Southern Housing Group Limited (202214697)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214697

Southern Housing Group Limited

31 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of leaks at the property, including the subsequent repairs.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident lives in a top-floor two-bedroom flat under an assured tenancy agreement.
In March 2022, the resident reported leaks coming from a hole in the roof of the property and from cracks in the walls above the windows. This resulted in leaks in every room of the property every time it rained.
In the absence of any repairs or communication from the landlord, the resident raised a complaint on 13 July 2022. She was dissatisfied that:
1. the reported leaks had not been repaired
2. there was a large hole in the roof of the property
3. a surveyor had attended her home on 9 June 2022, but that she had received no further contact from the landlord about the repairs
4. the leaks had caused significant damage to the property.
In its stage 1 complaint response on 28 July 2022, the landlord:
1. stated that it had conducted a further visit on 21 July 2022 to assess what scaffolding was needed to begin repairs
2. stated that once the scaffolding had been authorised, it would complete the repairs
3. apologised to the resident for the delay in beginning the repairs
4. offered £125 compensation consisting of:
  1. £25 for the delay in beginning the repairs
  2. £100 as a ‘gesture of goodwill’ for the inconvenience caused.
Following this, the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the repairs on multiple occasions. She was dissatisfied that:
1. the scaffolding had not been erected
2. the landlord did not appear to be taking responsibility for the repairs
3. there was a lack of communication from the landlord
4. she had to chase for updates on the repairs from the landlord’s contractors
5. the leaks were ongoing and becoming worse
6. there was extensive damage caused to the property and her possessions
7. every room of the property had been soaked through
8. the bedrooms were unusable
9. the ongoing disrepair had a significant detrimental impact on her health and well-being.
In its stage 2 complaint response on 28 October 2022, the landlord:
1. explained that scaffolding had been erected on 17 October 2022 but on the same date, a vehicle collided with the scaffolding meaning that it had to be taken down and reassembled
2. stated that it completed the repairs on 25 October 2022
3. acknowledged that there had been an unreasonable delay in carrying out the repairs
4. acknowledged that there had been a lack of communication from the landlord
5. acknowledged that the resident had to chase updates from the landlord’s contractors, which should not have been necessary
6. apologised to the resident
7. stated that it would provide a dehumidifier to dry out the property
8. offered £280 compensation comprised of:
  1. £125 offered at stage 1
  2. £125 for the further delays in carrying out the repairs
  3. £30 to assist with the additional cost of running the dehumidifier.
From at least 3 November 2022 onwards, the resident informed the landlord on multiple occasions that the repairs had not been effective. She said there remained a large hole in the roof, that water continued to pour into the property from cracks in the walls, and that the property had become affected by significant damp and mould. She also expressed that:
1. there continued to be a lack of communication from the landlord
2. she felt unsafe in the property
3. she had been told the property was not fit for habitation
4. she wanted to be moved from the property.
A further inspection of the property was carried out on 19 December 2022. That inspection identified repairs needed to the roof, walls, and windows of the property.
In correspondence with this service, the resident indicated that the repairs to the roof and walls were completed in or around February 2023. This service understands that as of the date of this determination, the repairs to the windows remain outstanding.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s record-keeping

The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, which has impacted this service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.

The landlord’s response to reports of leaks

The landlord was responsible for maintaining the structure of the property, including the:
1. drains
2. gutters
3. external pipes
4. roof
5. walls
6. windows.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours and if it is not possible to complete the repairs within that time, it will complete temporary ‘make safe’ works. It defines emergencies as being a risk to safety, security, or health. The policy does not specify any timescales on which the landlord would respond to non-urgent repairs, but it does state that it will complete non-urgent repairs as quickly as possible.
The resident reports that the roof of the property was replaced in the summer of 2020. She also states that following the replacement of the roof, leaks were reported to the landlord as early as March 2021. The landlord has not provided this service with any records relating to the replacement of the roof or what actions it may have taken regarding leaks before 2022. It is therefore not possible for the Ombudsman to conclude with any certainty when the landlord was first made aware of the leaks at the property.
What is known is that the resident did report leaks in the property from at least 17 March 2022 onwards. Under its policy, the landlord ought to have treated the reports as an emergency. It should have attended the property within 24 hours and assessed the extent of the leaks. It was then required to identify all repairs and conduct interim works if it was not able to complete full and effective repairs immediately.
The evidence indicates that a surveyor inspected the property on 9 June 2022, which was at least 84 days after the resident reported leaks in the property. This was not acceptable, as it was not consistent with the landlord’s repair policy.
A copy of the surveyor’s report of 9 June 2022 has not been made available to this service. The cause of the leak has not been identified nor have the necessary repairs.
As noted later in this report, there was a significant failure of communication by the landlord. As a result, the resident was not kept informed about what the landlord planned to do in response to the leak. This was not acceptable and was a significant contributing factor to the distress that was caused to the resident, which was avoidable.
The evidence shows that throughout the lifetime of the complaint, the resident repeatedly and consistently explained to the landlord the severe extent of the leaks in the property and the damage caused to her home and her possessions.
As noted later in this report, from at least December 2022, the landlord’s surveyor recommended that the resident be moved out of the property because every room was soaked through, and it was not fit for habitation.
There is no evidence that the landlord assessed the impact of the ongoing leak on the resident or what it could do to mitigate the impact at the time she raised the repair. Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible to determine whether it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered decanting the resident sooner than it did.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord failed to respond to the reports of leaks within a reasonable time and did not make any assessment of the impact on, or risks to, the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the subsequent repairs

The Ombudsman acknowledges that there can be times when landlords are unable to complete repairs within desired timescales due to circumstances beyond their control which can lead to unavoidable delays. In those circumstances, the Ombudsman expects landlords to:
1. be proactive in communicating those delays to residents
2. assess the impact of the delay and ongoing disrepair to residents
3. take all reasonable actions to mitigate the impact.
The evidence indicates that the scaffolding was erected on 17 October 2022 to allow a further inspection of the roof and for the repairs to be carried out. This was at least 7 months after the resident had reported the leaks. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this delay was not reasonable and there is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that the delay was unavoidable. This was a significant failure by the landlord.
Even if it were the case that the delay in erecting scaffolding was unavoidable, there is no evidence that the landlord assessed the impact of the delays and ongoing disrepair to the resident or took any actions to mitigate the impact. Furthermore, the landlord was not proactive in communicating with the resident to explain the delays or what it could do to assist her.
It is noted that on 17 October 2022, a vehicle collided with the scaffolding. This resulted in the scaffolding being dismantled and re-erected due to safety concerns, which led to a further delay. Although the landlord cannot be held responsible for this, it did not mitigate the already extensive and unreasonable delay in commencing the works.
The landlord reports it completed the initial repairs on 25 October 2022. Due to the inadequate records provided, it is not possible to determine what repairs were carried out or whether any inspection of the effectiveness of the repairs was undertaken. Therefore, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to conclude that the landlord acted appropriately in carrying out its initial repairs.
From at least 3 November 2022, the resident informed the landlord that the repairs had not been effective. She repeatedly and consistently raised these concerns with the landlord. Under its repairs policy, the landlord ought to have attended the resident’s home within 24 hours, assessed the extent of the leaks, identified any repairs, and conducted interim repairs if it was not able to complete full repairs immediately.
From at least 7 December 2022, the landlord’s own surveyor recommended that the resident be decanted from the property. They stated that every room of the property was affected by water ingress and damp. This recommendation was repeated to the landlord on 3 January 2023.
Despite this, the landlord did not offer a decant to the resident until 13 January 2023 at the earliest. This was not acceptable. The landlord ought to have taken the resident’s concerns seriously and should have been proactive in assessing whether a decant would have been appropriate. Despite the resident’s request being supported by its own surveyor, the landlord delayed for a further month before making the offer to the resident.
The resident declined the landlord’s offer to be moved from the property. In correspondence with this service, she explained that this was because the landlord would not provide her with a timeline for the repairs to be completed, and therefore, she did not trust the landlord to complete the repairs if she moved out. Considering the resident’s experience with the landlord and the extensive failures up to that point, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the resident’s worries were understandable.
The landlord’s failure to assess whether the resident would benefit from a decant before December 2022 and its delay in offering a decant until January 2023 caused further distress to the resident which was avoidable.
A further inspection was carried out on 22 December 2022, which was at least 35 days after the resident reported that the repairs had not been effective. This was not appropriate, as it was not consistent with the landlord’s repair policy.
In correspondence with the landlord, the resident reported that the repairs to the roof and walls at the property were completed in or around February 2023. She also stated that a surveyor had attended on 22 February 2023 and that they were satisfied with the quality and effectiveness of the repairs. The landlord has not provided a copy of that report to this service.
Assuming that full and effective repairs were completed in February 2023, it took at least 11 months for the landlord to complete the repairs, which was unreasonable. As noted later in this report, in that time, the resident suffered unnecessary distress, significant financial loss, and lost the enjoyment of her home.
In correspondence with this service, the resident also reports that the window repairs identified in the 22 December 2022 report have not been completed and that the landlord nailed a window shut to prevent further water ingress. This is not acceptable.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to complete repairs that have already been identified without the involvement of this service. It should not be necessary for the Ombudsman to order the landlord to complete all the repairs it is already aware of.
Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the leaks and the repairs.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operated a two-stage complaints process. The landlord was required to provide a stage 1 response within 10 days of a complaint being raised, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
This service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) is best practice that sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The Code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint-handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service they provide, and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and improvement.
The resident raised her complaint on 13 July 2022. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 28 July 2022, which was appropriate.
From at least 10 August 2022, the resident expressed further dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to the leaks and handling of the repairs on multiple occasions which included emails, text messages, telephone calls, webchats, and the resident completing a second complaint form. Despite this, the landlord did not identify that the resident’s complaint ought to have been escalated at this time. This was a failure by the landlord.
The resident completed a third complaint form on 4 October 2022. The landlord did identify this escalation and stated that it would respond no later than 9 November 2022. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 28 October 2022, which was at least 56 working days after the resident’s complaint ought to have been escalated. This was not appropriate as it was not consistent with the landlord’s complaint-handling policy.
The landlord’s complaint-handling failures are reflected in its poor communication with the resident more generally. Between March 2022 and February 2023, the resident made several attempts to contact the landlord to express her dissatisfaction and attempted to obtain updates on the repairs.
The evidence indicates that most of these communications were not responded to, and where they were responded to, the landlord provided ‘holding’ replies. The Ombudsman expects landlords to take a proactive approach to communicating with residents. In failing to do so, the landlord caused further unnecessary distress to the resident.
Furthermore, on several occasions the landlord copied in its contractors to the resident’s emails and asked its contractors to reply to the resident, which they often did not do. Whether or not the landlord chose to contract out repair work, it remained responsible for the repairs, and therefore, it was responsible for arranging these repairs and communicating with the resident.
It was not appropriate to expect the resident to chase up the repairs with the landlord’s contractors. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s approach would reasonably have left the resident feeling that it was uninterested in her concerns or in resolving her complaints.
The evidence shows that on multiple occasions, the resident’s correspondence was passed around various parties without any clear plan of action.
On several occasions, an operative of the landlord correctly identified that the resident was not receiving the service she deserved and that the landlord ought to appoint an individual to take ownership of the repairs and to communicate with the resident. It is disappointing to note that despite this, the landlord failed to do so.
Considering all the evidence, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling. Given the extent of time and the volume of communications, this failure was continuous and repeated.
In its stage 2 complaint response on 28 October 2022, the landlord apologised to the resident and offered her £280 compensation for the delay in carrying out repairs. In correspondence with this service, the resident reports that the landlord has not made any revised offer of redress since the completion of the repairs. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord’s offer of redress is severely inadequate.
Following the completion of most of the repairs in February 2023, the landlord has made no revised offer of redress to the resident. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this further demonstrates a lack of ownership and accountability of the resident’s complaint by the landlord.

The impact on the resident

In correspondence with the landlord and this service, the resident detailed extensive damage to the property and damage and destruction of her possessions. This includes:
1. the entirety of the contents of the loft being disposed of
2. destroyed bedding, including bedclothes, pillows and duvets
3. destroyed curtains and blinds
4. destroyed carpets.
The resident has also reported additional costs incurred by the disrepair, which included:
1. continuously running a dehumidifier to dry out the property
2. continuously washing and drying towels to soak up the leaks.
In further correspondence with this service, the resident has detailed how the continued disrepair caused a loss of the enjoyment of her home. This included:
1. no longer being able to have her children, or grandchildren, visit or stay at the property
2. she had to sleep in the living room, as this was the least badly affected by the leaks and the bedrooms were unusable.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord’s failures identified in this report caused significant detriment to the resident, for which she ought to be compensated.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord has redecorated the resident’s home and provided new carpets.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of leaks at the property, including the subsequent repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. Pay the resident £4,052.51 which is compensation based on 85% of the rent (which is the average rent as set out in the Live Table) charged between 17 March 2022 to 22 February 2023 inclusive. This is to compensate the resident for the loss of enjoyment of her home during the period of repairs.
2. Pay the resident a further £1,000 compensation consisting of:
  1. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failures identified in this case.
  2. £500 to contribute to the replacement of damaged possessions and additional costs incurred by the resident.
  3. £150 for the poor complaint handling. This is in addition to the payments already offered by the landlord during its complaint procedure.
3. Provide the Ombudsman with evidence of the above payments.
4. Inspect all windows at the property and determine what repairs are required. The landlord must then use its best endeavours to ensure the repairs are completed within 28 days of the landlord’s inspection. The landlord must provide a copy of its inspection report to the Ombudsman within 28 days of the date of this determination. It must produce evidence that the window repairs have been completed within 56 days of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord undertake a thorough review of this case to identify what went wrong and how it will avoid similar failures in future.