Southern Housing Group Limited (202218695)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218695

Southern Housing Group Limited

27 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of an outstanding repair to the bedroom light.
2. Complaint handling.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 2 bedroom mid terraced house which is owned by the landlord. The tenancy started in April 2006.
The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 16 August 2022. She explained that she had been left without a bedroom ceiling light. She said the fault started following asbestos removal works on 15 June 2018. While the landlord had made the light safe, the full repair remained outstanding. She continued to chase and wait for progress after each subsequent report in October 2019, November 2021, and July 2022.
Having raised her complaint, the resident chased the landlord for an acknowledgement and updates between August 2022 to October 2022. The landlord identified in September 2022 that it had incorrectly raised the complaint under the name of the resident’s sister.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaint process on 25 October 2022. It concluded that there had been delays as its contractor had subcontracted the work. Furthermore, the subcontractor thought it was awaiting an asbestos report before it could replace the lights. The landlord apologised, upheld the resident’s complaint, and offered £100 compensation.
On the same day the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response. She considered its offer inadequate considering the years she had been without a ceiling light. The resident reminded the landlord that it had already completed asbestos works in 2018. She offered a copy of the report to the landlord as proof. On 25 October 2022 the landlord recorded that she asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process.
The resident chased the landlord for updates on 2, 9, 29 November 2022, and 6 December 2022. In this time she approached the Housing Ombudsman for help. We issued a letter to the landlord on 18 November 2022, requesting it provide her with its stage 2 final response.
On 23 December 2022 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It acknowledged that her ceiling had been replaced following asbestos works in 2018. Therefore, this should not have caused the delays she experienced. It also recognised there had been complaint handling failures at stage 1. A repair was provisionally arranged over 4 days from 10 January 2023 and compensation increased to £775.
Following completion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure (ICP), the resident reported that works were not completed as discussed. Agreement had been reached to complete rewiring without the use of trunking. The resident reported that the attending subcontractor advised it was unable to chase the wall and she “needed to make a decision.” The resident reluctantly agreed and raised her dissatisfaction with the landlord.
The full resolution of the works remained outstanding until 11 July 2023. The landlord returned and completed the repair as it promised in its stage 2 response.

Assessment and findings

Handling of the resident’s report of an outstanding repair to the bedroom light

There is evidence that the resident’s bedroom ceiling was replaced following asbestos removal works in 2018. The resident retains a copy of the asbestos report dated 15 May 2018. She says the faulty light was reported to the contractor upon completion of the ceiling works on 15 June 2018. The landlord holds no records of this.
The landlord states that while it was not evidenced at the time, it says it is suspected that wiring was damaged during the asbestos removal/ceiling replacement in 2018. However it is unclear from the repair records how the landlord or contractor dealt with these reports.
Without good knowledge and information management (KIM) a landlord is unable to deliver its services efficiently and effectively. It is imperative that records are accurate and maintained to keep both the property and the resident safe now and in the future. Landlord’s should stress test systems prior to any changes to identify whether they can ‘talk’ to each other and staff can access the data they need. The landlord’s acceptance that “it suspected” that the light was faulty from June 2018 indicates that it had failed to maintain accurate records.
There is evidence that the landlord attended the property due to a leak on 18 April 2019. The landlord repaired damage caused to the bedroom ceiling. However, there is no evidence within its records that it fixed the fault with the light.
Section 11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985) requires landlords to make repairs to the structure and exterior, as well as to installations such as boilers, pipes, and electrics. This responsibility is confirmed within the landlord’s responsive repairs policy.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours of being notified.
The resident reported the fault to the bedroom light to the landlord again on 29 October 2019. The landlord attended within 24 hours. This was appropriate and in line with its policy and its obligations under the LTA 1985.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it will attend to routine repairs “as quickly as possible.” The policy does not give precise timescales for routine repairs. Therefore, in line with industry best practice, a timeframe of 28 days is considered reasonable for the purpose of this investigation.
While the landlord had attended to make safe the light, there is no evidence of it undertaking works to remedy the fault which had already been outstanding since June 2018. The evidence supplied to us includes a note that states the “work appeared to go through its contractor” and there was “no information why there was no progress with this until May 2020.” This is not appropriate and demonstrates a failing with the landlord’s record keeping. It failed to evidence maintaining communication channels with the resident and/or the contractor to ensure the repair was resolved.
Between 29 October 2019 to 5 May 2020, a total of 131 working days passed before it reattended the property. This was not appropriate and not in line with its policy. The repair continued to remain unresolved. The resident says she simply wanted communication, an action plan, and an apology for the delays. However, these were not forthcoming without the need to repeatedly chase and remind the landlord of the fault.
There is evidence from 5 May 2020 that the fault location was identified and discussions took place regarding the work required to put things right. It is at this stage that it is first documented that the resident did not want trunking to be used to complete the repair. There is further evidence of record keeping failures that delayed the repair. Evidence supplied to us states that there is “no information on why there was no progress until August 2021.”
While its repair records show attendance to the resident’s property in August 2021, this was due to another leak. There is no evidence that the landlord attempted to rectify the faulty ceiling light. Furthermore, there is no evidence of communication with the resident to discuss plans to remedy the outstanding works. This was not appropriate. The repair continued to be outside of the landlord’s responsive repair timeframes and she received no update or action plan on the proposed remedy.
Between October 2021 to December 2021 the resident continued to chase for updates. While there is evidence that the landlord attended the property, discussions continued regarding the options to avoid trunking and the possible need for a raised platform. While it was reasonable for the landlord to consider ways to work around the room design and the resident’s furniture, it had now been 3 years. This was not appropriate and significantly beyond the landlord’s responsive repair timeframe.
While it is reasonable that the landlord sought to consider a remedy to meet the resident’s request to avoid trunking, it is unclear why there is little to no communication with her about this, until she chased. This was not appropriate and a failing that demonstrated no effort to keep the resident informed.
The landlord has a duty to ensure that the property is kept in repair and safe. It is reasonable that repairs are completed in a cost effective manner. Had the landlord chosen that trunking was its preferred option, it would have been reasonable for it to have explained this to the resident. However within the landlord’s stage 2 response of 23 December 2022, it said it was “committed to repairing the light fitting without the need for installing trunking.” It was therefore reasonable for her to expect this to be done as discussed.
The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged that it had failed to complete the repair within a reasonable timescale. It further acknowledged that delays waiting for asbestos work in 2022 was incorrect and unnecessary. It was therefore appropriate for it to apologise and increase the compensation of £100 at stage 1 to £775. Of which, £675 was for the identified failures to complete the repair.
The stage 2 offer of compensation and an agreement to put things right was appropriate. However, we note that the landlord wrote that “we do expect residents to report and follow up on outstanding repairs via the usual channels with our contractors.” It was unreasonable for the landlord to pass the responsibility of monitoring and chasing progress to her. The evidence shows that she had chased the landlord between 2019 to 2022.
Furthermore, she disputes the landlord’s claim that it did not know of the repair need in June 2018. This comment is unfair and does not demonstrate the landlord taking responsibility for its failings. It failed to ensure works were completed in line with its policies and failed to put things right within a reasonable time. This was not appropriate.
Furthermore, having assured the resident of the planned works and proposed repair dates in January 2023, the resident felt obliged to agree to trunking on the day of the repair. She described being told by the contractor that it did not do chasing work and that “she needed to make a decision.” This is further evidence that the landlord had failed to effectively communicate or co-ordinate the works that it had promised. This is a failing and required further time and effort for her to raise her dissatisfaction.
The promised resolution that should have been completed in January 2023 had taken more than 1650 calendar days since the asbestos work to complete. While the light now worked, the commitment to complete the repair without trunking had failed. There is no evidence of prior discussions to explain the possibility of a change to the promises made. This was unreasonable and did not demonstrate that the landlord had learnt from previous outcomes. It failed to demonstrate effective communication with, or management of the contractor undertaking the repair. This was a failing and led to the resident using more time and effort to resolve.
When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
While the detriment to the resident was low and there was no loss of a room, the time taken to repair the light was unreasonable. It required significant time and effort by the resident between June 2018 to December 2022 to pursue the landlord to progress the repair. This continued until July 2023 due to the landlord’s failures to deliver the promises set out in its stage 2 response.
Therefore, we find maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of an outstanding repair to the bedroom light. While the landlord’s offer of £675 falls within the reasonable level of redress for maladministration, a determination of reasonable redress cannot be found here. This is because:
1. It failed to appropriately demonstrate learning or improved record keeping.
2. It failed to deliver on the promises it had made and failed to put things right as it agreed.
3. It was not appropriate that the full resolution of the repair continued for more than 6 months beyond completion of its ICP.

Complaint handling

The resident raised her complaint to the landlord on 16 August 2022. The landlord’s records show that it recorded acknowledging this on 18 August 2022. While a 2 working day response time is appropriate and in line with its policy, there is evidence that the resident was required to chase the landlord on 9 September 2022 as she had received no acknowledgement or response.
There is evidence that the landlord had raised the complaint under the wrong person and sent acknowledgements to an incorrect email address. While it is noted that the person was the resident’s sister, this is a failing of record keeping. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to investigate a data breach, but the resident may wish to raise this with the Information Commissioners Office (ICO). Addressing this issue required time and effort by the resident to resolve and delayed her receiving the response she was due.
The landlord’s complaints policy states it will respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days of the acknowledgement date.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out requirements for member landlords that will allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. The purpose of the Code is to enable landlords to resolve complaints raised by their residents quickly and to use the data and learning from complaints to drive service improvements.
The landlord’s complaints policy is non-compliant with the Code. A complaint response should at stage 1 be sent within 10 working days of the complaint being made. This has been identified in recent investigations and the landlord ordered to pay particular attention to the complaint stages when it conducts a self-assessment of its complaints policy.
The Code will become statutory from 1 April 2024, meaning that landlords will be obliged by law to follow its requirements. The Code aims to achieve best practice in complaint handling and provide a better service to residents. The landlord should ensure that it updates its policy to reflect the new Code. As a result, wider orders have recently been issued to the landlord under paragraph 54 (f) of the Scheme and are referred to later in this report.
The landlord identified it had raised the complaint under the wrong person. It recorded resending its stage 1 acknowledgement to the resident on 16 September 2022. It also advised that it would require a further 10 working days to provide her with its response. This was not appropriate as the landlord’s complaints policy states that it will “explain why and agree” the new response date with the resident.” There is no evidence that the landlord discussed this with her beforehand.
On 9 September 2022 we note from the landlord’s complaint records that it recorded the need to use the correct email address. However, while it used the correct address for its stage 1 response emailed at 3:08pm on 16 September 2022, its salutation remained to the wrong person. This did not demonstrate any learning by the landlord. Furthermore it was not appropriate as the resident had now waited 23 working days for a response. The landlord was now 13 working days passed the required response timeframe as set out in the Code.
The landlord’s policy states that it will respond to stage 2 requests within 20 working days. While this is aligned to the Code, there is evidence that the resident called on 12 October 2022. She chased the landlord again having not received the response. It is reasonable to determine from the evidence that this was due to the landlord emailing the wrong person on 16 September 2022. This avoidable failing by the landlord continued to require time and trouble by the resident to progress matters.
Internal communication on 12 October 2022 demonstrated training needs for the landlord’s staff. Although attempts were made to resolve the resident’s complaint delay, internal messages were being directed to the wrong teams. Furthermore, the landlord’s records note on this date that the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2. This was a reasonable request given the landlord’s failure to correctly acknowledge, address its extension request to the correct person, or send her its stage 1 response.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 25 October 2022. This was not appropriate as it was 39 working days beyond the expected response time as set out in the Code. On the same day the resident repeated her dissatisfaction and asked to escalate the complaint.
It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the delayed repair. However it failed to acknowledge its stage 1 complaint handling failures. While its response was now sent to the correct email address, the landlord’s complaint records show that its salutation remained addressed to the wrong name. This did not demonstrate the landlord learning from outcomes or improving its record keeping.
Its stage 1 response further failed to demonstrate any learning as there was no mention of what action it was going to take to prevent something similar happening again. Furthermore, the compensation of £100 was incorrectly explained and calculated. The landlord’s delays, errors, and lack of learning at this stage demonstrated poor complaint handling and training needs.
The landlord’s stage 2 response took 43 working days to be sent. This was not appropriate and beyond the 20 working day timeframe as set out in the landlord’s policy and the Code. The resident chased on 4 occasions for an update. This was therefore a failing by the landlord. It caused the resident unnecessary detriment due to inconvenience, time and trouble in seeking a resolution to her complaint.
There is evidence that the landlord failed to pay the resident the compensation offered in December 2022 until March 2023. Although the resident provided her bank details as requested, this information sat with a member of staff who left the organisation. This is a failing and did not demonstrate the landlord making provision to ensure work was allocated in the absence of that staff member.
£100 of the landlord’s compensation offered at stage 2 was specifically for its identified complaint handling failures. We have considered the following evidence:
1. Failure with the landlord’s acknowledgement and extension process.
2. The lack of communication and failure to raise the complaint under the correct person’s name.
3. Delayed responses.
4. Failure to demonstrate learning from outcomes.
5. Failure to deliver promises made at stage 2.
There were multiple complaint handling failures which adversely affected the resident. While there was some attempt to put things right, given the above, £100 was not proportionate redress in the circumstances. It failed to recognise the detriment on the resident to raise her complaint. We therefore find maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling and order further compensation of £200. This is in line with our remedies guidance on redress.

Record keeping

This investigation has highlighted gaps in the landlord’s record keeping. This includes:
1. Its handling and monitoring of the resident’s report of a faulty bedroom ceiling light between June 2018 to July 2023.
2. Failure to ensure its contractor had records of completed asbestos works.
3. Incorrectly raising the resident’s complaint and attempting to correspond with the wrong person.
4. Delays between December 2022 to March 2023 to pay the resident the compensation offered.
5. Failure to demonstrate effective communication with its contractor to ensure promised remedial works were completed as discussed.
The evidence provided indicates that the landlord took action but failed to monitor progress or communicate with parties involved with the repair. This led to significant delays. The repair was either left outstanding, unnecessarily waiting on an asbestos report, or not completed as agreed with the resident.
Furthermore, having revised its offer of compensation at stage 2 of its ICP in December 2022, it failed to action the compensation offered. Although the resident had sent her bank details, she had to chase for an update 3 months later. This was not appropriate as the landlord’s compensation policy states that it will make compensation payments within 20 working days of the date its offer is accepted.
The landlord is responsible for the actions or inactions of its contractors. In this case the resident’s repair was delayed by the landlord’s failure to ensure that communication was effective between its contractor and the resident. It should have had sufficient information to recognise that its intervention was required and managed the contractor to ensure it was taking the appropriate steps to put things right.
In this case, we find maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping. These failures contributed to the delays experienced by the resident.

Review of polices and practice

The Ombudsman has found maladministration following several investigations into complaints raised with the landlord involving its response to reported repairs, its record keeping, and complaint handling. As a result of these, wider orders have been issued to the landlord under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme. This is for the landlord to review its policy or practice in relation to the service failures identified, which may give rise to further complaints about the matter.
The landlord has been ordered to carry out a review of its practice in relation to how it responds to reported repairs, record keeping, and complaint handling. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the previous cases and so the learning from this complaint should be incorporated into the wider review. These were ordered as part of cases 202218185 (record keeping) and 202307305 (complaint policy compliance). In addition to this, we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to the landlord as part of the wider order.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of an outstanding repair to the bedroom light.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Write to the resident and offer an apology for the findings of this report.
2. Pay the resident £975 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £775 offered at stage 2, if not already paid.
  2. A further £200 for the time and trouble, and the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
To demonstrate learning from the issues identified in this investigation, the landlord should include this investigation within the wider orders for complaints 202218185 and 202307305. Upon completion, copies of the report should be provided as evidence.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Consider the failings identified in this report and complete a review into its handling of repair to identify how it can prevent similar failings happening again, with a particular focus on:
  1. Its poor communication and failure to follow up on the outstanding repair.
  2. The lack of proactive communication about delays.
  3. Co-ordination and monitoring of its contractors.