Southern Housing Group Limited (202219953)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219953

Southern Housing Group Limited

8 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 repairs to the resident’s roof and guttering, including delayed appointments and damages caused to the resident’s property.
The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy for a 2 bedroom house with the landlord, which is a housing association. The resident moved into the property via a mutual exchange (MEX). The property has a ‘lean to’ style conservatory, which the resident is responsible for maintaining.
On 18 February 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to report that due to the current storms, a roof tile had fallen off his roof, which caused the roof on the lean to conservatory to shatter. The resident also said that as the roof had only been recently refurbished, someone must have left a loose tile, which fell and caused the damage.
On 21 February 2022 the landlord responded to the resident and said that its customer service team do not raise repairs but had forwarded the email to its contractor. It also provided the resident with the contractors contact details should he need to query the repair further.
On 18 March 2022 the contractor raised a repair for the roof to be repaired and an appointment was made for 22 March 2022. The repair was rescheduled twice to 1 April 2022 and 25 May 2022.
On 25 May 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and advised that 2 tiles had fallen off his roof and onto the conservatory and that he was unhappy that 3 appointments had been cancelled (22 March, 1 April and 25 May 2022). The landlord raised a stage 1 complaint regarding the issues.
On 10 June 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and confirmed that it needed an additional 10 working days to investigate and respond to the complaint.
On 28 June 2022 the landlord provided its stage 1 response, which confirmed that the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of his roof repair, and that a delay had resulted in a second tile falling which had damaged the conservatory roof. The landlord’s response confirmed that an appointment had been rescheduled 3 times and that a new appointment had been scheduled. However due to issues with operative availability, the new appointment was not until 8 September 2022. The landlord upheld the complaint at stage 1, apologised for the delay and offered the resident £50 compensation.
On 26 August 2022 the landlord forwarded the stage 1 response again to the resident. On 29 August 2022 the resident responded to the landlord and asked why the response had been forwarded to him as he was waiting for someone to respond to his stage 2 escalation. The resident said that he had escalated his complaint multiple times but had not heard from anyone, and in order to resolve his complaint he wanted a surveyor to carry out an inspection and £1650 compensation to cover the cost of replacing his conservatory.
On 10 September 2022 the landlord logged a further stage 2 escalation that it had received via its social media page where the resident explained that his repair was still outstanding and was looking for £1600 compensation.
On 26 September 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and provides it stage 2 response on 24 October 2022, which said:
1. The roof was replaced in 2020 and that no issues had been reported until February 2022, following an extreme storm.
2. It acknowledged that the resident reported the missing roof tile in February 2022, but an order was not raised by its contractor until 18 March 2022 due to issues with staffing levels. It did not have any evidence that the resident had chased the landlord or contractor in the interim.
3. It apologised that it did not meet its repair obligations by completing the repair within 3 months and confirmed that it was still outstanding.
4. An operative had attended on 22 October 2022, but due to the rain had to reschedule to 24 October 2022.
5. In regard to the damage to the conservatory, the landlord’s insurance only covers main buildings and not outbuildings. It would expect the resident to claim the costs of any damage from their own insurance, and if the insurer deemed here was any negligence it would submit a counter claim.
6. It would not offer compensation in relation to the damage, in lieu of the resident not having insurance.
7. It acknowledged there was a delay in their complaint handling at both stage 1 and 2.
8. It offered a total of £300 compensation, made up of:
  1. £50 service failure in relation to complaint handling.
  2. £50 delay in completing the repair.
  3. £200 discretionary payment for significant delay and inconvenience.
On 24 October 2022, following receipt of the stage 2, the resident contacted the landlord as he disagreed with the response. The resident explained that he felt there had been negligence as it left roof tiles for several months despite being on notice and had the repair been carried out then it may have stopped the second tile from falling and causing the damage. He also explained that he could not gain insurance for the conservatory as contents insurance only covered his belongings and no company would issue buildings insurance for a housing association property.
On 27 October 2022 the landlord responded to the resident’s email and said that:
1. It acknowledged that he could not obtain insurance, but it did not mean that the landlord is then responsible for the damage.
2. It could not provide a response or compensation for what might have happened, only for the delay and service failure that occurred in getting the repairs completed.
3. It further provided the details of the Housing Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling.
In November 2022 the resident contacts the Ombudsman and explained that he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The resident said that the landlord had only accepted responsibility for the inconvenience caused by repeated cancelled appointments, but there was no acceptance for its part in the failure to act on a serious health and safety risk. The resident also said that the landlord’s failure to act in a timely manner ultimately his family and property at unnecessary risk for months, and caused further destruction of property which increased the financial impact to rectify. In order to resolve his complaint, the resident was seeking £1650 compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints is set out by its Scheme, and Paragraph 42 f of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”.
This means it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine cause, liability or negligence for damage to the resident’s possessions, but it can assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case. While the Ombudsman can take a view on the position by reference to law and policies, if this is disputed, only a court or tribunal can offer a definitive and legally binding decision.
Therefore, for clarity, this investigation focuses on the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s roof and whether this was in line with its published policies and procedures.

Policies and Procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a legal duty on landlords to make full, effective and lasting repairs once it is given notice of disrepair. It must keep in repair and working order the structure and exterior of the property.
The landlord’s resident handbook confirms that repairs can be reported to the service centre via the phone and will be transferred to the local repairs contractor for the specific area. The repairs policy also confirms this and further states that repairs can also be reported at any time though the website and email.
The landlord’s repair and maintenance policy, dated March 2021, confirms that the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in good repair. This includes drains, gutters, external pipes, the roof, outside walls, doors, windows, integral garages and stores that are let with the property. The landlord is not responsible for any of the items which have been gifted to the tenancy, which means items which it has provided, but will have agreed to give to the tenant so that they own them and are responsible for their repair maintenance and replacement.
Residents are responsible for repairing damage caused to garden sheds or similar structures. It further confirms that repairs are categorised as either emergency, which will be completed within 24 hours, or routine repairs, which will be completed as soon as possible.
The policy also confirms that the landlord is responsible for ensuring the structure of the building and communal areas and that residents are responsible for obtaining contents insurance to cover the loss or accidental damage to furniture and contents within your home and garden. It also states that the landlord’s insurance does not cover resident’s belongings in the event of damage.
The landlord’s complaint policy confirms that it operates a 2 stage complaint process. Stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days and will be responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days and will be responded to within 20 working days. At both stages, the landlord can extend its response time by 10 working days if more time is required.

The Ombudsman’s approach.

The Ombudsman’s role is to determine complaints by reference to what is fair in all the circumstances and decide if the landlord is responsible formal administration or service failure.
When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right, and
3. Learn from outcomes.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s roof and guttering, including delayed appointments and damages caused to the resident’s property.

In line with the resident’s tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for maintaining the outside structure of the roof and its policy confirms it will respond to routine repairs as soon as possible. The resident has confirmed that he is responsible for the lean to conservatory and any repairs and maintenance.
Based on the information provided to the Ombudsman, as part of the landlord’s complaint investigation it acknowledged that when the resident first reported his roofing repair by email in February 2022, it took the contractor an unreasonable amount of time to raise an order. Internal emails show that the Contractor confirmed the delay was due to issues with staffing levels and incoming work.
An appointment was scheduled for 18 March 2022, but for unknown reasons was rescheduled to 1 April 2022. The Ombudsman would have considered this to be reasonable, the appointment was rescheduled a further 2 times which prompted the resident to raise a formal stage 1 complaint.
The landlord has not provided any information which shows why the repairs were rescheduled, nor whether it fairly considered the resident’s individual circumstances. Although it is acknowledged that the landlord does not give a specific timeframe for routine repairs to be completed, the Ombudsman would still expect repairs to be completed within a reasonable amount of time and that priority is given to repairs where there is a potential health and safety concern.
There is no indication to show that the landlord took any steps to prioritise the roofing repair, despite the resident reporting that a second roof tile had fallen off which caused further damage to his conservatory. Furthermore, it is concerning to see that the repair was subsequently cancelled in August 2022 despite the repair being the subject of an ongoing complaint. Furthermore,
As part of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint, it apologised that it did not meet its repair obligations and that the repair remained outstanding. It confirmed that an appointment was booked for 24 October 2022 (the same date as the stage 2 reply). It also explained that it had set up a new team earlier in the year, who are a specialist team fully trained in managing property related complaints. The team will also manage complaint commitments so will continue to track repairs that are outstanding after the complaint has been closed.
It is not clear how this team operates, or whether it has robust processes in place, as the landlord informed the Ombudsman that the roof repair was not completed until 1 February 2023. The landlord showed poor repairs monitoring and record keeping, which is evident as the landlord was unaware of an exact completion date and had to make a phone call to the resident to confirm.
This was unreasonable amount of time for the repair to remain outstanding and the landlord has not provided any information to show that it proactively monitored the outstanding repair, despite the resident completing the internal complaints process.
As part of the landlord’s stage 2 response, it offered the resident £250 compensation in relation to the identified service failures associated with the roofing repair and distress and inconvenience. However, given that it took the landlord an additional 3 months for the landlord to complete the repair, the amount does not reflect the length of time the repair remained outstanding.
The Ombudsman is clear that landlords should use the complaints process as an opportunity to learn from its outcomes and treat residents fairly. As a result of the landlord failing to address the resident’s request for a repair within a reasonable timeframe, he was left feeling frustrated at the lack of urgency being shown by the landlord. It is now for the Ombudsman to decide what orders should be made to put things right.
The resident has confirmed that he feels the landlord should compensate him for the money he had to pay as a result of the roof tiles falling and smashing the conservatory. As previously confirmed the Ombudsman is not able to determine causation and therefore is unable to award any compensation for this aspect. The Ombudsman can consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s request.
The Ombudsman would expect to see evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request for compensation, in recognition of the money he had to spend as a result of the damage and then provide a reasonable response.
The tenancy agreement, repair and compensation policy all confirm that the landlord’s obligations and the Ombudsman has also seen information which shows that the landlord spoke with its insurance department to also obtain further advice.
As part of its stage 2 response and further emails in November 2022, the landlord clearly explained that it would not be responsible for the costs associated with replacing the conservatory and that he should contact his own insurance provider. This was a fair and reasonable response from the landlord.
The Ombudsman has considered the distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident as a result of the delay in addressing his request for a repair within a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that if there has been a delay in completing a repair, then residents are entitled to £10 plus £2 per day until the repair is completed, up to the maximum amount of £50. It also states in recognition of poor service, failure to follow policy/procedure or act in a reasonable manner a goodwill payment up to £25 can be made and this can be given in vouchers, money or flowers. For multiple service failures and/or the resident is requesting compensation for an unquantifiable loss such as inconvenience and distress caused by the failure(s) a payment of between £25 – £50 can be made. There is no limit for discretionary payments.
In line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance, where there has been a failure which had a significant impact on the resident, a payment of above £600 is recommended. In recognition of the significant period of time the resident has not received any update or repairs, the Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £650 compensation for the distress and inconvenience. This includes the £250 offered by the landlord as part of its final response.
In summary, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s roof, including delayed appointments and damages caused to the resident’s property.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The resident made his stage 1 complaint on 25 May 2022, but the landlord did not acknowledge this until 10 June 2022. The landlord has not provided any information which details why there was a delay, or that it made an attempt to contact the resident before this date.
While it did provide its response within the timeframes set out in its complaint policy, the landlord did not acknowledge the failure to acknowledge his complaint within its stage 1 response.
Based on the information provided the landlord first received a stage 2 escalation from the resident on 29 August 2022. However, the resident states that he emailed on 1 July and 12 August 2022 and also made several phone calls, none of which were responded too.
While the landlord’s records do not reflect this, there is evidence to show that the resident had to chase the landlord on 10 September 2022 for a response. It is clear that the landlord again does not have a robust system to address incoming emails as the landlord did not take further action until 22 September 2022, and did not formally acknowledge the stage 2 complaint until 26 September 2022, which was considerably outside of its published 5 working days.
It is positive to see that the investigating manager at stage 2 carried out a detailed investigation, with records showing that various departments were asked relevant questions which confirm that a thorough investigation was carried out in relation to the roofing repairs.
Unfortunately, the response does not fully address the resident’s complaint in relation to the complaint handling and provides no explanation about the resident’s claims that he had been trying to escalate his complaint since 1 July 2022.
The landlord does offer £50 compensation for the service failure associated with compensation, but it does not confirm what service failures were identified or what steps it was going to take to ensure that it did not happen again.
While the landlord’s offer of £50 is in line with its own compensation policy, the Ombudsman does not believe that this fairly reflects the extent of the delay. Based on the evidenced escalation request, dated 29 August 2022, it took the landlord 56 working days to provide a response. This was an unreasonable amount of time for the resident to have to wait for a response.
Based on the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation payments of above £100 are recommended.
The Ombudsman’s failure to acknowledge the stage 1 response and both acknowledge and respond to the stage 2 complaint within its published timescales resulted in maladministration. Although the Ombudsman is unable to confirm that the resident escalated his complaint on 1 July and 12 August 2022, an unreasonable amount of time elapsed and would have left the resident feeling frustrated and anxious while awaiting a formal response. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250, this includes the original amount of £50 that the landlord offered at stage 2.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s roof and guttering, including delayed appointments and damages caused to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £900, which includes the £300 offered at stage 2 if not already paid, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination. The compensation is made up of:
1. £650 for distress and inconvenience associated with the delay of handling the roofing repair.
2. £250 for distress and inconvenience associated with the landlord’ complaint handling.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord review its record keeping practices in relation to contact, inspections, and repairs, including the findings of this report and the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.
It is also recommended that the landlord review its staff’s training needs with regard to record keeping, complaint handling and remedies, including in light of the findings of this report, the Code, and our remedies guidance.