Southern Housing Group Limited (202218185)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218185

Southern Housing Group Limited

26 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. a bird infestation in the resident’s property.
2. the resident’s decant.
3. a heating and hot water repair.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s:
1. complaint handling.
2. record keeping.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since 2010. The property is a 1 bedroom flat in a block.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy at the time said:
1. It was responsible for repairing installations for the supply of electricity and gas, including electric wiring, ventilation fans, ducts and central heating installations.
2. It would manage any pest infestation which caused a serious risk to health and safety, unless this was caused by neglect, wilful damage or misuse of the property.
3. It would repair or make safe emergency repairs within 24 hours, which included total electrical failure to a property and no heating or hot water between 31 October and 1 May.
4. It aimed to complete routine repairs as quickly as possible, at a time that suited the resident.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance procedure at the time said that the landlord would redecorate any areas that were damaged because of repairs it had carried out.
The landlord’s decants procedure at the time said that a decant was required where major works were needed because of faulty or dangerous wiring. Where an immediate move was required, the landlord would check if it had any suitable properties available to temporarily house the resident and if not, consider other options, such as bed and breakfast. The landlord would tell the resident the expected length of the works and keep in regular contact with them while the works were ongoing. When the works were complete, the landlord would contact the resident to check if they would like to view the property before moving back.
The landlord’s complaints policies at the time said it aimed to resolve stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. If it was not able to respond within these timescales it would let the resident know when it would respond, which would not exceed a further 10 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy at the time said it would pay compensation when there was evidence it had been responsible for a service failure, or had caused loss, damage or inconvenience. It would also consider making a payment where a resident had incurred costs or there had been a financial loss. Personal injury claims were not covered by the compensation policy.
The landlord’s compensation framework said it would pay for loss of earnings due to missed or failed repair appointments.

Summary of events

In September 2018, after contact from the resident, the landlord raised a routine works order because his extractor fans were not working. It inspected the property the same month and noted that all external vent covers were allowing birds (parakeets) into the ducting. These needed to be cleaned out of bird excrement and feathers by a pest control contractor as this was “hazardous to health”. Once this had been done mesh cages needed to be fitted over the vent covers to prevent birds from getting in and the kitchen and bathroom fans needed to be replaced due to hygiene. It needed to find out if any properties were shared ownership or private.
The resident contacted the landlord to chase up what action it was taking in October 2019 as nothing had been done since the visit the previous year. The landlord noted that the resident wanted to make a complaint and was “very angry”.
On 18 May 2021 the resident reported that parakeets were still nesting in his property and had damaged electrical cables, which meant he was without power or hot water. The landlord raised a routine works order and its electrical contractor attended the same day. It reported back that the birds had got into the ceiling space and chewed through electrical cables, which had affected power throughout the property. The only way to resolve the issue was to close the vents and do a complete rewire.
The same day the landlord noted that the rewire would involve removing the ceilings, which would take 3 to 4 weeks and the resident would need to be decanted. It contacted the resident, who agreed to stay with a friend that evening but said he would need alternative accommodation from the following day onwards and that his daughter stayed with him at the weekends.
The next day the landlord agreed to book the resident into a hotel while it tried to find alternative accommodation for him. The booking would include his daughter and came with a meal deal that included breakfast and an evening meal.
Over the next 6 days the landlord made internal enquiries and spoke with the resident about potential properties that could be used for the temporary decant. The resident viewed one property but declined this due to the location.
On 25 May 2021 the landlord noted internally that there were no appropriate internal transfer options for the decant and the following day a third party booking agent contacted the resident to source alternative accommodation. The agent told the landlord that the resident had declined to move into temporary accommodation.
On 2 June 2021 the landlord inspected the property with its contractors, including pest control, to confirm the works required and raised this as a “planned” works order with a completion target of 90 days. The pest control contractor said that, during this visit, chicks were present, which meant a license application would have to be made before any works could commence. When the landlord inspected the following month, there were no chicks or eggs, which meant the works could proceed without a license.
In early June 2021 the resident suggested staying in a caravan park in another area, which was near to a family member. The landlord made enquiries with the caravan park but it declined to take the booking. The landlord told the resident and he offered to make the booking and for the landlord to reimburse him. The landlord said it raised concerns about the potential increase in travel costs and the resident said this was not an issue. The resident moved into the caravan park on 7 June 2021.
In early August 2021 the resident met the landlord at the property to review the progress of the works. It noted that, overall, the resident was pleased with the works but was not happy with some of the decoration finish. The landlord agreed its contractors would attend to address this before completing the works. A few days later an internal landlord update advised that the works were complete and it would visit the property to carry out a post-inspection and contact the resident to discuss handover.
In mid-August 2021 the resident moved back into the property and reported he had no heating or hot water. The landlord raised a routine works order on 17 August 2021 and its gas contractor attended the following day but could not complete the repair and said an electrician needed to attend.
On 17 August 2021, the resident reported that there were no covers on the external vents and that parakeets were still in the area and he was concerned the same problems would happen again. Four days later the landlord asked its contractor for an update regarding this work and it replied that it would deal with this on 23 August 2021.
The resident submitted a compensation claim to the landlord on 19 October 2021 which set out costs incurred because of this situation, including food that had to be thrown away, replacing his fridge freezer because of mould, utility charges and council tax for his time away from the property, additional travel expenses, decorating costs as the works done by the landlord were poor and time off work because of ill-health from stress caused by the situation.
The landlord said its electrician attended the property on 22 October 2021 to carry out the repair to reinstate the heating and hot water but this did not resolve the issue and it agreed to carry out further works, and a part was ordered.
On 9 November 2021 the resident asked for an update on the heating and hot water repair. Two days later the landlord told him it had chased its repairs team for an update regarding this. It also provided a response to his compensation claim, which said:
1. It agreed to pay compensation for food thrown away, utility costs and council tax for his time away from the property.
2. The replacement of the fridge freezer was not within its compensation framework but as a gesture of goodwill, if he provided proof of purchase, it would reimburse him the cost of this.
3. It would not reimburse him for additional travel costs as the area he moved to had been requested by him.
4. It would inspect his property regarding the concerns over the decoration to assess this part of the claim.
5. It would not compensate for loss of earnings due to ill-health as these types of claims would need to be made with medical evidence. It could compensate for days missed due to missed appointments or unreasonable requests to be available for access and asked him to provide further information to be considered, if he had any.
The resident made a complaint on 12 November 2021, saying he had reported birds nesting in his kitchen and bathroom fans but nothing was done. The repairs completed had changed the decoration of the property and it was completely different to how he had decorated it. He had no heating and hot water for 3 months and was having to strip wash his daughter when she visited.
Three days later the landlord internally asked for an update on the boiler repair and on 23 November 2021 it responded that the part was available and its contractor had agreed with the resident to carry out the repair on 14 December 2021, which it did.
The landlord attended a pre-arranged appointment on 25 November 2021 to inspect the redecoration works but this did not go ahead as the resident was not present. It agreed to reattend on 14 December 2021, which it noted that it did and a survey was completed.
On 26 November 2021 the landlord told the resident it was extending the complaint response deadline by 10 working days. It provided an update 10 working days later that it agreed it had not acted quickly enough to remove the birds and there had been multiple service failures, which it apologised for. It had raised a reimbursement payment for expenses during the decant period but there was more compensation to be offered for the service failures; which it would make once the works were completed. It would provide a further update after 22 December 2021.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 23 February 2022, which said:
1. It had had offered to redecorate the property but the resident had asked for this as monetary compensation (and provided an invoice for decorating of £2,254.80). This had not been agreed and if he chose not to accept the offer for it to decorate, it would not offer him money instead.
2. It apologised that the heating and hot water was not working when he moved back into the property and said this should have been done while the property was empty.
3. There had been a delay in it removing the birds which resulted in the need to rewire the property. This resulted in a stay in temporary accommodation. There had also been service failures in it connecting the heating and hot water.
4. It offered £700 compensation and made reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which was used to inform its offer of redress.
In the first week of March 2022 the resident asked to escalate his complaint. The landlord asked for the reasons he remained dissatisfied and after some further email exchanges the resident advised on 14 September 2022 that the stage 1 response had not covered all of the issues raised and the compensation offered was not enough. The landlord had told him he needed to make a personal injury claim relating to his time off work for mental health issues and there was the issue of increased travel costs due to him having to travel back and forth because there was no suitable accommodation in the area. Eight days later the landlord acknowledged the stage 2 escalation and apologised for the delay in escalating the complaint. It would consider the delay as part of the stage 2 review.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 19 October 2022. It upheld the complaint because of the delay to repairs, service failure in rewiring which resulted in no heating and hot water, mishandling of repairs which resulted in a stay in temporary accommodation, stress and anxiety and “home decoration failures”. It offered £3,700 compensation, made up of £700 for the delay to repairs, service failure and stay in temporary accommodation, £500 for stress and anxiety and £2,500 for “home decoration failures”.
The following month the resident asked why the compensation offer had increased so much when it had used the same guidelines at stage 1 and 2. He refused the offer and asked to escalate his complaint to stage 3. The landlord replied that the £700 was in recognition of the decant and the inconvenience of this. At stage 2 it also considered the delays he had endured in relation to the no heating and hot water and decorating failures and had offered a discretionary payment to recognise the overall impact. There was no stage 3 and signposted the resident to this Service.
In July 2023 the landlord told this Service that an additional offer of £2,500 had been made at stage 2 to cover redecoration costs in line with the quote provided by the resident. It said this was only discussed at stage 2, which is why it was not offered at stage 1.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has told this Service that these matters have negatively affected his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

Handling of a bird infestation in the resident’s property and associated repairs

Following its initial inspection in 2018, the landlord noted that the bird infestation was a health hazard, so it was responsible for managing this as per its repairs policy, detailed above. It was also responsible for repairs to the electrical wiring, ducts and vents in line with its repairs policy.
The required actions noted by the landlord following the visit in 2018 were sensible; however, these were not progressed and no further action was taken for nearly 3 years, despite the resident chasing this up on at least one occasion in 2019. This was frustrating and upsetting for the resident as he was living with bird excrement in his property for a prolonged period of time. This frustration was evident to the landlord as it noted he was “very angry” when he called in 2019 to report that nothing had been done.
The landlord raised a routine works order in May 2021 when the resident reported he was without power in the property. However, this was not in line with its repairs policy, as detailed above; which said that a total power outage should be raised as an emergency repair. Despite the landlord raising this as a routine repair, it still attended within the required 24 hours set out in its repairs policy for emergency repairs.
After the resident was decanted from the property, the landlord carried out an inspection 2 weeks later to confirm the scope of the electrical works required. This was anunderstandable timeframe considering this visit was attended by multiple contractors and landlord staff. It was reasonable that the landlord raised the works as “planned”, considering the scale of what was required.
The landlord completed the works in around65 days, which was within the target time of 90 days. Considering the scope of the works and the delay in starting due to the presence of chicks on the initial inspection, the length of time taken was reasonable.From the records provided, there were a number of internal updates provided on the progress of the works, which showed that the landlord was monitoring these and progressing themin a timely manner.
The landlord said that it post-inspected the works before the resident returned; however, there is no formal record of this inspection and, on the resident’s return, he reported that covers had not been fitted to the external vents to prevent the birds from re-entering. This calls into question the thoroughness of the post-inspection and was frustrating for the resident that he had returned to the property after 3 months away to find the works incomplete.
The landlord was responsible for redecorating the property following the re-wiring works in line with its repairs procedure, as detailed above. When the resident raised concerns about the quality of the work during an inspection in early August 2021, the landlord agreed to carry out further works, which was appropriate to ensure that the resident was satisfied with the condition of the property. When further concerns were raised after the resident moved back, the landlord inspected, which was reasonable to assess the condition and understand the resident’s concerns.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord was entitled to refuse to pay monetary compensation for the redecoration of the property, on the basis that it had offered to carry out the works. At stage 2, the landlord used its discretion to change its position on this and decided to offer the resident monetary compensation of £2,500, which again, it was entitled to do.
This additional offer was the reason for the significant increase in compensation at stage 2 of the complaint process and while the landlord responded to the resident’s query about this, the response was not clear. It was only after the landlord provided an explanation to this Service, that it became clear what this amount was for.A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident the £2,500 for redecoration costs, if not done so already.
When the resident told the landlord his mental health had been affected by this issue, it advised him to make a personal injury claim, which was appropriate and in line with its compensation policy, as detailed above. However, it also offered compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused. This was fair and showed that it took the impact on the resident seriously and wanted to put things right, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.
The landlord acknowledged there were failings in its handling of this matter, apologised and offered compensation. The landlord referred to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies in respect of the compensation, rather than its own compensation policy, and offered an amount in recognition of severe maladministration. This was an accurate assessment considering the significant delay in it addressing this matter and the detriment caused to the resident.
The landlord offered a total of £1,200 for multiple service failures and distress and inconvenience but with no specific amounts given for individual service failures. Based on the landlord’s own assessment that its handling of this issue amounted to severe maladministration and in consultation with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, £900 is considered fair and reasonable for this element of the complaint, meaning £300 is remaining and will be considered as redress for other service failures, assessed below.
Overall, the landlord has adopted the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to be fair and put things right for the resident in its handling of this matter. Therefore, the landlord has provided reasonable redress in relation to this issue and a recommendation has been made below for the landlord to pay him the £900 compensation, if not done so already.
As part of its final response, the landlord said that it would make improvements in the service it provided to make sure this did not happen again. While positive that the landlord is seeking to learn from its mistakes, this is very vague and not clear what lessons it has learned or changes it has made. Therefore, a recommendation has been made below for the landlord to carry out a detailed review of this case to identify, where possible, how and why it failed to act to resolve the bird infestation issue in 2018 and 2019 when the resident reported this, and provide a written outcome to the resident and this Service.

Handling of the resident’s decant

When the landlord was made aware of the scale of the works required to the electrics in the property in early 2021, it quickly agreed a decant for the resident; which was in line with its decants procedure, as detailed above.
The landlord initially placed the resident in hotel accommodation, which was reasonable as it needed to source alternative accommodation quickly. The landlord included the resident’s child on the booking, even though they did not live with the resident full time, which was appropriate and showed that it wanted to support the resident. It also included a dining plan with the booking and while the food may not have been to the resident or his child’s taste, this was reasonable as it would have been limited in the food options it could provide in these circumstances.
The evidence shows that within the first week the resident was decanted, the landlord made internal enquiries about potential suitable properties, as committed in its decants procedure detailed above. Unfortunately, it was unable to find a suitable property and while frustrating for the resident, the landlord’s actions and conclusion were reasonable considering the shortage of social housing and limited availability of properties. At this point, it passed the matter to a third party booking agent, which was again reasonable and while this did not result in alternative accommodation being found, this was not the fault of the landlord.
When the resident suggested staying in a caravan park, the landlord made enquiries about this, which showed it was trying to work with the resident to find a solution that suited him. The landlord accepted there were delays in it reimbursing the resident for the accommodation costs; however, as the resident had offered to make the booking, it was an unfortunate consequence of this arrangement.
The landlord said in internal email communication that it was updating the resident on the progress of the works while he was decanted. This was in line with its decant procedure, as detailed above; however, there is no evidence of this within the records provided. Similarly, it said in internal communication that it would contact the resident to discuss handover in line with its decant procedure, as detailed above. However, there is no record that it did this either. Due to the lack of evidence, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to assess whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable or in line the commitments set out in its procedure and a full assessment of this is made under record keeping below.
The landlord agreed to compensate the resident for food items thrown away, utilities and council tax during the decant period; which was fair and in line with its compensation policy. It also agreed to reimburse the cost of a fridge freezer despite not being obliged to do so, which showed that it took the resident’s concerns seriously and was committed to resolving the issues he was experiencing.
The landlord declined to cover the resident’s additional travel expenses and, while frustrating for him, this decision was reasonable. This was because the resident had suggested the caravan park for the temporary decant, despite it being in another area, which meant he would need to travel further every day for work.
The landlord also declined to reimburse the resident for loss of earnings due to ill-health, which was reasonable and in line with its compensation framework. The landlord explained the circumstances when it would pay loss of earnings in line with its compensation framework and also suggested he could make a personal injury claim, which was correct advice.
Overall, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant.

Handling of a heating and hot water repair

The landlord is responsible for repairs to the boiler as per its responsive repairs policy detailed above. When the resident reported he had no heating or hot water in August 2021, the landlord raised a routine works order, which was reasonable as its repairs policy said it would only raise this type of job as an emergency between the months of October and May. Despite raising this as a routine repair, the landlord’s gas contractor attended the following day, which showed that it took the matter seriously.
When the gas contractor could not complete the repair and fed back that an electrician was required, it was a further 66 days before they attended, which was an unexplained and unreasonable delay. At that time, it was still unable to carry out the repair and a part had to be ordered, which led to a further, unavoidable delay.
It is understandable that, at times, unavoidable delays occur and where they do, landlord’s should consider what, if any temporary measures it can put in place to support residents until the full repair is completed. In this case, there is mention that temporary heaters were provided but it is not clear when this was done so the Ombudsman is unable to assess whether the landlord’ actions were reasonable in respect of this.
Despite the landlord being aware that this repair was outstanding and had been for some time, it was only after the resident chased progress in early November 2021 and via his complaint the same month, that the landlord followed up with its contractor. It is important that landlords are proactive in chasing updates from contractors on outstanding repairs to ensure that timely progress is made as it is unfair to expect residents to continually chase for updates.
Once the part was received by the contractor, an appointment was arranged to complete the repair 16 days later. The landlord noted that the reason the appointment was made for this date was because the resident did not want to take any more time off work, having already missed a number of days due to other repair issues. By this time, it was late November 2021 and considering the length of time the heating and hot water had not been working and the full circumstances of the case, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to arrange to bring the appointment forward by considering whether it could offer a weekend or out of hours appointment. However, there is no evidence that it did this.
Overall, the repair was completed in 120 days which is a significant amount of time to be without heating and hot water and amounts to maladministration. This was a particular concern as 2 and half of those months were winter months, when the weather would have been colder. While the landlord appeared to provide temporary heaters, it is not clear when it did this and this was not the same as having fully functioning heating in the property. This also did not address the lack of hot water which the resident said was a particular problem in relation to his daughter, who he was having to strip wash when she stayed with him.
The landlord acknowledged there had been service failure in its handling of the heating and hot water repair, apologised and offered compensation, which showed it wanted to put things right for the resident. The landlord offered a total of £1,200 for multiple service failures and distress and inconvenience but with no specific amounts for individual service failures. In line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, £900 of this has been awarded for its handling of the bird infestation, meaning £300 is remaining.
Considering the length of time it took for the heating and hot water repair to be completed, the time of year and the impact on the resident and his daughter, this amount is considered insufficient. Therefore, an order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident the £300, if not done so already and an additional £100 compensation for its handling of this issue.

Complaint handling

In 2019 the landlord noted that the resident wanted to make a complaint but this was not progressed. This was a missed opportunity to put things right at an earlier stage. This amounts to maladministration and an order has been made below for the landlord to provide staff training on complaint handling.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response in 71 working days, which was over the committed response time set out in its complaints policy, as detailed above. While the landlord did provide 2 updates to the resident after 10 and 20 working days, it failed to provide any further updates until the response was provided over 50 working days later. This amounts to maladministration and would have left the resident feeling uncertain about what was happening with his complaint and as though the landlord was not taking the matter seriously.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint was provided around 159 working days after the resident’s initial escalation request which was, again, over the committed response time set out in its complaints policy, as detailed above. Shortly after the resident asked to escalate his complaint, the landlord asked him to set out the reasons he remained dissatisfied, which was reasonable to enable it to provide a meaningful response to his concerns. This information was not provided until 6 months later and while there were some further email exchanges between the resident and the landlord in March and May 2022, the landlord did not follow up or take further action in respect of the complaint, which meant that a further 4 months went by before the complaint was progressed.
Landlord’s are entitled to decline to escalate complaints where there is insufficient detail provided to do so. When it makes this decision, it should communicate this to the resident and close the complaint, rather than allowing it to sit stagnant with no action or progress, which is what happened in this case. Once the resident set out his reasons for the escalation request, the landlord provided its response in 25 working days, which was still over its committed response time but only by 5 days, which is a minor delay.
In the landlord’s acknowledgement of the stage 2 escalation, it apologised for the delay and said that this would be considered as part of the stage 2 review. However, there is no evidence that it was. This amounts to maladministration and orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise for its complaint handling and pay the resident £300 compensation, which is considered reasonable and in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

Record keeping

This investigation has highlighted gaps in the landlord’s records in relation to its handling of the resident’s decant and a heating and hot water repair. The records provided indicate that the landlord took actions but failed to keep a detailed record these, which has impacted the Ombudsman’s ability to fully investigate these issues and determine whether its actions were reasonable and in line with its policy and procedure commitments and best practice.
Keeping detailed records of all decisions and contacts with residents is extremely important so that landlords can account for its actions to residents and this Service, where required. An order has been made below for the landlord to provide staff training on the importance of keeping detailed records.
When the Ombudsman asked the landlord for records of its phone contact with the resident over the period of investigation, it was unable to provide these because it only keeps call records for 12 months. While it is understood that it is up to the landlord to determine how long it should retain recordings, a complete lack of information about the content and frequency of any calls is of concern. This is because landlords need to be able to refer back to contact records for consistency when responding to enquiries or complaints and to be able to evidence that it has acted in line with its policies and procedures. The lack of records in this case means that the landlord cannot evidence that it kept to the commitments around contact and updates set out in its decant procedure and this amounts to maladministration.
The Ombudsman has decided to issue a wider order under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme for the landlord to review its practice in relation to the failings identified in this determination, which may give rise to further complaints about the matter. We have set out the scope of the review below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about a bird infestation in the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
  1. a heating and hot water repair.
  2. the complaint.
  3. record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord delayed in addressing the bird infestation for around 3 years, despite the resident reporting this on at least 2 occasions. The delay led to major works being required in the property, which resulted in the resident having to be temporarily moved out of the property. While decanted, the landlord closely monitored the works and completed these in line with its target timeframe. However, when the resident moved back, the works were incomplete and he had to chase this up for it to be completed. As part of its complaint handling, the landlord acknowledged its failings, apologised and offered compensation. It recognised the significant detriment caused to the resident and offered reasonable redress to put things right in accordance with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.
The landlord quickly arranged a decant for the resident when it was made aware of the scale of the works. It tried to source alternative accommodation from within its own stock but was unable to do so and while disappointing for the resident, this was not a failure by the landlord. It agreed to reimburse the resident the costs for accommodation at the caravan park, despite this not being part of its usual temporary accommodation arrangements. The landlord followed its compensation policy and framework in the offers it made and went beyond this in agreeing to cover the costs of a replacement fridge freezer. Its decisions not to reimburse for travel costs and loss of earnings due to ill-health were reasonable and in line with its compensation policy and framework.
The landlord completed the heating and hot water repair in 120 days, and while some of this delay was unavoidable, there were periods of unexplained and unreasonable delay. The landlord was not proactive in chasing up the repair with its contractor and only did this when prompted by the resident, which placed an unfair burden on him to repeatedly chase this up. The landlord did not consider whether it could complete the repair sooner by offering an out of hours appointment and while not obligated by its policy to do so, considering the circumstances of the case, it would have been reasonable for it to consider this. The landlord acknowledged there was service failure in its handling of this matter, apologised and made an offer of compensation; however, this was insufficient considering the circumstances and the impact on the resident and his child.
The resident made it clear he wanted to complain in 2019 but this was not progressed, which was a missed opportunity for the landlord to put things right sooner. The landlord’s complaint handling was delayed at both stage 1 and stage 2, which meant that the complaint journey took almost 1 year to complete. While some of the delay was not the fault of the landlord, there were unexplained periods of delay and a lack of proactive follow up to ensure the complaint was progressed in a timely manner. The landlord acknowledged there had been a delay when it escalated the complaint in September 2022 but failed to consider this as part of its final response, despite committing that it would.
There are gaps in the landlord’s records that have impacted the Ombudsman’s ability to fully investigate elements of the resident’s complaint. It said that it had done, or would do actions but there are is no record of these, which means it cannot evidence that it complied with the commitments set out in its decant procedure.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £700 compensation, made up of £400 for its handling of a heating and hot water repair and £300 for its complaint handling.
2. The landlord to apologise to the resident for its complaint handling.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 4 weeks.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to provide staff training on:
1. Complaint handling in line with its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
2. The importance of keeping detailed records with reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, which can be found here KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 8 weeks.
In accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme, within 12 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to consider the failings identified in this report and complete a review of its record keeping practises in relation to phone calls. As part of this review, the landlord should consider how it can investigate the frequency and content of telephone contact when recordings are deleted but may be relevant to subsequent enquiries or complaints. The landlord may wish to involve its data protection lead in this review and include consideration of the requirements under the Data Protection Act, in relation to retention of data.
The landlord to produce a report setting out its current approach and any proposed changes, including a rationale for how it reached its conclusions in line with relevant legislation and best practice. A copy of this to be provided to the Ombudsman with any proposals within 12 weeks of the date of this report, including timeframes for implementation and a plan for any staff training.

Recommendations

Pay the resident £3,400 compensation made up of £2,500 for decoration costs and £900 for its handling of the bird infestation and associated repairs, if not done so already. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.
Carry out a review of this case to identify how and why it failed to act to resolve the bird infestation issue in 2018 and 2019 when the resident reported this. A written report to be provided to the resident and this Service with the outcome of this review and any changes it will make to how it delivers its services going forward.
The landlord to notify this Service of its intentions regarding the above recommendations within 4 weeks.