Southern Housing Group Limited (202214428)

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214428

Southern Housing Group Limited

09 October 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

1. The complaint concerns the resident’s request for the landlord to:
   1. Replace the sub-flooring of the main bedroom, second bedroom, living room and hallway.
   2. Provide temporary accommodation and storage whilst it carries out the subfloor replacement works, and;
   3. The associated formal complaint into these issues.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat in a communal building.
3. The resident has had an ongoing dispute with the landlord relating to the condition of the flooring in the property since at least 2017. In November 2017 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord concerning the poor quality of the work from its contractor who had replaced the flooring. In its complaint responses, the landlord offered the resident £1,592.76 compensation and agreed to resolve the outstanding issues with the flooring. The resident brought the case to this Service to consider and a report was sent to the resident and the landlord on 10 October 2019. This Service found that the landlord had offered reasonable redress to the resident, and recommended that it pay the compensation and complete the outstanding work to the flooring if it had not done so already.
4. On 2 June 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord and requested to raise a new complaint into how it had handled the issue since the conclusion of the previous complaint. She described the elements of the complaint as:
   1. Following the first complaint into the matter, the landlord had agreed to replace the flooring and temporarily rehouse (decant) the resident’s household while the work was completed. However, during a visit to the property in November 2021, the landlord’s contractor had stated that no repairs were necessary.
   2. The resident arranged for an independent contractor to inspect the property in February 2022 and received the report in March 2022. She then contacted the landlord on 19 April 2022 to arrange to be decanted, passed on a copy of the report to the landlord’s contractor on 26 April 2022 and agreed an appointment date of 30 May 2022 to have the flooring repaired. However, this appointment was cancelled.
   3. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that the landlord explain why it had delayed the work, complete the repairs to the flooring, and to arrange for the resident’s household to be decanted and her furniture put in storage for the duration of the works.
5. In its complaint responses, the landlord:
   1. Confirmed that it would not comment on any elements considered in the previous complaint into the matter.
   2. Explained that following correspondence with the resident, it had arranged an inspection of the flooring by its contractor. The inspection had found the condition of the flooring to have been installed to a reasonable standard. The inspection recommended repairs to repair holes around the radiator pipes and to fix the threshold strip between one of the bedrooms and the hallway. Therefore, the landlord would not replace the floor but would undertake the recommended repairs.
   3. Declined the residents request to be decanted and her furniture to be put in storage as it was not required for the type of repairs needed to the flooring.
   4. Noted that while the report from the resident’s surveyor had stated that areas of the flooring were “at risk of collapse” it had also stated that these same areas were “considered to be within given tolerances of being level”. Based on this report the landlord had suggested a joint inspection between it’s and the resident’s surveyors to inspect the highlighted areas. This had been declined by the resident who had requested an independent third-party surveyor be contracted to undertake the inspection. This was accepted by the landlord, and it would arrange a suitable appointment date with the resident.
   5. Acknowledged that the resident had received poor communication from it and that there had been delays in responding to her correspondence. The landlord offered £250 compensation, which it broke done as £100 for the delay in escalating the complaint to stage two, £50 for the delay in arranging the November 2021 inspection and £100 for the time and trouble caused to the resident in chasing the matter. The landlord also stated that it would consider offering further compensation based on the findings of the inspection by the third-party surveyor.
6. In referring the case to this Service, the resident described the outstanding issues of the complaint as the landlord should have replaced the flooring as agreed in the original complaint, that her household should be decanted and her furniture put in storage while the work was undertaken. The resident also stated that the level of compensation the landlord had offered was not adequate in light of the length of time the matter had been outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

7. Section 4c of the tenancy agreement relates to repairs of the structure of the property, This, in part, states that the landlord agrees to “to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the Premises including: internal walls, floors and ceilings, doors and door frames, door hinges and skirting boards but not including internal painting and decoration”.
8. The landlord’s repair policy categorises its repair types as “Emergency” (attend within 24 hours) and “Routine” (complete as quickly as possible at a time that suits the resident). An emergency repair is defined by the landlord as a repair that presents “an immediate risk to safety, security or health”. All other repair types are considered routine by the landlord. The repairs policy does not provide a specific timeframe for responding to routine repairs. Standard industry practice is to arrange an appointment within 30 calendar days of a routine repair being reported.
9. The landlord’s decant policy states it will look to temporarily or permanently rehouse a household in circumstances where:
   1. “We need a decant programme to allow refurbishment, demolition or disposal;
   2. Major works are needed because of structural instability, faulty or dangerous wiring, or serious damp;
   3. There is disrepair, such as less serious damp, rotten woodwork, etc.;
   4. The property is declared unfit by the local authority Environmental Health service.”
10. In regard to furniture storage, the decants policy notes that the landlord “will arrange removals, and where possible other services, for decanting residents to ensure value for money”.
11. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage one within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
12. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will considering offering financial redress in circumstances where “there is evidence that there has been a service failure that we’re responsible for, that has caused loss, damage or inconvenience, and has been recorded onto our case management system as either a service dissatisfaction or as a complaint”.

The landlord’s response to the resident request for it to replace the sub-flooring of the main bedroom, second bedroom, living room and hallway

13. When it was informed by the resident of her dissatisfaction with how it was handling the repairs to the flooring following the conclusion of the previous complaint, the landlord had a duty to ensure that it had responded to the matter in line with the obligations set out in the tenancy agreement and its published policies and procedures. The landlord’s records state that:
    1. It corresponded with the resident in September and October 2021 about the resident’s dissatisfaction with how it was handling repairs and its decision not to replace the flooring. The landlord arranged an inspection of the flooring on 3 November 2021. The landlord wrote to the resident on 29 November 2021 to inform her of the results of the inspection, as described in the background above.
    2. The resident wrote to the landlord on 12 December 2021 disputing the inspection findings and stating her intention to arrange an independent survey. The resident wrote again on 26 April 2022 to inform it that the survey had gone ahead and that she would send it a copy. An internal landlord email sent on 3 May 2022 confirmed receipt of the report.
    3. The resident’s surveyor’s report, undertaken on 15 March 2022, concluded that while the flooring was within best practice tolerances and relevant building regulations, it identified several outstanding issues; particularly with the quality of the floor construction in one of the bedrooms.
    4. In an internal email sent on 6 May 2022 commenting on the report, the landlord noted that the recommended work from the 3 November inspection to fix the threshold strip would resolve the issues the resident’s surveyor raised concerning the bedroom. The landlord also noted that the photographs the resident’s surveyor relied on for the areas of the property were unable to rely on as they had been taken before the original work to replace the flooring had been completed.
    5. In light of these disagreements, the landlord and resident agreed that an independent third-party surveyor would undertake a further inspection. However, this inspection had yet to take place as the resident informed the landlord she would not agree to an appointment date until the complaint process had been concluded and she had received the report from this Service.
14. Overall, the landlord has acted appropriately to the resident’s reports. There is a clear dispute between the landlord and the resident as to the condition of the flooring and what work is required to bring it up to an acceptable standard. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange an inspection in November 2021 to determine what work remained outstanding, then write to the resident to explain the findings of the inspection and confirm what repairs it would undertake. It is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the findings of its qualified staff and contractors when making a determination on what work is needed and how to categorise these. In this case, the recommended repairs were considered to be routine and able to be completed while the resident remained in the property.
15. When the resident disputed the landlord’s conclusions and provided a surveyor’s report which she stated supported her position that the flooring needed to be replaced, the landlord acted appropriately by passing on the report to its repairs team to review and then by offering to arrange a joint inspection in order to reach a consensus as to what outstanding work to the flooring was required. While this offer was rejected, the resident’s counter-offer of commissioning a third-party surveyor to undertake an inspection of the flooring was accepted by the landlord and it agreed to find a suitable surveyor and arrange the appointment.
16. The landlord has taken the resident’s surveyor’s report seriously, reviewed the report and while it concluded that both it’s and the resident’s inspections were in broad agreement that the flooring did not require complete replacement, it was appropriate for it to agree to the resident’s request for a further inspection by a third-party surveyor, in order for both parties to reach an agreement on what repairs would be undertaken.
17. It was also appropriate for the landlord to inform the resident that it would consider offering further compensation if the third-party surveyor identified additional repairs not picked up by the landlord’s own inspection in November 2021. If additional further repairs were identified, the landlord would be expected to compensate the resident in recognition of the delays she experienced in having this work completed.
18. Having considered the circumstances, an order has been included below requesting that a joint inspection is conducted between the resident’s independent surveyor and a newly qualified independent surveyor that is chosen by the landlord, it is noted that FFT surveyors was being considered by the landlord so it may be appropriate to instruct them. The joint inspection will focus on agreeing the scope of works and the need for any temporary accommodation. Once this is agreed, the works will then be completed and overseen by the surveyors. It is important to note that once the joint inspection is completed, both parties must comply with the information outlined in the report. This has been written as an order instead of a recommendation due to the failing identified below regarding the offer after internal complaints procedure.
19. In its stage one response letter dated 30 June 2022, the landlord offered £100 for repair delay and the service failure identified. Following this offer, the stage two response letter dated 9 September 2022 – sent to the resident on 23 September 2022 – was issued. The resident brought their complaint to this Service after the stage two response and confirmed that they received an updated stage two response letter from the landlord dated 22 December 2022. The updated response letter increased the compensation to £250, which it broke down as £100 for the delay in escalating the complaint to stage two, £50 for the delay in arranging the November 2021 inspection and £100 for the time and trouble caused to the resident in chasing the matter.
20. Under the circumstances, as this increase was not offered in the first stage two response and was only offered 3 months after the response was sent, this Service does not find this to be reasonable and would consider this a service failure, this is particularly considering the fact that the landlord did not state that an additional offer would follow as it was still considering the appropriate compensation amount.
21. This Service has considered whether the amount of £250 offered by the landlord was reasonable. The landlord offered £150 for the delay in arranging the November 2021 inspection and the time and trouble caused to the resident for chasing the matter. Having reviewed all of the evidence, this Service does not consider this amount to be reasonable. Following the covid delay since the historical report was issued in 2019, the resident contacted the landlord in July 2021 and raised concerns relating to the outstanding repairs, the landlord did not action this until November 2021 when it completed its inspection – almost 4 months after the initial contact was made. After the inspection was completed, a number of minor repairs were raised in the report; however, the evidence shows that only the damaged door that could not close properly was repaired on 8 March 2022.
22. As such, this Service considers it reasonable that the landlord makes a payment of £400 to the resident in recognition of the delay. This Service has considered the length of the delay; the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for having to chase the matter; the poor communication by the landlord. The Ombudsman is entitled to make its own determination on the level of compensation based on its assessment of the impact of the landlord’s failures when dealing with issues a resident has raised. When considering this impact, the Ombudsman is not limited to a landlord’s compensation policy. Instead, it focuses on what it deems fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
23. Following on, it appears that the work completed on 8 March 2023 did not include the two outstanding repairs that were identified in the November 2021 report. If the work that was completed did include the outstanding repairs, the landlords work notes do not support this. As such, an order has been included below requesting that the landlord complete these repairs within four weeks from the date of this report if it has not done so already.

The landlord’s decision to decline the resident’s request for her household to be decanted and her furniture put in storage

24. The resident has stated her dissatisfaction that the landlord has not agreed to arrange for her household to be decanted and her furniture put in storage while the work to the flooring is completed. The landlord has explained that the scope of work required to the flooring does not require the resident to be rehoused.
25. The landlord’s position is line with its policy detailed above. The type of work recommended in both it’s and the resident’s inspection reports does not constitute major works and therefore its reasonable for the landlord to decline the resident’s decant request.
26. If the third-party surveyor recommends further work which is intrusive in nature, then the landlord would be expected to consider decanting the household in line with its policy. However, as this inspection has yet to go ahead at the writing of this report there is no evidence of service failure by the landlord in declining the resident’s request to be decanted at this stage.

The landlord’s complaint handling

27. The resident wrote to the landlord on 4 July 2022 requesting an escalation complaint to stage two. A stage two complaint response was then sent on 9 September 2022, 30 working days outside of the landlord’s published target of 20 working days.
28. The landlord offered £100 for the delay in escalating the complaint to stage two. As the delay was a total of around 2 months, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident for this delay and offer £100 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience the delay had caused her. The amount of compensation offered was proportionate and reasonable based on the length of the delay and the impact upon the resident and her family. It was also reasonable that the landlord wrote to the resident on several occasions in July and August 2021 to apologise for the delay in progressing the complaint at stage two and explained that it was a result of staffing issues.
29. With this being said, as the offer of £100 was not made at the time the stage two response was sent, and was subsequently made 3 months after the internal complaints process, a failing has been found in relation to the unreasonable delay in making the offer.
30. When bringing the case to this Service, the resident also highlighted her dissatisfaction that she was not offered a panel review at stage two. The resident noted that the complaints policy on the landlord’s website stated that a complainant is able to request a panel review and she was not made aware that the complaints policy had recently changed.
31. While this did not cause any additional delays to the complaint as the resident followed the instructions given in the stage one response on how to request an escalation, an order has been included requesting that the landlord review the procedures it has in place to update the policies/ complaints leaflet on its website to ensure they are the versions currently in use.

Determination

32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to replace the sub-flooring of the main bedroom, second bedroom, living room and hallway.
33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.
34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its decision to decline the resident’s request to be decanted and her furniture put in storage.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to, within four weeks of the date of this report:

35. Pay the resident compensation of £500. This amount is inclusive of the £250 already offered, which can be deducted from the total amount if already paid, and breaks down as follows:

–          £400 for the failings identified in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to replace the sub-flooring of the main bedroom, second bedroom, living room and hallway.

–          £100 to recognise the landlord’s poor complaint handling.

36. Complete a joint inspection between the resident’s independent surveyor and a newly qualified independent surveyor chosen by the landlord, this should be completed within 6 weeks. The joint inspection will focus on agreeing the scope of works and the need for any temporary accommodation. Once this is agreed, the works will then be completed and overseen by the surveyors within a reasonable time that is specified within the report.
37. Complete repairs to the outstanding matters identified in the November 2021 report; namely fixing the threshold strip between the bedroom and the hallway, and repairing the holes around the radiator pipes if it has not already done so.
38. The landlord reviews the procedures it has in place and update the policies/complaints leaflet on its website to ensure they are the versions currently in use.
39. Evidence of compliance to be provided to this Service within four/six weeks of the date of this report.