Southern Housing Group Limited (202207125)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207125

Southern Housing Group Limited

22 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 the resident’s:
1. new build property defects;
2. associated complaint.

Background

The resident holds a shared ownership lease that began on 27 November 2020. The property is a 2 bedroom flat, and was a new build at the commencement of the lease. The landlord is a housing association.

Complaint policy

The landlord’s policy stated that it operated a 2 stage process. It said that it would aim to provide a full response to complaints with 10 and 20 working days, at stages 1 and 2 respectively.
The policy said that where the landlord was unable to meet those timescales, it would explain the reasons why to the resident, and write to them again within a further 10 working days.

Summary of events

On 18 January 2021 the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property in response to a reported gas leak. The contractor found the connection to the resident’s boiler to be unsafe, which it reported to the Health and Safety Executive. On 23 January 2021 the contractor completed works to the resident’s flue. Its accompanying report noted that it would be beneficial to move the position of the resident’s boiler.
On 3 September 2021 the landlord, and its developer, completed an ‘end of defects liability period’ (EOD) inspection of the block that included the resident’s property. The inspection record noted 45 defects throughout the resident’s property, which included a required change to the position of her boiler, a cracked toilet, vermin access, and various ventilation system, flooring, and decorative issues.
Over the remainder of 2021 the resident and landlord exchanged emails regarding her EOD works. In December 2021 the landlord made arrangements that allowed the resident to book her own appointment with an external contractor to attend to the issues with her ventilation system.
During January 2022 the resident explained to the landlord the reasons why the external contractor had been unable to resolve her ventilation system issues. The resident praised the professionalism and expertise of the contractor, and highlighted how much less frustrating matters would have been if the developer had “partners like these”.
During February 2022 the landlord chased the developer for updates, and advised it of the resident’s frustration at the lack of progress with her EOD works. The developer explained that it had had various difficulties, including with its subcontractors.
On 4 March 2022 the resident called the landlord to make her complaint. She said that her EOD works had been outstanding for over a year. The resident said that the defects had been inspected many times, but then ignored.
On 7 March 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. Its internal emails noted the resident’s frustration that her EOD works had been handled very slowly by the developer, and that the landlord was arranging the lowering of her boiler with a separate contractor.
On 18 March 2022 the landlord’s internal communications noted that the resident’s stage 1 complaint response was due that day. The landlord advised the resident that the EOD works would be carried out from 19 to 22 April 2022, and that her boiler works should be done before that. It told the resident that it was awaiting further information, and apologised that it would need to extend its stage 1 investigation timescale. The resident replied to the landlord, and said that she had sent it a list of EOD works earlier that week, which had been outstanding for over 12 months. She asked to be compensated for not having full use of her home, the time spent waiting in for visits, and the disruption to her daily life.
On 1 April 2022 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It acknowledged the works that the resident had said were outstanding, and her wish for them to be completed without further delay. The landlord’s key points were as follows:
1. It accepted that it had found it difficult to get information from the developer, and to arrange a contractor to complete the resident’s boiler works.
2. It provided a list of EOD works, which was colour coded to indicate those that had been closed, those that it was arranging itself, and those that were ongoing with the developer. It said that the developer would undertake its remaining works during the week of 19 April 2022.
3. It offered the resident £900 compensation, which it said was based on £25 for each of the 36 delayed defects.
4. It advised the resident how she could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
On 7 April 2022 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process. She stated that the EOD list that the landlord had provided her was not the one it had agreed at its September 2021 EOD visit. She said that defects were missing from the list, and provided the landlord with her own copy. She asked that the landlord action the defects on the EOD list, and increase its compensation offer to £35 per defect.
On 14 April 2022 the landlord told the resident that it had a backlog of stage 2 complaints, and that it believed it could achieve her expectations more quickly without an escalation. It emphasised that it was the resident’s choice whether to escalate to stage 2 or not, and said that it would review her EOD list before updating her.
On 26 April 2022 the resident told the landlord that she had not heard from it since 14 April 2022. She repeated her previous expectations, and asked that the landlord increase its compensation offer to £50 per defect. She asked the landlord to advise her about escalating her complaint to stage 2.
On 29 April 2022 the landlord’s internal emails discussed the resident’s compensation request, and stated that the resident’s EOD works earlier that month had not gone well. It said that the developer had had issues with materials, and its subcontractors. It said that the resident was extremely frustrated, and that it would be emailing her to apologise, and advise her of the next steps.
On 18 May 2022 the resident asked the landlord for an update on “the stage 2 situation”. The landlord replied to the resident the following day, and provided its updated EOD list, and a works update. It agreed to increase the resident’s compensation offer to £35 per defect, for a total of £1505. It advised that if she remained dissatisfied, she could still escalate her complaint to stage 2.
On 20 May 2022 the resident expressed her frustration at the “massive delay with the communication and confirmation of works”. She highlighted various issues and delays with works including to her internal doors, toilet, towel radiator, ventilation system, flooring, and boiler. She stated that the landlord, and its contractors could not just assume that she could repeatedly “take time off work on an ad hoc basis”.
On 27 May 2022 the resident asked the landlord for an update on her stage 2 complaint. On 16 June 2022 the resident complained to the landlord that it had not responded to her previous request. On 18 July 2022 the resident expressed her frustration to the landlord that she had received no contact from it in several weeks regarding her outstanding EOD works.
On 27 July 2022 the landlord apologised to the resident for the delay in escalating her complaint, which it said was due to a large backlog of stage 2 requests. It explained that her complaint was awaiting allocation to a senior manager, and it would contact her again once this had occurred.
On 4 August 2022 the landlord explained to the resident that stage 2 reviews were normally done by senior managers but that due to the nature of her complaint, its director of the relevant service area wished to personally oversee her review. It said that due to annual leave, it would need to extend its stage 2 deadline from 30 August 2022 to 13 September 2022 to allow this. It stated that it could reallocate the case to a manager if the resident wanted a quicker response, but that it felt it was in her best interest for its director to investigate.
During September 2022 the landlord chased the developer for updates, and to agree to a review meeting. The developer expressed its doubts that a meeting was necessary, and highlighted access issues that it said that it had had with resident, and other properties in the block. The landlord emphasised the resident’s frustration at the volume of defects that remained outstanding over a year after the EOD inspections, and the trust issues created by the “carbon monoxide leak she suffered following her boiler being installed too low”.
On 20 September 2022 the landlord’s director issued the resident its stage 2 complaint response. It referred to its discussion with the resident a few days earlier, and acknowledged that they had been unable to agree a compensation amount. The landlord’s key points were as follows:
1. It acknowledged the length of time the resident’s works had been outstanding, and the high volume of contacts and visits that had occurred. It accepted its service failures, and stated that the resident’s complaint had been upheld.
2. It detailed the learning it had taken from the resident’s complaint. It said that its contract had allowed the developer the scope to reject defects, and deflect responsibility. It advised that it would not procure or manage a contract in this way again.
3. It accepted that there were still 32 EOD items outstanding, and that it would provide fortnightly updates to the resident until they were completed. It offered the resident options regarding the scheduling of the works.
4. It asked the resident if it could complete a final inspection of her property, which it said would assist its contractual position with the developer.
5. It acknowledged the delay at stage 2 of its complaint process, which it said was as a result of a backlog. It offered the resident £1750 compensation broken down as follows:
  1. £1600 for its service failures regarding the multiple defect repair appointments and delays.
  2. £150 for its complaint handling delays.
6. It referred the resident to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Summary of events after the completion of the landlord’s complaint process

The resident and landlord exchanged several emails over October and November 2022. The landlord explained how it was trying to progress the resident’s outstanding EOD works, and its wish to complete a further inspection. The resident stated that she was away from home for a few weeks, and expressed her dissatisfaction that the landlord wanted to complete further inspections of defects that had already been agreed in September 2021, and inspected many times.
During December 2022 the resident agreed that the landlord could carry out a further inspection. On 24 January 2023 the landlord apologised to the resident for the continuing delays, and the time passed since its last contact. The landlord said that it had been through organisational changes that had delayed its inspection visit to the resident, but that it was now ready to progress.
Over February and March 2023 the landlord liaised with the developer regarding the resident’s outstanding EOD works. On 7 March 2023 the landlord advised the resident that the developer would like to begin her works on 20 March 2023. The resident disputed the works proposed by the landlord. She questioned why she would agree to the proposed solution to her flooring issues, which she said the landlord itself had not trusted when the developer had first suggested it 2 years earlier. She asked for clarity on all the outstanding items from the September 2021 EOD list. The landlord provided the resident with an updated EOD list, and agreed to discuss a remedy for the resident’s flooring during the works.
The resident and landlord agreed that the works to lower her boiler would be completed in early April 2023, and undertaken by the external contractor that the resident had previously praised. On 21 April 2023 the landlord asked the resident whether it could instruct the developer to begin her EOD works, apart from her flooring.
On 13 June 2023 the resident told the landlord that she had not heard from it regarding her EOD works since its call to her in early May 2023. The landlord replied to the resident with details of the 17 defects that the developer would attend to, and the 6 matters that it was looking to address itself. It asked the resident to confirm when she could allow the developer access.
On 21 June 2023 the landlord confirmed to the resident that it would use the developer’s materials, but that it had agreed to otherwise remove the developer from the process. It said that it was engaging with the contractor that the resident had previously praised. It advised that it would arrange a 3 way meeting, with a view to the contractor completing her EOD works.
During July 2023 the resident chased the landlord for an update of when her meeting would take place. The landlord told the resident that it was awaiting contact from the contractor.
The landlord told this Service that the meeting took place at the resident’s property on 10 August 2023, and agreed a way forward for the completion of her EOD works.
During this investigation the landlord was asked to confirm the current position of the resident’s EOD works. The landlord provided this Service with a list of 24 defects, of which 13 had a status of, “very likely to have been completed – awaiting confirmation from contractor”. A further 9 defects, which included the resident’s flooring, were shown as “under discussion”. The final item was the resident’s ventilation system, which the landlord’s list said had been serviced in August 2023, but that it was unsure if it was still an issue.
The landlord further advised this Service that its contractor had worked at the resident’s property during November and December 2023, but that despite chasing it, it had had minimal contact from the contractor since.

Assessment and findings

Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether its subsequent actions and offer of redress were fair and proportionate in all the circumstances of the case. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account our Remedies Guidance, and whether the landlord acted in line with its own policies, and the Dispute Resolution Principles; Be fair, Put things right, and Learn from outcomes.
The landlord did not dispute the significant delays in it progressing the resident’s EOD works, nor the difficulties both it, and the resident experienced with its developer. The landlord also accepted the failures in its complaint handling.
The landlord’s attempts to resolve the resident’s EOD works, and its offer of compensation to her, did demonstrate efforts to be fair, and put things right. The landlord’s complaint responses to the resident also detailed its learning. This included an acknowledgment that the nature of its contract with the developer had played a significant role in its service failings, and its commitment to not enter into such an arrangement again.
Nevertheless, it is of concern to the Ombudsman that at the time of this investigation, 2 and a half years after the landlord’s EOD inspection of the resident’s property, the landlord is still unable to confirm the status of the resident’s EOD works.
The landlord’s final complaint response to the resident committed to the completion of her works, and offered significant compensation for the time, trouble, and distress that its prolonged service failures had caused her. However, the resident then experienced similar service failures with the landlord’s handling of its complaint resolution actions over at least the following 14 months. It is therefore the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord’s offer of compensation did not reflect the duration, and impact of its failings.
The landlord also further compounded this with the failures in its complaint handling. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration with both the landlord’s handling of the resident’s defects, and with its handling of her associated complaint.

Defects

The resident experienced a gas safety issue with her boiler in January 2021, which was within a few weeks of the start of her lease. The landlord’s contractor’s subsequent recommendations highlighted issues with the boiler’s installation, and over the following months the resident said that she also reported numerous other defects to the landlord. As such, the resident’s frustration with the volume of issues, and her distrust of the developer’s standards of workmanship, were understandable.
The landlord and its developer completed an EOD inspection on 3 September 2021, and recorded a lengthy list of defects throughout the resident’s property. The landlord’s difficulties with its developer meant that little progress was made in resolving the resident’s EOD works over the remainder of the year, and it was unreasonable that the resident needed to put so much time, and effort into pursing the matter.
Given the difficulties with the developer, it was appropriate for the landlord to make alternative arrangements for the resident’s ventilation system issues, which it did in December 2021. While the contractor that attended the resident’s property in early 2022 was unable to resolve the issues, the resident praised its professionalism, which she notably contrasted with that of the developer’s subcontractors.
The slow progress of the resident’s EOD works continued, and in March 2022 the resident made her complaint to the landlord. At the same time the landlord’s internal records noted that it was arranging an alternative contractor to undertake the repositioning of the resident’s boiler. It was again appropriate for the landlord to explore alternative arrangements when faced with the performance issues of its developer. However, it is of concern that the first evidence of the landlord considering this was not until 7 months after its EOD inspection, and 14 months after the issues with the resident’s boiler installation had first been identified. It is of further concern that the landlord’s records suggested that the boiler repositioning works had still not been completed over 12 months later, in April 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 1 April 2022. It accepted that there were still 36 “delayed defects”, which it said that the developer would address during the week of 19 April 2022. The landlord’s internal communications subsequently acknowledged that the resident’s April 2022 EOD works had “not gone well”, and cited issues with the developer’s subcontractors and materials. While it was appropriate for the landlord to also note that it would be apologising to the resident, she would have again experienced an unreasonable amount of disruption and distress.
Over the following months the resident continued to chase the landlord for updates, and expressed her frustration at its lack of contact and progress. The landlord’s internal communications through this period expressed its own frustration with the developer, and its difficulties in engaging it. Nonetheless, in such circumstances it would be expected that the landlord would at the very least make proactive efforts to keep the resident updated. The landlord’s failure to do so would have further added to the resident’s time, trouble, and distress.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was sent to the resident in September 2022. It referred to the resident’s “32 outstanding items”, which was only 4 fewer than it had acknowledged in its April 2022 stage 1 response. The landlord’s complaint handling is separately considered in the assessment below, but its stage 2 response did not dispute the significant delays, and service failures that the resident had experienced. The landlord offered the resident £1600 compensation for the service failures associated with her EOD works, and it was appropriate for it to commit to providing the resident with fortnightly updates until her works were completed.
The resident was away from home for periods of the 2 months that followed the landlord’s stage 2 response, but agreed to the landlord’s further inspection request in early December 2022. It was therefore unreasonable that the resident did not then hear further from the landlord until 24 January 2023. The landlord’s explanation to the resident that its lack of contact had been due to “organisational changes”, would have done little to mitigate the resident’s frustration.
After several weeks of further discussions, the landlord proposed to the resident that the developer begin her EOD works on 20 March 2023. Over the following weeks the resident disputed the landlord’s proposed works, and the involvement of its developer. It was appropriate for the landlord to want its developer to complete the works that it was responsible for. Nevertheless, as above, the resident’s distrust of the developer’s reliability, and standards was by this stage entirely understandable.
It was subsequently reasonable for the landlord to agree to remove its developer from the EOD works process, and to engage the contractor that the resident had previously praised for its professionalism. Nevertheless, it was unreasonable that the resident continued to find it necessary to chase the landlord for progress, and updates. As is further considered in the assessment below, this did not demonstrate any learning by the landlord from its identified communication failings.
The landlord and its contractor met with the resident on 10 August 2023, and agreed a way forward for the completion of her EOD works. It was however unclear from the information provided to this Service, why the resident’s works did not then begin until November 2023, 2 years and 2 months after the EOD inspection, and 14 months after the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response.
The landlord’s continued service failures and delays in its undertaking of the resolutions promised in its stage 2 response, would have caused additional time, trouble, and distress to the resident, over this further prolonged period. The Ombudsman has therefore made a further compensation order in line with our Remedies Guidance.
Furthermore, it is again of concern that the landlord remains uncertain of the status of much of the resident’s EOD works, and that it has accepted that some defects, including her flooring, remain outstanding. As such the Ombudsman has made a further order to this regard.

Complaint handling

The landlord handled the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its process in line with its policy and, in the main, in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles. As with its handling of the resident’s EOD works, the landlord did not dispute the failings and delays in its handling of the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of its process. This was at a time when the resident was already experiencing significant frustration, and would have further added to her time, trouble, and distress.
The resident made her complaint to the landlord on 4 March 2022. The landlord apologised to the resident 10 working days later, and explained why it had not yet completed its investigation. The landlord issued the resident its stage 1 response a further 10 working days later, all of which was in line with its policy.
The landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged the difficulties that it had had in dealing with the developer, and progressing the resident’s EOD works. It explained to the resident its intentions for her outstanding EOD works, and offered her £900 compensation. This demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to be fair, and put things right. The landlord’s complaint handling at stage 1 of its process was therefore reasonable.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process on 7 April 2022. The resident disputed that the landlord’s EOD list covered all the defects that it had previously agreed, and asked for additional compensation. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request 5 workings days later, but explained why its backlog of stage 2 complaints meant that it may be able to resolve the matter more quickly without an escalation. It was appropriate for the landlord to make clear that it remained the resident’s choice whether to escalate to stage 2, and to promise her an update once it had reviewed her EOD list.
It is expected that landlords maintain sufficient resource to deal with complaints in a timely manner, and in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Nonetheless, given the landlord’s circumstances, it was somewhat understandable that it took the resolution focused approach that it did, while still making it clear to the resident that she retained the right to escalate her complaint.
However, it is reasonable to conclude that following this, the resident was then awaiting the landlord’s promised EOD list update, before deciding how she wished to proceed with her complaint. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord made no further attempt to contact the resident, until she chased it 12 days later on 26 April 2022, and again asked for information regarding how she could escalate her complaint.
By this time the landlord’s developer had made its failed attempt at addressing some of the resident’s EOD works, and the landlord was well aware of the resident’s frustration. It was therefore unreasonable that the resident again found it necessary to chase the landlord for an update on 18 May 2022, which would have further added to her inconvenience, and distress. The landlord did then again demonstrate a resolution focused approach, when it responded to the resident the following day with a full update of her EOD works, and increased its offer of compensation to her.
On 20 May 2022 the resident expressed her intense frustration to the landlord with the delays to her outstanding EOD works. It was unreasonable that the landlord’s contact with the resident then seemingly stopped, and that her stage 2, and works update requests, made in May, June, and July 2022, went unanswered by the landlord until 27 July 2022.
On 27 July 2022 the landlord apologised to the resident for the delay in escalating her complaint, which it again attributed to its large complaint backlog. The landlord told the resident that its director wanted to personally handle her complaint. It explained to the resident that this would cause her stage 2 response to be delayed by a further 2 weeks. As such, it was appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident the choice of whether its director, or a manager handled her complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident on 20 September 2022. This was 113 working days after the resident had first asked for her complaint to be escalated, and 93 working days longer than the timeframe stated in the Code, and the landlord’s own policy. The landlord’s stage 2 response appropriately accepted, and apologised, for its protracted service failings. It explained how it intended to resolve the resident’s complaint, offered compensation, and explained its learning, all of which was in line with Dispute Resolution Principles.
The landlord’s subsequent handling of its proposed resolution to the resident’s complaint has been considered in the assessment above. However, while the landlord’s stage 2 response did appropriately detail its learning, there was little evidence of it in the further months of communication, and service failures detailed in that assessment. It is also the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord’s offer of £150 compensation for its complaint handling failures and delays, was not proportionate to the additional time, trouble, and distress they caused to the resident. A further compensation order has been made to this regard.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s new build property defects.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Reasons

The contractual and performance issues that the landlord experienced with its developer caused significant disruption, inconvenience, and distress to the resident over a prolonged period. At the time of this investigation, the landlord was still unable to confirm the status of many of the resident’s property defects.
The landlord handled aspects of the resident’s associated complaint in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. Its reflection on its contractual difficulties with the developer, and its commitment to not procure or manage a development contract in that way again, demonstrated learning from this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
However, its lengthy continued communication and service failings in undertaking its promised resolutions to the resident’s complaint, failed to demonstrate any learning. Those failings caused significant further time, trouble, and distress to the resident over a prolonged period following the landlord’s final complaint response.
The Ombudsman is completing a special investigation into the landlord’s services, which includes its complaint handling. As part of that process the landlord has provided evidence to this Service of its additional complaint handling resource, and improvement actions. As such, the Ombudsman has not made further orders below related to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks:
1. A director of the landlord writes to the resident to apologise for the identified failings in this report.
2. The landlord completes an inspection of the resident’s property defects, and writes to the resident, and this Service within two weeks of the inspection to:
  1. Confirm the results of its inspection;
  2. Provide an action plan to address any outstanding defects, including timescales for these.
3. The landlord pays the resident £2250 compensation, made up of:
  1. £2000 for the time, trouble and distress caused by the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s defect works;
  2. £250 for the time, trouble and distress caused by the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.
4. This amount replaces the landlord’s own compensation award of £1750 (if that award was paid to the resident it should be deducted from the £2250).
The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to this Service within 4 weeks of this report.