Southern Housing Group Limited (202217628)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217628

Southern Housing Group Limited

14 February 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:
1. leaks in the property.
2. repairs to a concrete pathway, fence, windows and external doors.
3. the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which started on 24 October 2005. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord said it has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
On 5 April 2022, the resident reported that her rear fence was broken, her side pathway required repair or replacement and her front door was bowing and allowing a cold draught into the property. The landlord’s repair records also show that the resident reported that the rear patio door was “falling apart”.
On 28 July 2022, the landlord said it completed repair works to the resident’s fence.
On 9 September 2022, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord in which she said:
1. There were 3 outstanding repairs that the landlord had not completed. These works included a replacement front and back door, replacement windows, and works to the resident’s side pathway, which she said was a health and safety issue.
2. The landlord’s surveyor had attended the property 3 weeks prior and had agreed that the landlord needed to complete the works. The resident said the surveyor had informed her that the frames of the windows required replacement as they were “blown”, rotten and allowing a draught into the property.
3. She had been regularly chasing the works with the landlord’s contractor.
On 8 November 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident in which it explained:
1. the windows, “roofline goods” and doors were due to be replaced before the end of the 2022/2023 financial year.
2. its contractor had submitted a quotation for repairs to the pathway and this was awaiting approval.
3. it was sorry for the delays in completing the works and in issuing a stage 1 response to the resident. The landlord said this was due to a backlog of complaints.
4. it would offer £125 compensation to the resident comprised of:
  1. £50 for the delay to rectify the issue with the pathway
  2. £50 as a goodwill gesture
  3. £25 for the delay in complaint handling.
On or around 9 November 2022, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. The resident said she was unhappy with the outcome and a surveyor had failed to attend the property which had been arranged for 8 November 2022.
On 27 February 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response in which it stated:
1. it logged the fencing repair on 31 May 2022 and completed the works on 28 July 2022.
2. the resident reported repairs to the windows, doors and the pathway in April/May 2022. The landlord said it failed to raise the repairs, but it had inspected the property.
3. a surveyor’s report had been prepared in December 2022 which made recommendations for the windows and doors to be replaced.
4. the works to the windows and external doors were due to take place on 28 February 2023. It further explained that the major works had already started and the scaffolding had been erected. The landlord said repairs to the guttering on the property would be completed before the window replacement. The landlord said it offered temporary repairs to the windows and doors, but the resident had refused this.
5. the windows were due for completion in May 2023. The landlord said the scaffolding would need to be cleared before the pathway could be repaired. The landlord said repairs to the pathway would be completed by 16 June 2023. The landlord asked the resident to contact it once the scaffolding was removed, to schedule a date for the pathway repairs.
6. there were delays in responding to the resident’s complaint as the resident said she did not want the complaint to be closed until she was satisfied with the landlord’s resolution and commitments.
7. the surveyors had attended and not followed up with actions following their visits. The landlord explained that it had highlighted the case to managers to avoid delays and improve processes. The landlord also said that it would share reports on customer files so that information was readily available.
8. it upheld the resident’s complaint and acknowledged poor administration and management of surveyor visits, unacceptable delays for repairs and complaint handling delays. The landlord apologised for any inconvenience caused to the resident.
9. it offered the resident £605 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £450 for the repair delays
  2. £50 for complaint handling delays
  3. £105 for service failures repair delays, lack of communication, repeat visits and failure to follow policy

In total, the landlord offered the resident £730 across its internal complaint procedure.

In referring her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident said:
1. There were outstanding works that the landlord had not completed.
2. There was internal damage caused by the replacement of the windows and doors.
3. The issues had caused her significant stress, anxiety and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

In correspondence with the landlord, the resident referred to several leaks affecting the property. From the evidence provided, the resident did not raise these issues as part of her initial complaint and the issues arose after this complaint had completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states:
“42. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: a. are made before having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”.
That means the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate the complaint about the leaks, as it has not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure.

Scope of investigation

In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s complaint on 9 September 2022 which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 27 February 2023. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

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. For example, the landlord has been unable to provide copies of all surveyor reports and attendances at the property, has been unable to confirm whether it has completed the repair works and on what date, and has no record of the resident’s escalation request. This was a failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.

The landlord’s repair obligations

The landlord’s repairs policy states it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours of receiving the report. The landlord’s policy does not give a timeframe for routine repairs and said it aims to “complete all other repairs as quickly as possible”. The policy does not give a timeframe for planned works.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk‑based evaluation tool to help local authorities identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health from any deficiencies identified in dwellings. A landlord is obliged, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Decent Homes Standard, to ensure that a property is fit for human habitation.

The pathway

The resident reported issues with her side pathway in April 2022 and again on 31 May 2022. The landlord’s repair records do not specify the nature of the defects reported, but the Ombudsman understands that several slabs had become loose or cracked. In this case, the landlord assumed responsibility for repairs to the pathway.
In correspondence with the landlord, the resident said that the landlord inspected the property in August 2022. However, the Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the surveyor’s report to understand what repair works were required and any timescales it had agreed with the resident.
The landlord offered several reassurances to the resident that it would repair the pathway. Initially, the landlord said that it would repair the pathway in February 2023. It later said due to access issues, it would repair the pathway by 16 June 2023, after it had replaced the resident’s windows. While the Ombudsman recognises that works to the windows may have prevented access for the landlord to carry out repairs to the pathway, it is unclear why the pathway was not completed in 2022 when the resident first reported the issue.
Despite this, the landlord failed to complete the repair within the timescales given and failed to follow up the works with its contractor to ensure that the works were carried out. Further, paragraph 6.5 of the Complaint Handling Code states that landlords must set out what will happen and by when in agreement with the resident where appropriate. Any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion. That did not happen in this case.
In its stage 1 response on 7 November 2022, the landlord said it had submitted a quotation for the repair works to the pathway and that this was “waiting approval”. The landlord did not explain the reason for the delays or why it had waited until November 2022 to submit a quotation for the repair works. However, the landlord apologised for the delays and offered compensation to the resident. While the landlord acknowledged the delays and offered compensation, it failed to provide a clear reason for the delays or provide the resident with regular updates on the progress of the repair works.
There was an inappropriate and unreasonable delay in the landlord repairing the pathway, for which it has provided no reasonable explanation. The landlord said its records indicated that it completed repair works to the pathway on 30 October 2023. However, it said it would require “additional confirmation” on this point. If the landlord has completed the works to the pathway, that was a delay of 18 months from the resident first reporting the issue. While the landlord’s repairs policy does not give a timeframe for routine repairs, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the delay was unreasonable, and the resident was not kept regularly updated on the repair works.

The fence

The resident reported issues with her fence on 31 May 2022. The landlord said it completed repairs to the fence on 28 July 2022. There was therefore a delay of 58 days from when the resident first reported the issue to the landlord completing the repair. While the landlord’s repairs policy does not give a timeframe for routine repairs, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the delay was unreasonable, and the resident was not kept regularly updated on the repair works. In addition, the landlord has not provided a reason for the fencing delays and failed to address this in its complaint responses.

The doors

The resident first reported issues relating to her external doors in April 2022. From the evidence provided, it is not clear what date the resident first reported issues with her windows. However, in correspondence with the landlord, the resident said this was on or around 31 May 2022. The Ombudsman understands that the windows had “blown” and the window frames were rotting. The landlord agreed that the windows were beyond economical repair.
The Ombudsman understands that there were several inspections arranged at the property throughout 2022. The resident said there were 5 surveyor visits arranged in total. However, the resident said after the first visit the surveyor did not prepare a report. The resident said the following 3 inspections were cancelled as nobody arrived at the property. The resident said a surveyor attended the final inspection but again no report was prepared. The Ombudsman notes that there is reference to an inspection at the property in August 2022 and on 2 December 2022. However, the Ombudsman has only seen a copy of the surveyor report completed on 2 December 2022.
It is clear from the evidence provided there were several missed surveyor appointments and a lack of clarity or information regarding the appointments. This would have likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, particularly as she said she had to take time off from work to be present at the property for the appointments, which the landlord later failed to attend. In addition, there was a lack of information following the inspections to determine what works were required. The landlord should ensure it records details of any attendances at the property such as an attendance note detailing any issues discussed or resolved with the resident. The landlord should ensure it appropriately records any agreed actions or concerns so that these can be actioned promptly.

The windows and doors

The landlord said the window and door replacement would fall within its “planned works programme”. However, it is not apparent whether the landlord inspected the windows and doors to confirm whether any urgent remedial works were required outside of its planned works programme. It is good practice for landlords to schedule major works such as window replacements in advance and to have a programme for such works so that multiple properties can be renovated at the same time. However, landlords are expected to carry out window replacements outside such major works programmes if it is necessary to do so based on the condition of that particular property and to ensure the property is in a safe and habitable condition.
The landlord said it did offer to complete some interim remedial works, but the resident refused the repairs. The resident said she did not refuse interim repair works, instead, she asked how repairs could be completed on frames that were rotten and falling out. The resident said she asked for a date for the replacement of the windows so she could consider the options, but the landlord failed to respond to her. The evidence confirms that the resident asked for a date for the renewal works before agreeing to the repairs. It does not appear that the landlord ever discussed with the resident what the interim repairs would involve, or that it followed this up with the resident once it knew a date for the planned works. Given the issues reported about the windows and doors, this was a significant failing by the landlord.
The resident raised concerns about the windows and her health and safety, as she said that the windows were unsafe. It cannot be disregarded that the resident remained in a property where she had reported draughts coming from the windows and doors during the winter months. It would have therefore been appropriate to have arranged for a surveyor to inspect the windows and doors and decide whether urgent remedial works or further health and safety inspections were required.
Throughout the complaint, the resident repeatedly chased the landlord for updates on the repair works. In addition, she requested multiple call requests from the landlord throughout November and December 2022. It is clear from the evidence available that the resident had an unnecessary level of involvement in the repair process, which would have likely left her feeling unsupported and distressed. As such, this was a failure in the landlord’s service to the resident.
From the evidence provided, it is not clear whether there are still outstanding repairs. The Ombudsman has been unable to confirm this with the resident and the landlord has also been unable to provide evidence or certainty that the repairs have been completed. The Ombudsman has therefore made an order for the landlord to carry out an inspection of the property and identify and complete any outstanding repairs.
The landlord has acknowledged it provided poor administration and management of the surveyor visits, unacceptable delays for repairs and complaint handling delays. The landlord has offered the resident £655 for the delays in repairs and associated visits. The landlord has also said that it had highlighted the case to managers to avoid delays and improve processes and said that reports will be shared on customer files so that information is readily available.
While the landlord has offered some redress for the failures identified, the compensation offered is not likely to fully acknowledge the level of distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in repeatedly chasing for updates, multiple delays across several repair issues, missed appointments and a lack of clarity/updates on repairs, a lack of communication from the landlord and failures associated with the window repairs. The Ombudsman has therefore made an order for the landlord to pay compensation to the resident for the failures outlined above.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy states it will respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days of the acknowledgement date. The landlord said it will respond to stage 2 requests within 20 working days.
There were inappropriate delays in the landlord responding to the resident’s complaint for the reasons which follow.
Whilst the resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 9 September 2022, it responded on 8 November 2022. This was a total of 41 working days after the resident’s initial complaint. This was 31 working days over the expectations set out in the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which states that landlords must respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the complaint being logged.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord informed the resident on 23 September 2022 that it required additional time to consider her complaint. The landlord said it would respond within 10 working days. However, the landlord failed to meet this extension deadline and failed to communicate this with the resident.
The landlord has failed to provide a copy of the resident’s stage 2 escalation request. However, from the evidence provided, the resident contacted the landlord on 9 November 2022 and advised she was not happy with the outcome of her complaint. The Ombudsman has therefore considered this the date of the resident’s escalation request.
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 November 2022 and chased her escalation request as she had not received an acknowledgement. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 23 November 2022. It provided a stage 2 response on 27 February 2023. This was 75 working days after the resident’s escalation request. This is significantly in excess of the timescales in the landlord’s complaints policy.
The landlord said the delay in providing a stage 2 response was largely due to the resident’s request that she did not want her complaint closed until the landlord offered a resolution. The resident later confirmed that she did ask for her complaint to be extended, but this was due to a lack of information from the landlord.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that there was an agreement between the resident and the landlord to extend the stage 2 response time. However, the landlord should have ensured that it kept in sight its obligations to the resident as per the Code and sought to find a resolution swiftly. The landlord did explain the requirements of the Code to the resident in an email on 30 January 2023, but this was over 2 months after the resident’s escalation request. In addition, the landlord was aware that the stage 2 response was dependent on providing the resident with a date for the repair works. There was no reason why the landlord could not have provided an interim stage 2 response referring the resident to this service, with details that a final stage 2 would be provided once the completion dates were known or repairs completed. There is a lack of evidence that the landlord took proactive action in pursuing the repairs promptly. As such, this inevitably caused delays in the landlord being able to provide its stage 2 response.
In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that there had been significant delays in completing the repair works. However, it did not provide an adequate explanation about why these delays had occurred, or what it intended to do to resolve them. Effective dispute resolution requires a process designed to resolve complaints. Where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to resolve the resident’s complaint.
While the landlord has offered some compensation to the resident, the Ombudsman has found the offer of compensation not appropriate to the identified failings.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate the complaint about the leaks.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to a concrete pathway, fence, windows and external doors.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must, within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination:
1. Provide a full apology to the resident for the errors identified in this report. The apology must be made by a senior manager.
2. Pay the resident £825 in addition to that offered via the complaint procedure (£730) (£1,555 in total). The additional compensation is broken down as follows:
  1. £650 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in repairing the resident’s concrete pathway, fence, windows and external doors.
  2. £175 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in the landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord must pay the compensation directly to the resident.

Contact the resident to arrange a final survey of the outstanding works in the property. See paragraph 48 for more details.
Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders.

The survey order

The landlord must arrange an inspection within 28 days of the date of this determination.
Once the inspection is completed, the surveyor must produce a written report within 5 working days of the inspection, which must:
1. Set out any outstanding repairs (if any) to the windows, doors, fence and pathway
2. Include photographs of the areas specified (the windows, doors, fence and pathway)
3. Comment on any leaks into the property and the cause
4. Set out a schedule of works – together with indicative timescales to complete the repairs.
The survey report must be provided to the Ombudsman and the landlord within 5 working days of the date of the inspection.
The landlord must then use its best endeavours to ensure the works are completed within 28 days of the date of the inspection report or such other later time specified in the report. The landlord must retain records of its actions to confirm it has employed its best endeavours.

Senior manager review

The landlord must, within 56 calendar days of the date of this report, carry out a lessons learned review of this case to identify what went wrong and any learning to improve its handling of repairs.
A senior officer, such as a head of service or director, must conduct the review and must be outside of the service areas involved. The review must include:
1. a review of its repair procedures to ensure there is an effective mechanism in place to record all repair records and store surveyor and other specialist reports.
2. an explanation of how the landlord will ensure the works of its contractors are completed within a reasonable time, and how it intends to identify and respond to repeat repairs in the future.
3. a review of its procedures for recording repairs, complaints, and all communication with residents. In doing so, the landlord should have regard to the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management.
The landlord must share a copy of its lessons with the Ombudsman within 56 calendar days of the date of this report.