Southern Housing Group Limited (202215836)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215836

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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident about:
   1. Damp and mould on a bathroom ceiling.
   2. A request for a new cupboard and sink in the kitchen.
   3. A request to repair a kitchen window.
   4. Heating repairs.
   5. Reasonable adjustments and communication.
   6. Its complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The resident is deaf; limited in his ability to read and write English; and is understood to prefer communication via basic written English and sign language.
3. In 2017, the landlord asked its contractor to inspect a kitchen window and advise if a new one was required, for which the outcome is unclear.
4. Between June and October 2021, the resident was in discussions with the landlord about a previous complaint that related to a lack of hot water between June and July, a repair to a bathroom ceiling, and repairs to overhaul a kitchen window and cupboard. The landlord later said a £50 compensation request had been made for the hot water.
5. From November 2021 to January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and its contractor about the repairs and added that some electric radiators did not work. He also said he was being disadvantaged by how the landlord communicated, as his English was not good, and he used sign language to communicate.
6. In February 2022, the landlord raised a complaint and arranged meetings with a sign language interpreter, who failed to attend on 2 occasions. The second time, the landlord still met with the resident at its office and noted issues including a lack of heating since November 2021. It also noted that a complaint should be raised about accessibility and the resident’s desire for it to use a web and app sign language service.
7. On 15 March 2022, the landlord responded to the repairs complaint in Polish. It noted the resident raised ceiling damp, a kitchen cupboard, a sink, windows, and radiators, and wanted compensation for lack of heating. It said it had booked a repairs visit with a sign language interpreter on 28 March, after which repairs would be raised and booked with the resident by email. It said that a radiator repair was arranged for 16 March in line with his availability, and there was no service failing as contractors were only made aware of the repair on 1 March, after which they had sent a text without response. It said it had created an action plan to ensure it delivered its commitments. The same month, a further repair for the ceiling was raised.
8. On 23 March 2022, the landlord responded to the reasonable adjustments complaint in Polish. It apologised that it failed to provide a sign language service on 2 occasions but said this was not its own failing. It noted it had put in place reasonable adjustments and options available included text talk; written translation; multilingual website; and sign language interpreting, subject to availability and advance booking. It said it partially upheld the complaint as it had sent correspondence in English, despite a stated preference for sign language.
9. On 27 April 2022, the resident asked the landlord to:
   1. escalate the 2021 repairs stage 1, as the window repair was not resolved, the £50 compensation had not been received, and the landlord had failed its commitment to provide a further resolution
   2. escalate the 2022 repairs stage 1, as the repairs had been unresolved for 5 months
   3. escalate the reasonable adjustments stage 1, as he was unhappy with the accessibility arrangements.
10. In May 2022, further repairs were raised for a cupboard, sink and window in the kitchen, and in June radiators were installed in the bedroom and lounge. Later in June, a contractor attended for the window and new windows were ordered.
11. In August 2022, there was attendance for the kitchen cupboard and sink, but a leak was found. The same month, the landlord emailed the resident after contact about the complaint and escalation. It asked him to clarify what repairs were outstanding. It invited him to authorise someone to communicate on his behalf and said it could try to arrange an interpreter if he could not do this. It noted he wished to have access to a sign language app but said it could not offer this as there was no appetite for it from residents. The new window was subsequently installed on 13 September; the repair for the new cupboard and sink was completed on 30 September; and works including the bathroom ceiling were completed on 18 October.
12. The landlord provided a stage 2 response to the repairs complaint on 9 November 2022. For ceiling damp, it acknowledged there was a 12 week delay in meeting with the resident after the report in November 2021, an 11 week delay after the stage 1 response, and a failed action plan. For a replacement kitchen cupboard and sink, it said these were not eligible for compensation as they were improvements, but there had been a failed action plan. For windows, it said there was a lack of communication from June 2022 to when they were installed in September. For radiators, it said there were no failings as new heaters were installed, and an inspection in September found them in working order. It awarded £492 compensation, which comprised £342 for the 23 week total delays for the ceiling damp, at £2 per day plus £10; £100 for its failed action plan; and £50 for the delay in escalating and responding to the stage 2.
13. The same day, the landlord also provided a stage 2 response to the reasonable adjustments complaint.
    1. It apologised for any distress caused by its written communication. It noted there was contradiction in the resident’s communication preferences, as he did not want written communication but had sent emails and requested responses by text and email. It noted that he did not require written communication in Polish, restated that it could organise a sign language interpreter, but this was not always practical or possible, and invited him to advise his preferred formats.
    2. It said it did not intend to make its residents feel discriminated against and it made reasonable adjustments where possible, but it could not commit to meet the specific needs of every individual. It said its website was compliant with accessibility guidelines, and the request for the sign language app was not something it would consider further on that basis.
    3. It said that sign language interpreters failing to attend meetings twice was not its direct failing, but it apologised and compensated £50 for the inconvenience and frustration caused, and said it was internally discussing the service to try to improve the reliability of this. It also apologised and compensated £50 for the delay in escalating and responding to the stage 2, due to reorganisations to improve complaint handling.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

14. The Ombudsman cannot investigate all the complaints the resident has about his landlord, including the delay in a 2021 roof repair and issues in 2023, as these were not the main focus of original complaints. We also do not make definitive decisions about liability for damage to possessions or discrimination. The main focus of this investigation are the complaints that were the subject of the landlord’s final complaint responses in November 2022, and the reasonableness of its responses.

Damp and mould on a ceiling

15. The landlord noted that issues with a ceiling were first reported at the end of November 2021, however works to stain block a ceiling were first raised in October 2021, over a month earlier. The ceiling works were completed in October 2022, a year later. The landlord’s responses acknowledged delays of 23 weeks and awarded £342, as it said the resident’s availability impacted works and noted he had not included the issue in correspondence at points.
16. This is not entirely satisfactory. The landlord was on notice to ensure the repair was completed in a reasonable time, once it was raised, and it is not evident that it was only reasonably responsible for 23 weeks out of the circa 52 weeks the repair took. The resident was away at points, but it is not evident he was as unavailable to the extent suggested.
17. It is not clear that the issue had a significant impact, however by limiting the period to 23 weeks the landlord does not demonstrate that it reasonably recognised the extent of delays and calculated compensation in a fair way. The landlord should compensate the resident £450, which is considered to more fairly balance the significant delay and evidence available.

Request for a new cupboard and sink in the kitchen

18. After the resident first raised kitchen cupboards in June 2021, the landlord raised a works order for the issue in October 2021. The contractor then said the works were referred to the landlord for approval in November 2021, after which the repair was raised multiple times orders before its completion in September 2022. The landlord said the works were improvement works and therefore compensation was not applicable for a delay between November 2021 and September 2022, apart from its 2022 stage 1 action plan failing.
19. The landlord was reasonable to refer to the works as improvement works and did not seem obligated to do them. However, its consideration of the request and communication about it is unclear, and it is also unclear why it took almost a year to do the works. The landlord should have demonstrated that it reviewed the previous handling of the request, and if aspects such as communication and expectations could have been handled better. The landlord should compensate the resident £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling.

Request to repair a kitchen window

20. After the landlord raised a repair for the issue in July 2021, the resident said the window area was cold and wet in October 2021. The contractor said it was referred to the landlord for approval in November 2021, and the repair was raised multiple times before completion in September 2022. The landlord said it agreed to install double-glazing, there was a lack of communication from June 2022 to when new windows were installed in September 2022, and compensation for communication had been included in its compensation offer.
21. The landlord’s consideration of the repair is very unclear, particularly when the resident said the window area was cold and wet in October 2021. The landlord should be able to show more clearly how the reports about the windows were considered and actioned, and why works only occurred 11 months later. The landlord does not therefore seem reasonable to limit acknowledgement of failings to June 2022 onwards.
22. The £100 for the failed action plan for multiple repairs seems intended to address communication issues, but an unquantified proportion of this does not seem enough for the issues and delays. It is not evident that the issue led to a significant impact, however the handling will have caused distress to the resident particularly given his bedroom heating issues, and the landlord should compensate the resident £100.

Heating repairs

23. The resident reported that radiators were not working to the contractor in November 2021 and to the landlord in December 2021. At the end of January 2022, he said that he had experienced issues with cold in the bedroom for 2 months. In February, the landlord noted he had no heating or temporary heaters and was freezing. The landlord’s stage 1 said a repair was arranged in March, but it provides information this was cancelled as the contractors “don’t do gas radiators.” The radiators were not replaced until around 8 June 2022. The landlord said there were no service failings for heating as its contractor was first made aware of radiator issues on 1 March 2022. It installed new storage heaters, and it checked they worked in September 2022.
24. The landlord responded in a limited way and failed to address multiple issues. It said contractors were first made aware of issues in March 2022, but this overlooked the resident having raised issues each month since November 2021. The resident said he had no temporary heaters, and there is no evidence these were supplied. The landlord provides information that a March repair was cancelled as the contractor did not repair gas radiators, which comes across as confusing as the radiators are electric and a repair was raised for electric radiators before the cancelled repair. The resident disputed he received texts for a March appointment, which it is not evident was investigated. The resident requested compensation for lack of heating, which was not addressed.
25. Some correspondence from the resident at the end of January 2022 suggests the heating was working then, so it is not clear that it was not working at all times. However, his raising the issue again a few weeks later suggests he was without fully working heating in the bedroom for lengthy periods in the 6 months between 26 November 2021 and 8 June 2022. Under its policy, the landlord pays £10 plus £2 per day for loss of heating after 2 days, so the landlord should compensate the resident £394 for the loss of heating. The landlord should also compensate the resident £200 in respect to the additional distress and inconvenience caused by its handling.

Reasonable adjustments and communication

26. The landlord acknowledged and compensated £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by sign language interpreters failing to attend arranged visits twice, apologised for distress caused by its written communication, and invited the resident to clarify communication preferences. This was positive and it is not evident that the landlord is failing specific obligations for the reasonable adjustments it offers. However, it did not satisfactorily address some issues.
27. The communication to deaf residents will need to be effective and reasonably meet their stated needs, which was not always the case. The resident has difficulty reading and writing English, but it is evident he can read and write to some extent or has support with these, and text has been a historical stated preference according to repairs logs. The landlord sent stage 1 responses in Polish without any checks that this met the resident’s preferences, and it since acknowledges he cannot read or write Polish. There were multiple repairs raised for certain issues for which there were lengthy delays, but limited information is supplied about how the resident was communicated with and what was done to try to avoid the delays. The resident disputed being texted for one appointment, which it is not evident was investigated and addressed.
28. The landlord should consider reasonable adjustments in a timely manner, but it took 6 months to respond to the request about the alternative sign language service, and it is unclear it took into account considerations in respect to effectiveness, practicality and cost in line with its reasonable adjustments policy. It said there was no appetite for it and that its website met accessibility requirements, but the basis for there being insufficient appetite was not provided.  The service goes beyond being a web accessibility tool and allows making of calls, including to housing departments/associations – suggesting the service was not fully understood. The unreliability of the usual interpreter service could have prompted clearer consideration of what met deaf customers’ needs, and information that an interpreter again did not attend a recent visit suggests that fuller consideration of the services the landlord uses is pertinent.
29. The landlord should compensate the resident £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling and the delay in responding to his reasonable adjustment request.

Complaint handling

30. The 2021 stage 1 was some time before the escalation request, but the landlord committed to pay £50 and provide a further resolution, which it was in discussions with the resident about within 6 months of the escalation request. The landlord should ensure that it meets its commitments, and it is not satisfactory that it did not escalate the complaint or address the escalation request in any way and set out a position.
31. The landlord responded in a reasonably timely manner in its 2022 stage 1 responses. However, as was also evident in its July 2021 response, its repairs responses addressed matters such as heating delays in limited ways; made commitments that were not monitored and met; and did not appropriately address compensation. The stage 2 responses were delayed by 6 months, which it apologised for and awarded £100 total. This and its commitments to improve future service was positive, however this did not go quite far enough to compensate for the issues and delays, and the landlord should compensate the resident £350, which includes £50 for the unpaid hot water compensation.

Determination

32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident about damp and mould on a bathroom ceiling.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident about a request for a new cupboard and sink in the kitchen.
    3. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident about a request to repair a kitchen window.
    4. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident about heating repairs.
    5. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident about reasonable adjustments and communication.
    6. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

33. The landlord to, within 4 weeks, pay the resident £1,694 compensation. This comprises:
    1. £450 for the ceiling repair
    2. £100 for the sink and cupboard repair
    3. £100 for the kitchen window repair
    4. £594 for the heating repair
    5. £100 for the reasonable adjustments and communication
    6. £350 for the complaint handling.
34. This replaces the £592 total compensation previously offered, and if any of this has been paid it can be deducted from the amount ordered above.
35. The landlord to, within 6 weeks, arrange for the sign language service suggested by the resident, SignLive, to be considered under its reasonable adjustments policy, taking into account current services it uses and considerations in respect to effectiveness, practicality and cost. The landlord should provide the outcome to this to the resident and the Ombudsman in writing.

Recommendations

36. The landlord to review its handling of reports of no heating, to ensure that temporary heating is supplied.
37. The landlord to review its complaint handling, to ensure that this addresses the substance of complaints, meets commitments, and considers compensation in line with policies.
38. The landlord to review its repairs record-keeping and our spotlight report on knowledge and information management, to ensure that it maintains adequate records of outcomes to repairs visits and communication to residents.