The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Southern Housing Group Limited (202217424)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217424

Southern Housing Group Limited

28 July 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 is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Water leaks from the upstairs flat and the subsequent repairs.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is the assured tenant of the property, a ground floor, four-bedroom flat, owned by the landlord. She lives there with her four children. The landlord has recorded that she has no vulnerabilities. The resident during the course of the complaint informed the landlord that she had health issues, including asthma.
  2. The resident reported a leak from the upstairs flat to the landlord on 21 May 2020 and retiling was carried out to fix this leak. A further leak was reported from the toilet in the upstairs flat on 8 April 2021 and work was carried out to repair the leak. In May 2021 repair work to the resident’s ceiling and walls was completed. Three further leaks occurred from the upstairs flat on 21 October 2021 and on 25 November 2021 the resident reported that water was coming through the smoke alarm in her flat.
  3. The resident raised a complaint about the ongoing leaks on 2 December 2021. In its stage one response of 16 December 2021, the landlord stated that work had been carried out in May 2021 but further leaks had occurred. It said that there was a delay to gaining access to the flat above, apologised for the delay, and stated that feedback would be taken on board. It said a live action plan would be put in place to ensure that the repairs were completed.
  4. The resident continued to chase the landlord for the completion of the works from December to January 2021 stating that she had health conditions that were being impacted by the ongoing problem. She requested for the rehousing of her family and then emailed again on 13 January 2022 to advise the landlord that the ceiling had now caved in.
  5. On 17 February 2022, the landlord informed the resident that it would be escalating the complaint to stage two. It sent its final response on 24 June 2022 in which it accepted that ongoing leaks had caused serious disruption, there had been service failures and the stage one complaint was not managed well. It awarded £1,077 in compensation, made up of:
    1. £777 for 30% of the rent for a period of 3 months.
    2. £100 for the delay to repairs.
    3. £50 for lack of communication.
    4. £50 for the delay in the complaint response.
  6. The landlord’s repairs log shows that the repair work was completed on 14 June 2022. The resident contacted this Service on 14 December 2022 as she was unhappy with the landlord’s resolution to the complaint as she did not feel the compensation was sufficient.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. This Service is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health, nor does it award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the impact the issues reported may have had on the resident’s health. This matter is likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.
  2. When the resident reported water dripping into the bedrooms and corridor on 21 May 2020, she said that this had been an ongoing issue for 7 years. In an email she sent to the landlord on 4 December 2021 she again said that this leaking had been ignored for many years. However, this Service has seen no evidence of any leaks being reported in the repairs log for the resident’s flat or the upstairs flat prior to 21 May 2020. Under paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in our opinion, were not brought to the landlord as a complaint within six months of when they arose. So, this investigation has only considered the landlord’s actions since 21 May 2020.

Water leaks from the upstairs flat and the subsequent repairs

  1. This Service expects landlords to have a clear responsive repairs policy and procedure and for it to act in line with this policy. The landlord has provided a copy of its policy which sets out a 24-hour response time for emergency repairs, to either repair or make it safe. It does not set out a timescale for all non-emergency repairs, only saying that it aims to complete these as quickly as possible at a time that suits the resident.
  2. The earliest record in the landlord’s repairs log relating to the water leaking from the upstairs flat was 21 May 2020 and this has been recorded as resolved the same day. There was no further report of leaking until 8 April 2021, approximately one year later, when the repair records show the upstairs flat’s toilet was leaking into the resident’s flat. The landlord resolved this and carried out redecoration work to the walls and ceiling on 14 May 2021. These leaks were both marked by the landlord as an emergency and resolved within the timescale set out in its policy. There is no evidence of any further issues at these times and so it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the leaks were fixed at these times.
  3. On 21 October 2021 three water leaks in the upstairs flat were reported and the notes indicate that the leaks could not be contained. This job was marked as non-urgent. The resident contacted the landlord again on 25 November 2021 to say that the leaks had recurred, and the water was coming through the smoke alarm, so had become an electrical issue. The description of the leaks of 25 October 2021 should have alerted the landlord to the need for quick and thorough action on the day. It is not at all clear why it marked the job as non-urgent.
  4. Following the resident raising a complaint on 2 December 2021, the landlord arranged for what it said was an urgent inspection into the leaks, however the job was again marked as non-urgent, and the inspection did not take place until 10 December 2021. This inspection found that there was a leak coming from the flat above and there was damp on the resident’s walls as a result. However, the repair log does not say that the source of the leaks was identified at this time. From the foregoing, the evidence indicates that the landlord was not proactive in dealing with the leaks as from October 2021 and this resulted in the resident making a formal complaint
  5. Although the landlord acknowledged the delays in handling the matter, in its stage one decision of 16 December 2021, and explained that it had experienced difficulties with access to the flat above, there is no evidence of it taking further action at the time. It also committed to putting in a live action plan to ensure that repairs were completed, but the resident was chasing it due to the leaks still being ongoing on 22 and 29 December 2021. She stated that nothing had been done for five weeks and mentioned that she had health conditions that were being impacted on.
  6. The landlord responded to the resident on 30 December 2021 saying that all departments were closed for Christmas until 4 January 2022. On 5 January 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to say the property was now in a state of disrepair, the ceiling was on the verge of caving in, and the bathroom light had exploded. She said that her asthma had worsened due to exposure to mould and asked to be moved to suitable accommodation.
  7. The repairs log shows that an emergency callout was logged on 6 January 2022 where it says that the leak had been coming through the light. There is again no evidence of any action being taken and a further emergency callout was logged on 13 January 2022 as the ceiling had come down in the hallway. A callout was logged on 25 January 2022 to reattach the bathroom light and carry out work in the bedroom and hall. These works, which included a mould wash, were not completed until 1 and 14 June 2022 respectively.
  8. The landlord’s repairs log does not always make it clear what action has been taken when, and focusses more on what the resident has reported, rather than what actions were taken to fix things. However, from the evidence provided, the final mould wash was not completed until June 2022, more than six months after this issue of leaking was first reported.
  9. The landlord’s repairs policy states that burst pipes or other major plumbing repairs should be treated as emergency repairs. Given the severity of the leak and how much damage it was causing to the resident’s flat, this should have been treated as emergency and the leak itself should have been resolved within 24 hours, which it was not. In terms of the remedial follow up work, this would not be classed as emergency and the repairs policy does not provide a specific timescale for non-emergency work.
  10. The landlord’s repair policy does not set out any specific policy or framework for dealing with damp and mould. A specific damp and mould policy or framework might have enabled the landlord to deal robustly and quickly with the issues raised by the resident. Such a policy would likely give clarity and consistency to the landlord when dealing with these issues and enable it to manage a resident’s expectations. Such a policy or framework would ensure a shared understanding and approach across different teams within the organisation. An order has been made, below, for the landlord to consider the introduction of such a policy, and for it to consider setting out timescales for non-emergency repairs.
  11. Regardless of the lack of timescale for non-emergency repairs, it is evident that the landlord failed to repair the leak in line with the emergency timescale, and the issue was allowed to go unresolved for long enough for a significant amount of mould to build up.
  12. Whilst this Service cannot consider the impact on the resident’s health, it can consider whether the landlord took her reports of the impact of the issues on her health into consideration. It is essential that landlords pick up on such matters notified to them, and factor these in when handling any necessary repairs. The resident asked to be moved to an alternative property. The information provided to this Service indicates that she was moved to a hotel for a 4-day period. It would have been helpful for the landlord to have clarified why it considered this to be sufficient at the time.
  13. The landlord acknowledged in its final response that the ongoing leaks had caused serious disruption for approximately 3 months, however it has not provided justification for why it has only considered the disruption to have lasted for this length of time. It may be the case that it has considered solely the period for which the ceiling was damaged, however, this Service finds that it should have considered the period from November 2021 when the resident reported that the electrics had been affected by the leaks. It also failed to acknowledge the mould issue or to address the resident’s claims that it may have had some impact on her.
  14. The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the water leaks from the upstairs flat and the subsequent repairs. It failed to fix the leaks in line with its repairs policy and did not complete the follow up restoration work within a reasonable timeframe. It has awarded the resident £100 for delays to repairs, which is not sufficient to put things right for her. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for compensation from £100 to £600 for cases where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings “and/or made no attempt to put things right.”  The events in this case indicate that a payment towards the mid-point of this scale is warranted and an order has been made for the landlord to pay total compensation to the resident of £300 for the delayed repair – to reflect the distress caused to her.
  15. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out a clear method of calculation for loss of use of a room, and it has compensated the resident in line with this. Its use of 30% of the rent for the affected period appears to be reasonable in line with the policy, however the period of disruption is not accurate. An order has been made below to increase this compensation to cover a period of 6 months rather than 3.
  16. It is noted that the resident reported further leaks in July 2023, after the landlord’s final decision on the matter. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to consider contacting the resident to establish if the leak is still ongoing and to take appropriate action to resolve it if that is the case.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that stage one complaints should be responded to within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If this is not possible, the landlord can extend it by a further 10 days at either stage, but only with good reason. An explanation and deadline should be given to the resident. The landlord has provided a copy of its complaints policy, which sets out a 5 working day timeframe to acknowledge the complaint in writing, with a further 10 working days from the acknowledgement to send its stage 1 response. Its policy then sets out a 20-working day response at stage 2.
  2. The resident first raised a formal complaint on 2 December 2021 and the landlord wrote to her to acknowledge this on 3 December 2021. The landlord sent its stage one response on 16 December 2021, after 10 working days, in line with its policy.
  3. After several emails from the resident chasing up the actions set out at stage one, the landlord confirmed via email on 17 February 2022 that it would escalate the complaint to stage two, but that there was a delay in escalations at that time. It emailed her again on 24 March 2022 to say that the complaint had now been allocated and a final response was due by 25 April 2022. The resident emailed the landlord on 26 April 2022, chasing an update. The landlord did not provide an update or any further communication until its final response on 24 June 2022, 118 working days after the complaint was escalated, and far exceeding the timescale set out in its policy.
  4. The Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. Whilst the landlord did apologise for the delay in its response to the complaint and awarded the resident £50, this does not do enough to put things right for her. It took the landlord more than four months to respond to the complaint at stage two, and throughout this period the issue with the leaks was ongoing. Had the landlord responded to the complaint in line with its policy, it would likely have dealt with the repairs more quickly, or the resident would have been able to refer her complaint to this Service sooner.
  5. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for compensation from £100 to £600 for cases where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings “and/or made no attempt to put things right.”  The events in this case indicate that a higher payment of compensation is warranted. Thus an order has been made for the landlord to pay total compensation to the resident of £150 for the failures identified with its complaint handling – to reflect the distress caused to her.

 

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of:
    1. Water leaks from the upstairs flat and the subsequent repairs.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord shall take the following actions and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders within four weeks of the date of this report:
    1. A senior manager to write a letter to the resident with an apology.
    2. Pay the resident total compensation of £2,154 made up of:
      1. £1,077 already offered as part of its internal complaints process if it has not already been paid.
      2. A further £200 for the delayed repairs.
      3. A further £777 compensation based on rent for the remaining 3 months of delay.
      4. A further £100 for its complaint handling failures.
      5. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against rent or service charge arrears.
    3. Advise this Service about the steps it would be taking towards drawing up or reviewing its policies on:
      1. Damp and mould in its residential properties.
      1. Timescales in its repairs policy for non-emergency repairs.
      2. Record-keeping, particularly its repair records. This should be such that it is clear when work is undertaken, details of that work are included, and the completion date is recorded.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman strongly urges the landlord to read our Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould that was published in October 2021.