also apparent in an internal email, which evidences that the landlord was aware of the mould reports.
22. The Ombudsman cannot confirm whether there was mould at the property. However, the records show that it was reported on more than one occasion and the landlord failed to act. It has also not acknowledged in its complaint response that it had records showing mould had been reported. As such there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the response to reports of damp and mould within the property.
23. In investigation report 202126007, the Ombudsman has previously ordered the landlord to review the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould and the recommendation for a separate damp and mould policy. It is understood the landlord complied with this order; therefore, no further orders have been made in this regard. The Ombudsman takes this opportunity to remind the landlord of the importance with which any report of damp and mould should be treated.

 Response to the resident’s concerns regarding ceiling tiles.

24. On 7 June 2022 the GP wrote a letter that the fibreglass boards on the ceiling were discharging dust, and these were making the resident’s wife itchy and wheezy. On being aware of a potential risk to health, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to conduct a risk assessment. There is no evidence this took place. It may also have been appropriate to conduct a visit to assess the resident’s concerns. There is no evidence this was considered or arranged.
25. On 15 June 2022, the resident made the landlord aware that his wife was allergic to the ceiling tiles, which he stated were made of fibreglass. He advised this was having an impact on both their health. The resident further reported the concerns around the ceiling tiles in an email on 20 June 2022. He again reported that his health was being impacted by the tiles on 23 June 2022. The landlord was told again about the allergy to the ceiling tiles on 30 June 2022 at which point it stated that it had not been informed of this previously. The landlord should be aware when a resident raises a concern, especially when the resident has mentioned impact on health.
26. The landlord stated it needed medical records that would support that the resident was allergic to the ceiling tiles. It advised the resident in an email on 6 July 2022 that it would need to understand specifically what the resident was allergic too. This was a reasonable request from the landlord. The landlord also undertook an asbestos check on 11 July 2022 and confirmed this was negative. This was an appropriate action by the landlord to check for harmful substances.
27. The landlord requested medical evidence again on 12 July 2022. The resident advised that he was unwilling to give further medical evidence as he had already provided evidence and that it was costly to get a further GP letter. While the Ombudsman understands that it would cost the resident to get further medical evidence, it was reasonable for the landlord to request this so it could appropriately decide on its next steps.
28. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on any causation of health conditions as it is not an expert in this field. Although the resident raised concerns, there is no conclusive evidence which confirms that the ceiling tiles were a risk. The landlord took appropriate action in checking for asbestos. However, on being made aware by a GP of a risk, it would have been appropriate to conduct a risk assessment. The landlord also did not acknowledge the resident’s concerns until it had been raised 5 times. As such there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding ceiling tiles.

Complaint handling

29. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 17 June 2022. In its acknowledgement, it outlined what it believed the resident’s concerns were and asked if any information was missing. It was good practice from the landlord to ensure it had understood the complaint. However, the resident responded on 20 June 2022, mentioning several areas that the landlord had not acknowledged. The landlord did not consider or acknowledge these points in the complaint response. This made the landlord’s action of seeking clarity on the complaint redundant and it would have caused frustration to the resident, who would have felt that his concerns were not being heard.
30. The stage 1 was acknowledged within 10 working days which was in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. The response addressed some of the repairs that were outstanding and confirmed dates that these would take place. However, it failed to acknowledge all issues. The response also contained copied and pasted internal communications. For example, the letter stated that “the new residents have reported some minor issues which UL need to investigate”. This is impersonal and the acronyms were unclear. Other internal communications in the stage 1 response showed the landlord discussing what repairs it might not be able to do and asking that it be passed back once an investigation had been done. This was an internal communication meant for a team within the landlord but could have been interpreted that the resident was responsible for the investigation.
31. The resident emailed that he was unhappy with the response. He advised that the ceiling tiles were having a significant impact on his health and that he felt the issues had not been addressed. The landlord responded to this on 6 July 2022 advising it needed specific information about what was not addressed. It also stated it could not consider the impact on health as this would need to be done through a personal injury claim. While the request from the landlord is reasonable, it is understood by the Ombudsman this would have been frustrating, given the landlord’s failure to address all concerns at stage 1 of the complaint process.
32. An internal email on 7 July 2022 stated that the stage 2 complaint had been picked up by the landlord. It did not acknowledge the complaint until the 7 February 2023. The Ombudsman also contacted the landlord on 9 February 2022 to request a stage 2 response. It was 159 working days between the landlord recognising the complaint as a stage 2 and responding to this. This is significantly out with the landlord’s complaints policy of 20 working days.
33. The stage 2 response did not address or acknowledge any delays in complaints handling. The response also contained conflicting information which could have been confusing to the resident. It stated that the landlord had been unable to find any service failures in the repairs process, as the repairs the resident reported were not followed up. However, it subsequently wrote that it was upholding this part of the complaint, as staff failed to action the repairs and the repairs remained outstanding. The Ombudsman believes that the landlord was stating that the service failure was due to staff error and not due to any system error. However, the landlord should have been clearer with the resident.
34. The responses did not fully address the resident’s concerns. There were substantial delays to the stage 2 response, which have not been acknowledged or addressed. The information in both the stage 1 and stage 2 was not presented in a way that would be easy to read for the resident. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

35. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of general repairs to the property.
    2. Response to reports of damp and mould within the property.
    3. Complaint handling.
36. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding ceiling tiles.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

37. The landlord is ordered to issue an apology to the resident. This should be clearly written, in a way that is easy for the resident to understand.
38. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £700 compensation. This is broken down as:
    1. £300 for the failures to complete the repairs and the poor communication around these.
    2. £150 for the failure to identify and investigate the residents reports of mould.
    3. £200 for the complaint handling failures.
    4. £50 for the failure to identify and investigate the residents reports in relation to the ceiling.
    5. The landlord may deduct any compensation payments that it has already made from the above.
39. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of this report being issued.
40. The landlord is ordered to have a senior member of staff review the report. It should ensure that where appropriate training and feedback is given to the relevant teams. The landlord should identify what corrective action it has already taken or intends to take to avoid future residents reporting repairs, or damp and mould and not receiving a response. The landlord should share its findings with the Ombudsman within 8 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations.

41. It is recommended that the landlord review its quality assurance policy for complaints responses to ensure that the responses are clear and easy to read.
42. The landlord should consider a review of its process for recording when a resident raises a concern that might impact their health. It is also recommended that the landlord provide staff training on this.