Southern Housing Group Limited (202205336)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205336

Southern Housing Group Limited

28 September 2023

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 concerns the landlord’s handling of:

The resident’s reports of a leak through the bathroom ceiling at the property.
The related complaint.

Background

The resident and her husband were assured tenants. The tenancy was a 6 year fixed term tenancy and started on 2 July 2018.The property was a two bedroom flat in a multi-storey block.
The resident’s two children lived at the property who were aged 1 and 2 years old at the time of complaint. The resident and her family have since left the property.
The landlord did not have any vulnerabilities recorded on its system for the resident’s household.

Scope

The resident raised complaints with the landlord on 9 January 2021 and in April 2021 regarding various issues experienced with the property since moving into the property in 2018 and in relation to a request for a transfer respectively. As these complaints have not been brought to the Ombudsman, the landlord’s handling of these issues has not been assessed in this report.

Summary of events

The timeline in the landlord’s complaint notes state the resident reported the leak to it on 24 March 2020. However, the information in the landlord’s repair history indicates that the leak was reported on 25 March 2020. The resident confirmed to this service that she temporarily moved out of the property on 24 March 2020 because of concerns about safety regarding the leak in the bathroom. It is unclear if the landlord was aware of this at the time.
The landlord’s repair history shows it raised a job with its repair contractor on 25 March 2020 in relation to the reported leak and further works raised on 27 March 2020 to “check electrics in bathroom, water dripping” and on 30 March 2020 to “check for further leak possibly from above flat”. The repair history does not include any details regarding the outcomes of the works raised.
The resident complained to the local authority’s housing renewal (HR) team on 27 March 2020 regarding the leak. They contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf in respect of the ongoing leak.
On 30 March 2020, the resident emailed the landlord stating she had attached a letter regarding a leak from the bathroom ceiling. The Ombudsman has not had sight of the letter referred to by the resident in her communication.
On 31 March 2020, the landlord replied to the resident saying it was sorry to hear there were outstanding repairs at the property. It explained that in normal times it would treat her concerns about the bathroom ceiling as a priority. Due to lockdown a lot of its services were impaired and it was relying on the knowledge of its contractors as to what was deemed to be an emergency. It explained that in this instance, they did not think the ceiling posed as a risk to safety. The landlord stated if things changed and the ceiling got worse, she should contact its repair team and ask them to re-evaluate. It said once the business returned to normal, the repair would be carried out swiftly.
The landlord’s internal communication dated 31 March 2020 refers to needing to contact the tenant of the upstairs flat to check “everywhere where water could access” to locate the leak.
On 7 April 2020, its repair contractor emailed the landlord, providing their operative’s notes from visits of the upstairs flat which showed that on 27 March 2020, they removed the bath panel and replaced the isolating valve on the cold water supply to the cold bath tap. But this did not fix the issue, they then cut back the pipe and refitted isolating valve. The notes show that on 30 March 2020 they repaired a leak to the toilet and advised the tenant not to use the shower because the curtain is too far outside of the bath.
On 7 April 2020, the local authority’s HR team contacted the landlord again and said the resident had told them that the leak had not been repaired. They asked that the landlord contact the resident.
On 8 April 2020, the landlord raised the leak again with its contractors who told the landlord it had not been able to gain access to the upstairs flat when it had tried that day. On the following day, the contractor told the landlord it had visited the upstairs flat and completed a further repair to the pipework under the bath which may be contributed to the leak. They therefore they hoped this had resolved the issue.
On 15 April 2020, the local authority’s HR team told the landlord that it had received an email from the resident that day, who advised the leak was ongoing. The landlord raised this with its contractor on the same date who replied that they would carry out “a full investigation” of each room in the flat that contained a radiator/water service. The contractor referred to having called the resident who advised the “speed and style” of the leak had not changed for the past 2 to 4 weeks.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 April 2020 regarding its handling of the leak. She said she reported it 5 weeks ago and had spoken to various people from the landlord including workmen who had been to the property whom she said, upon seeing the state of the bathroom were “disgusted”. Whilst she understood that the current situation restricted the landlord’s ability to carry out repairs, being told the leak was not a priority was “shocking”.
The resident explained that she had 2 small children living at the property and she could not put their health at risk by bathing them under a drip which was coming from a roof containing asbestos. She and her family had no choice but to decant themselves, meaning they were paying rent and bills for an additional property through no fault of their own. The resident said she was unhappy that her home services manager (HSM) had said she was liable to pay all outstanding rent because they had not been advised by the landlord that the property was unfit to live in. The resident also said she had had difficulties making a complaint and the landlord has not provided call backs when promised.
The landlord replied on 20 April 2020 saying it was sorry to hear she had had a leak within her property for 5 weeks. It told her that in regard to still paying rent and bills for the property, unless she was decanted with authorisation from the HSM, then it would not be able to stop her on going rent liability. It explained residents were not normally decanted unless the property was uninhabitable and it was informed of this by its repairs team. If this was the case, her HSM would then be able to look in to potentially decanting her.
It stated the leak had been escalated to her HSM to try and arrange access to the flats above. HSM would be in touch to advise further. The landlord provided the phone number for its repair team. It said her communication would not be classed as a complaint as there had been no service failure and it was looking into getting the leak resolved.
The resident replied on the same date stating that she was making an “official complaint”. She said that an inadequate service had been provided in relation to the ongoing leak. Her HSM suggested that she strip wash her children while the lockdown was in place which was not a solution to the problem. She and her family had no choice but to decant themselves as the landlord had not resolved the issue adequately nor had any official assessment taken place regarding whether the property was habitable.
On 22 April 2020, the landlord confirmed it had logged her complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process. The landlord stated that it would urgently investigate her complaint regarding the on-going leak from her bathroom. The resident replied on 23 April 2020, confirming that at the moment her main issue was getting the leak and mould in the bathroom addressed.
On 23 April 2020, the leak was rectified when the contractor repaired a leak from a washing machine valve in the upstairs’ flat. The landlord’s repair history show that on the same date it raised a job for a subcontractor to remove the damaged ceiling on 27 April 2020. The landlord’s complaint notes state that a temporary repair was attempted on 27 April 2020 but due to no electricity in the property, this job could not be completed.
On 27 April 2020, the landlord emailed the local authority HR to advise that the leak had been repaired and there was no longer any dripping water from the resident’s bathroom ceiling. It said it had also visited the property to inspect the ceiling and that photos were taken. The landlord stated that a further appointment had been arranged to remove the damaged ceiling and to “sheet over the area”. It said it would then raise a repair for the ceiling to be “over boarded” and decorated however this would be placed on-hold until lockdown restrictions had lifted, when the resident would be contacted to make a convenient appointment.
The landlord raised jobs for works to the ceiling including reconnecting the extractor fan and resecuring the bathroom light. The temporary fix was completed on 7 May 2020.
The resident moved back into the property in mid May 2020.
The landlord’s complaint note dated 5 June 2020 shows its Customer Relations (CR) team made internal enquiries if the works were successfully completed that week as she had begun to review the case for compensation as the resident had requested this. Specifically for a rent refund as she was not living in the property. She asked if anyone was aware if the property or room was uninhabitable due to the leak. The reply from the landlord’s surveyor says whilst they had some involvement in the case. They had not visited the property but from the photos they would not consider the bathroom or the flat, to be uninhabitable but they did not have all the historic information or photos and suggested the repair contractor would have more information to evidence the extent of the repair.
An email to the landlord from its repair contractor dated 9 June 2020 gave an update on works that were completed on 3 and 4 June 2020. This included:
1. plasterboard to the bathroom ceiling.
2. fans replaced in the bathroom and kitchen.
3. mould treatments to walls and ceiling in the bathroom kitchen and bedroom.
4. they also advised an appointment for plasterworks was pending.
The landlord’s repair contractor emailed the landlord on 15 June 2020 advising they had spoken to the resident and re-arranged the following appointments with her and confirmed these by text to her:
1. 16 June 2020, asbestos specialist to remove the remainder of the ceiling
2. 17 June 2020, plasterers to overboard remainder of ceiling and plaster the whole ceiling
3. 18 June 2020, decorator to emulsion bathroom ceiling and treat mould.
On 23 June 2020, the landlord asked its repair contractor if the following previous day’s appointment, all the works at the property had been completed. Its contractor replied on the same date confirming that all the works had been completed.
The landlord’s complaint notes indicate it sent its stage 1 response letter to the resident on 24 June 2020, although this response was dated 5 June 2020. Within its response, the landlord said her complaint concerned a leak in her bathroom coming from the upstairs flat. It acknowledged she had asked for the leak to be rectified and the required repairs to be completed as soon as possible. The landlord also acknowledged her claim for compensation, specifically for a refund of rent charges for the period of time when she and her family were away from the property.
It said it had spoken to its contracts manager and the repair contractor as part of its investigation. In recognition of its service failure and as a goodwill gesture it would like to offer her £100 in compensation which had been calculated based on:
1. £50 for service failure for multiple visits and leak not rectified on 27 March, 30 March, 7 April, 9 April and 23 April 2020.
2. £50 for repair delays from 27 March to 23 April 2020 (28 days).
The landlord’s response did not include any details about how to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process.
On 19 October 2020, the landlord emailed the resident stating it understood she was disputing the outstanding arrears balance on her account which she had requested to be refunded via her complaint. It noted that the compensation offered had not been accepted and so if she remained dissatisfied with this offer, it was able to review this for her via a compensation review which was the final stage of its process. The landlord stated if she would like for this to be completed, she should contact it to confirm this and it would arrange it.
In the resident’s 9 January 2021 complaint raised with the landlord, she referred to her previous complaint regarding the leak from the upstairs flat and the timeframe taken by the landlord to fix this.
On 4 June 2021, the resident made a further complaint about the landlord’s handling of the leak from her bathroom ceiling. She explained the events in 2020 and said that because the ceiling contained asbestos and “began to collapse”, they moved out of the property because it was unsafe. In particular she was concerned about the impact on her and her children’s respiratory systems. The resident stated that was unhappy with its decision not to refund the rent. On 11 June 2021, the landlord told the resident that because this matter was over 6 month old, it was too old to be considered via a complaint.
The resident terminated the tenancy and in early June 2021 and she and her family moved out of the property.
From 8 to 16 March 2022, the resident and her husband were in communication with the landlord’s former tenancy (FT) team regarding rent arrears from when they were not living at the property between 24 March 2020 to 19 May 2020, whilst the landlord traced the leak and made safe the ceiling. In its reply dated 16 March 2022, the FT team referred to the £100 offered but said this was never accepted nor the option for a compensation review or a stage 2 complaint which was also offered. It said if the resident wanted a compensation review, she would need to email the CR team directly for this to be reviewed again, but they could not guarantee this would change the outcome.
On 29 March 2022, the CR team emailed the resident confirming they had now raised this for a compensation review and a response would be provided within 10 working days, by 12 April 2022.
On 22 April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord chasing it for the outcome of its compensation review.
The landlord’s internal communications dated 29 April 2022 stated the resident was waiting for a compensation review and this was now overdue.
The landlord provided a review response on 11 May 2022. Within its response, it apologised for the delay with providing a review and explained this was because the review manager had been on leave. It stated that having looked at the case it could see that the main issue was that the resident felt she should not have to pay rent for the period of time she and her family were away from the property. It said that, at that time the surveyor whose job it was to advise whether a decant was necessary or not, advised the HSM that there was no reason for her family to be decanted. Therefore, it would not pay for alternative accommodation costs. It stated the resident was advised of this “many times”. Ultimately it was the family’s decision to move to alternative accommodation and this was not in any way agreed by it. It said it had looked at the compensation offered which was £100 for the delays to the repairs being carried out. It stated that it therefore would not look to offer any further compensation and the total offer of compensation remained at £100.
On 18 May 2022, the landlord emailed the resident advising her that the 11 May 2022 stage 2 complaint review was the last stage of its complaints process and she could escalate the complaint to the Ombudsman.
On 19 September 2023, the resident provided to this service a video of the leak which confirms constant dripping from the ceiling. She also provided photos of the ceiling both when the leak started and when works had been completed. The resident told this service that the leak started on 21 March 2020 which was when she informed the landlord of the leak. She also explained they decanted from the property due to the leak on or around 25 March 2020 and returned on or around 19 May 2020 after the temporary repair had been completed.

Assessment and findings

Landlord policies and obligations

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places an obligation on a landlord to maintain the structure and exterior of a property. Damp and mould are potential health hazards to be either avoided or minimised in line with the Government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS, and they are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
The landlord’s repair policy states it will complete (or make safe) emergency repairs within 24 hours. Routine repairs will be completed as soon as possible. Its policy also states a further appointment will be arranged for repairs once “everything is made safe”.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints procedure under which it is required to provide a stage one response, within 10 working days. Where a resident is dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint and wants to escalate it to stage 2, they should let it know within 20 working days of the stage 1 complaint being closed. At stage 2 it aims to respond within 20 working days.
The landlord’s complaints policy describes a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, its actions or lack of action, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or a group of residents.
It also says a service request is a request from a resident to it as their landlord, requiring action to be taken to put something right. A complaint will be raised when the resident raises dissatisfaction with the response to their service request.
The landlord’s compensation policy states if after a customer is unhappy with its decision in relation to compensation then, in line with the complaints policy, it will arrange for a senior manager to review the decision which is the last stage of its internal process.

The resident’s reports of a leak through the bathroom ceiling at the property.

In accordance with its obligations the landlord was required to investigate the resident’s reports of a leak into the property and to put right any issues it identified which were its responsibility. The leak in question is described by both parties during the complaints process as “dripping” water coming through the resident’s bathroom ceiling from the upstairs flat. Having reviewed the resident’s video recording of the leak, this confirms the dripping water was constant. In regard to the exact date the leak was reported by the resident to the landlord, the evidence around this is unclear, both within the landlord’s own records and between the two parties. However, the evidence shows the resident reported this to the landlord sometime between 21 March and 25 March 2020.
At the time of the resident’s report, the country was in national lockdown due to the Covid-19 pandemic during which time landlords were only required to deal with emergency repair requests. Leaks are not included in the examples given as emergency repairs in the landlord’s repair policy. However, leaks into a property can be very serious because they can cause rapid mould growth and also risk structural damage. In this case, the landlord was aware that the resident’s bathroom ceiling contained asbestos. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have treated the leak as an emergency and promptly assessed the severity of the leak with the aim of stopping it within 24 hours, in accordance with its repair policy. The resident’s household included 2 young children, aged 1 and 2 years, at the time of the leak. As such it was reasonable to expect the landlord to take the resident’s household vulnerabilities into account by prioritising this repair.
Although the landlord initially raised a job with its contractors to address the leak on 25 March 2020, indicating a prompt response to the resident’s report, the leak was not fixed until 23 April 2020 when the landlord’s repair contractors completed a repair to a washing machine valve in the upstairs flat. Therefore, it is clear the timeframe taken to address the leak was significantly outside the timescale stated in its repair policy. It is recognised that locating the source of an internal leak which is coming from a different property may take longer as the landlord needs to arrange access with the tenant of that property, as in this case. However, the evidence shows that on the majority of occasions, the repair contractors were able to access the upstairs flat when required and they had multiple opportunities to fix the leak. Whilst they carried out some repairs during earlier visits, there is little evidence of the contractor or the landlord contacting the resident to see if the repairs undertaken had resolved the leak. The leak was only stopped after the contractor carried out a “full investigation” of each room in the upstairs flat following multiple reports by the resident that the leak was ongoing. Therefore, the 5 week timeframe taken to address the leak is evidence of an unreasonable delay by the landlord.
The landlord’s repair records indicate that it raised jobs with its repair contractor in relation to the leak on 25 March, 27 and 30 March 2020. However, these records do not include any information about the visits or any outcomes. The lack of detail in its records indicates inadequate information sharing with its contractor and poor record keeping. Some job notes are included in the landlord’s internal communication with its contractor and these show that operatives attended the upstairs flat on 27 and 30 March 2020 to try to locate the source of the leak. However, there is no record of the contractor having visited the property to assess the risk posed by the leak from the bathroom ceiling. Given the circumstances, particularly the asbestos in the ceiling through which the water was dripping, this would have been appropriate.
Although the job notes from the visits on 27 and 30 March 2020 show repairs were made to the bath cold tap and toilet in the upstairs flat, this did not resolve the leak. Following further contact from the resident, the landlord told its contractors on 31 March 2020 to further investigate the upstairs flat to find the source of the leak. It is unclear if any steps were taken over the next few days to resolve the leak and there is no evidence of the landlord following this up with the contractors or checking with the resident to see if the leak had been resolved. Given the urgency of the situation, the failure by the landlord to follow up with the contractor in regard to the progress of the repair, is indicative of it not taking the reported issue sufficiently seriously.
After being contacted by the local authority HR team on 7 April 2020 chasing a fix to the leak on behalf of the resident, the landlord raised this again with its contractors. On 9 April 2020, the contractor told the landlord that it had completed a further repair to the pipework under the bath that they thought may be causing the leak. Again, there is no evidence of the landlord checking with the resident at this time to see if the leak had been resolved which would have been appropriate in the circumstances. It was only following further contact from the HR team on 15 April 2020 and the resident’s formal complaint on 20 April 2020, that its contractor eventually identified the source of the leak on 23 April 2020 after visiting the upstairs flat again.
Therefore, whilst the landlord re-raised the repair with its contractor on each occasion it was informed the leak was ongoing, it failed to closely track the repair with its contractor or check if the issue was resolved with the resident. Had it been more proactive, the leak may have been resolved more quickly. It is clear from the photos of the bathroom ceiling provided to this service that the landlord’s reactive approach to fixing the leak allowed substantial mould growth to the ceiling. It is also reasonable to conclude that the dampness from the leak caused a weakening to the structure of the ceiling and that this posed a significant health and safety risk to the resident and her family. Despite this, on 31 March 2020, the landlord told the resident that its contractor did not think the ceiling posed as a risk to safety. Whilst this suggests that an assessment of the ceiling had taken place, as previously mentioned, there is no record of it risk assessing the impact of the ongoing leak. Given the circumstances, particularly that the ceiling contained asbestos, the landlord ought to be able to demonstrate this and what factors were considered when doing so which it has not done.
The only evidence of an assessment taking place was post fix on 5 June 2020 during the landlord’s stage 1 complaint investigation when it emailed internal teams and its contractor asking if anyone was aware of the property or room being uninhabitable due to the leak. At this point an internal surveyor replied whilst they had not visited the property, from the photos seen, they did not think the bathroom or flat was uninhabitable. No mention was made of the asbestos in the ceiling or the vulnerabilities of the resident’s household. This service does not consider this to be a timely or proper assessment of the health and safety risks posed by the leak.
Once the repair carried out to the valve in the washing machine in the upstairs flat stopped the leak, the landlord took steps to make safe the ceiling by removing the damaged part and securing it with polythene and resecuring the bathroom light and reconnecting the extractor fan. The landlord’s internal communications indicate this work was completed by 7 May 2020. Once restrictions were lifted, plastering and redecoration of the ceiling was carried out and the landlord also applied mould treatments to walls in the property where this was present. These works were completed by 22 June 2020. This service recognises that repairing damage caused by a leak can take some time over a number of appointments. On balance, the landlord took reasonable and prompt steps to ensure the repairs were completed within a reasonable timeframe, particularly when taking into account that restrictions had eased and it would have been dealing with a backlog of repairs.
Nonetheless, this review found that, at times, the landlord showed a lack of empathy with the resident regarding the situation. For example by telling the resident on 31 March 2020 that the leak was not a priority when it had been ongoing for at least 1 week, would have provided little assurance to the resident that it was committed to fixing the leak. Similarly, the suggestion to strip wash her children at the kitchen sink was insensitive and it is accepted this comment would have caused the resident upset.
In summary, whilst the landlord reasonably handled the repairs to the ceiling, there was an unreasonable and extended delay by landlord in tracing and stopping the reported leak in the bathroom. This was due to its contractor’s missing opportunities to identify the source of the leak early on and also because the landlord failed to properly track the progress of the repair which, in the main, it only did after receiving contact from the resident chasing the issue. Inadequate data-keeping was a factor in the landlord failing to closely track the leak. The lack of clear evidence showing that the safety of the ceiling was properly assessed at any stage whilst the leak was ongoing, is also a significant failing as well as the landlord’s poor communication. Overall, the landlord has failed to demonstrate it took the matter sufficiently seriously or that it took into account the household vulnerabilities when handling the leak.
Regarding the resident decanting her and her family from the property, it is clear that she did so without authorisation from the landlord. Whilst it is clear from the landlord’s decant policy authorisation is required, this service recognises that living in a home with 2 very young children without the use of a bathroom would have been challenging. Because of the clear health and safety risks posed by the leak and asbestos in the ceiling which the landlord failed to thoroughly investigate, it is understandable why the resident felt she had no choice but to temporarily decant from the property. It is not clear from the evidence if the resident asked her HSM before decanting. However, it is clear that the landlord’s decision to reject her request for a refund in rent whilst away from the property, was based on the lack of authorisation it gave for the resident’s decant. In its stage 2 review response, it explained the surveyor whose job it was at the time to advise whether a decant was necessary or not, advised the HSM that there was no reason for her family to be decanted, however, as explained above, there is no evidence of an assessment of the leak whilst it was ongoing. This is evidence of maladministration by the landlord.
The landlord’s offer of £100 in compensation made during the complaints process is insufficient. It does not recognise the extent of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident or the quantifiable losses incurred as a result of the landlord’s failings identified in this investigation. In the circumstances, in addition to the £100 already offered by the landlord, it is reasonable for the landlord to pay the resident further compensation of £764.30. This is based on:

£514.30 as an approximate rent refund whilst the resident was away from the property from 31 March 2020 when the landlord told the resident that the leak was not an emergency, to 7 May 2020 when the temporary fix was provided (38 days at £13.53 per day calculated using the resident’s weekly rental charge at that time of £95).
£350 in compensation for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble.

The above compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases where maladministration has been found which includes when there has been a failure by the landlord over a considerable length of time to act in accordance with its policy including to address repairs, but there is no permanent impact on the resident.

Complaint handling

When the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of the leak in her email dated 20 April 2020, in its initial reply the landlord stated that it would not treat this as a complaint because it was looking into getting the leak repaired and there was no service failings. It is clear that the resident’s communication met the definition of a complaint given in the landlord’s complaints policy. Furthermore, because the resident had already contacted it a number of times during the prior 4 weeks in regard to fixing the ongoing leak, it was unreasonable for the landlord to treat this contact as a further service request. Therefore, its response was inappropriate.
After the resident explicitly stated she was making an official complaint, the landlord then appropriately logged the complaint at stage 1 of its process. The landlord however sent its stage 1 response to the resident on 24 June 2020 indicating it failed to adhere to the timescales in its complaints policy. It also dated the response as 5 June 2020 which was inappropriate as this did not reflect when this was provided to the resident. Further, the landlord’s stage 1 response was very brief and did not fully respond to all the points made, for example it did not explain the basis of rejecting the resident’s request for a rent refund. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) makes clear landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. Therefore, its failure to do so here together with the other failings set out above is evidence of poor complaint handling.
The stage 1 response also failed to signpost the resident to the next stage of its process. This is a failing. Although the landlord later offered the resident a ‘compensation review’ on 19 October 2020 after its accounts team had been in communication with her about the rent arrears which she had previously requested a refund of. There is no evidence to show the resident replied to its email however, when the resident raised the issue again in January 2021 the landlord did not escalate this to stage 2 or explain why it had not. Given the lack of clarity previously provided around escalation, this was a failing.
It is noted that when the resident raised the same issue on a further occasion in June 2021, the landlord declined to review this under stage 2 of its complaints process, advising the resident this was because the leak had happened more than 6 months ago. However, the landlord then agreed to carry out a stage 2 compensation review in 2022, and provided this to the resident on 11 May 2022 after which it signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
Whilst having agreed to escalate her complaint to stage 2 in March 2022 it was appropriate for the landlord to do so, based on the above findings, it is clear that the landlord failed to follow or apply its complaints process on multiple occasions throughout its handling of the resident’s complaint. It is reasonable to conclude this caused confusion to the resident and it is also clear this resulted in a protracted and prolonged complaints process.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling the resident’s reports of a leak through the bathroom ceiling at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling the resident’s related complaint.

Reasons

There was an unreasonable delay by the landlord in addressing the leak and no evidence of it risk assessing the impact of the ongoing leak on the resident and her young family. This shows it did not take into account the resident’s household vulnerabilities and its offer of redress failed to reflect the extent of the impact of its failings on the resident and her family.
Its failure to follow its complaints process, particularly the timescales at both stage 1 and 2 caused confusion and led to extended delays and ultimately, resolution of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord, within 4 weeks:

Provides an apology to the resident in respect of the failings outlined in this review.
Pays the resident, in addition to the £100 offered during the complaints process, further compensation of £1,014.30 comprised of:

£764.30 in relation to failings whilst handling the reports of a leak through the ceiling of the property (£864.30 in total).
£250 for complaint handling failures.

The landlord may apply the compensation to the resident’s rent arrears clearing any debt, making a direct payment to the resident for the remaining balance.

If it has not already done so in compliance with orders raised in other determinations, provide us with a timeline for providing staff training on complaint handling, which includes when to log a stage 1 complaint and when to escalate to stage 2 of its complaint process.
If not already done so, the landlord is to provide a copy of the action plan and proposed actions in light of its agreed self-assessment with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report Knowledge and Information Management.
Provides this service with evidence of compliance with the above within 4 weeks.