Southern Housing Group Limited (202228637)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228637

Southern Housing

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 handling of:
1. The residents request for compensation for water damaged carpets following a leak.
2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant at the property since 22 February 2016. The property is a three-bedroom, fifth floor flat. The resident lives in the property with her partner and adult daughters. There are no vulnerabilities recorded in the household.
In the evening of 27 November 2022, the resident told the landlord that her water tank had exploded causing a “massive leak”. A contractor attended to rectify the problem.
On 1 December 2022 the resident called the landlord regarding the tank. She said that water had damaged her belongings, she had no contents insurance and the house was like a “giant puddle”. She said that she was concerned that the boiler had not been checked after the incident. The landlord logged this as a complaint and raised an order for follow on work.
A contractor delivered dehumidifiers to the property on 2 December 2022.
A contractor attended the property on 6 December 2022. The contractor’s note about the visit said that a potable water expansion vessel had failed causing a flood to the property. The repair was already complete but the resident was concerned there might be further issues. The contractor said that the pressure relief valve and the new expansion vessel were working so there was no visible cause for concern.
The landlord called the resident to acknowledge her complaint on 7 December 2022. A note on the landlord’s complaint case said that it had agreed an acceptable sum for replacement of the damaged carpets with the resident. The landlord told the resident that it would send a full response in writing and then close the complaint.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response dated 8 December 2022 summarised the issues raised. It said that the water tank had exploded on 27 November 2022 causing damage to carpets. It said that a dehumidifier was provided on 2 December 2022. The landlord concluded that the explosion of the water tank was due to a faulty part as identified by the contractor who attended on 6 December 2022. It said that the resident had advised it, during a telephone conversation, that she wanted compensation for the carpet replacement because the damage was caused by a faulty fixture the landlord was responsible for, “hence it should not be claimed against home contents insurance”. The landlord offered £700 compensation. £550 for damage to the carpets, £100 for service failure and £50 as a goodwill gesture.
The resident emailed the landlord on 8 December 2022 to advise that she had decided not to accept the offer of compensation until she had obtained a quotation for a replacement carpet. She said she did not want to be out of pocket for something that was not her fault.
An internal landlord email dated 13 December 2022 said that the resident had asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the complaints process. She had received a quote for £1000 to replace the carpet in the living room and hallway. She didn’t think she should pay the extra money for a replacement carpet when the engineer had told her that a faulty part had caused the leak. The water had damaged the carpets in the hall, living room, kitchen and 1 bedroom. It had also damaged 2 chests of drawers. She had waited days for a dehumidifier to be delivered while walking on wet carpets. She would like the full cost of a replacement hall and living room carpet.
The landlord emailed the resident on 19 December 2022. It confirmed that it had escalated the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process and said it would respond by 18 January 2023.
A note made by the landlord on the complaints case dated 21 December 2022 said that it was waiting for an update from the contractor that attended the property regarding the expansion vessel.
A note made on the complaints case on 11 January 2023 said that the contractor thought that the problem with the expansion vessel suggested that “there was a slow leak onto the expansion vessel due to a failed rubber seal above that had gradually caused corrosion which caused the vessel to pop as it is pressurised”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 19 January 2023 and twice on 23 January 2023 to chase the stage 2 complaint response. She said that she had also rung the landlord’s service centre on 5 separate occasions and had been put on hold for 30 minutes each time.
The landlord emailed the resident on 24 January 2023 and apologised that the complaint handler had not contacted her. It said that it had escalated the issue to the complaints team manager. The resident emailed back to ask when the manager would respond.
A note on the complaints case notes dated 30 January 2023 recorded an internal Teams conversation. The resident had called asking to speak to someone about the complaint that day, she did not want to put the phone down until she had spoken to someone. The landlord promised to call her back that day.
A note on the complaints case regarding the callback, dated 30 January 2023 said that the resident had advised the landlord that the quotation for the carpet was £1200. She did not want compensation for other damaged items but wanted the landlord to cover the cost of the hall and living room carpets. The resident said that she had waited 45 minutes for her call to be answered that day and over half an hour on previous occasions.
A note on the complaints case dated 31 January 2023 said the resident had told the landlord that this was the second vessel that had been fitted and that it “was the first one that had been corroded by the slow leak from the gasket above. The resident said the new expansion vessel split in 2 places less than a year after installation”. The landlord noted that it would investigate this further.
On 9 February 2023 the resident emailed the landlord. She said that she had been promised a callback on 3 February 2023 but had not received one. She said that she had emailed 3 times and left 3 further messages on the number she had been given.
An internal email dated 13 February 2023 said that the resident had called that day for an update.
The resident contacted the landlord via Twitter on 15 February 2023, the complaint handler was asked to call her back.
This Service contacted the landlord on 23 February 2023 to chase the stage 2 complaint response.
An internal landlord email dated 24 February 2023 said that the resident had been chasing a response and had now contacted the Housing Ombudsman. It said “it looks like it was a fairly new boiler so I guess you were looking at this as a warranty claim but unless there was a known recall on the specific part, we can’t entertain that and it highlights the importance of contents insurance. Please close as soon as possible with an apology for the delay in complaint handling of £100. Just a reminder, our liability insurance doesn’t cover flooring and is £10k excess in any event so we will not be compensating for the carpet even if negligence is found by the insurer (unlikely). Please make sure you add this in the reply so the Housing Ombudsman Service don’t suggest that we refer to our insurers”.
On 25 February 2023 the landlord contacted the contractor and asked them to find out the make and model of the last two expansion vessels fitted at the property. This was to check that there was no recall on the parts “before I respond that we will not be increasing her compensation”.
The landlord sent the stage 2 complaint response on 8 March 2023. It said that the repairs log for the property showed that a new expansion vessel was fitted on 1 May 2020 and that this was inspected on 19 June 2020 by a supervisor. The vessel failed and caused another leak on 27 November 2022, which the emergency plumber isolated.
It said that £550 was offered towards the cost of a replacement carpet at stage 1 of the complaints process because the contractor had said that the expansion vessel had failed because it was faulty. However, the landlord had now spoken to the contractor who said that the manufacturer had told them that they were not aware of any problems and had not issued a recall of the part. The contractor advised the landlord that in their opinion a “slight leak from a perished rubber gasket caused the expansion vessel to rust where the water corroded it resulting in the expansion vessel splitting”.
The landlord apologised that the stage 1 response was not clear and caused confusion. It said that it did not feel that it was appropriate to rescind the previous offer of compensation but it could not offer any further compensation for a carpet replacement. It said that it could, however, offer a further £75 for the lack of clarity in the stage 1 response and the delay in the stage 2 response. This total compensation offer was £775.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In accordance with paragraph 42g of the Ombudsman Scheme the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. This Service does not determine liability for damages or award damages in the way that a court might and therefore we are unable to determine liability for the damage to the resident’s belongings or order compensation for this issue.
The Ombudsman will however consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reimbursement due to damaged belongings and whether this was handled reasonably and in line with its own policy and procedures.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation for water damaged carpets following a leak.

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says that residents are responsible for obtaining contents insurance to cover loss or accidental damage to their home contents. It does not, however, advise residents what to do if their belongings are damaged and the landlord may be responsible, which is a failing.
The landlord should have advised the resident that she could make a claim on its insurance, but this Service has seen no evidence that it did which was another failing. Internal communication by the landlord such as “we will not be compensating for the carpet even if negligence is found by an insurer (unlikely)” and “I can check that there was no recall on these parts before I respond that we will not be increasing her compensation” suggested that the landlord was reluctant to refer the resident’s case to its insurers.
If the case had been referred to the insurance company, it, as an independent party, may have decided that the landlord was liable. Instead, the landlord decided this itself, although its stage 1 and stage 2 complaints came to different conclusions. The stage 1 complaints response “concluded that the explosion of the water tank was due to a faulty part as identified by the operative who attended on the 6th of December 2022”. However, the stage 2 complaint response refuted this.
The resident was denied an independent and impartial decision by the landlords’ insurers due to its actions. This caused her distress and inconvenience because she had to live with a damaged carpet and she also had to take time and trouble to register and progress the complaint.
Considering the above failings, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation for water damaged carpets following a leak.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

The landlord’s complaints policy regarding stage 2 complaints said “We will aim to respond within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated…. if it is not possible to respond within 20 working days, we will contact you and let you know why we are not able to do this and when we will provide the response. This will not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason and your agreement”.
The landlord took 59 working days to respond to the stage 2 complaint and failed to agree an extended deadline with the resident. This led to the resident calling and emailing the landlord on numerous occasions. There is evidence that she told the landlord that she had been waiting 30-45 minutes for her calls to be answered. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord answered at least 4 of her emails. The resident also tried to contact the landlord via social media and then contacted this Service for help. The landlord failed to adhere to the timescales in its complaints policy and failed to communicate with the resident effectively about the delay. This cost the resident considerable time and trouble chasing the complaint and distress and inconvenience when she felt she was not being listened to.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in place at the time said, “a complaint should be resolved at the earliest possible opportunity, having assessed what evidence is needed to fully consider the issues, what outcome would resolve the matter for the resident and whether there are any urgent actions required”.
The landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 13 December 2022. However, there is evidence that it did not start a substantial investigation into the complaint until 2 days after this Service contacted it on 23 February 2023. An internal email then told the complaint handler to close the complaint “as soon as possible.” This haste led to errors within the complaint response and a lack of clarity. Also, not all the elements of the complaint were addressed.
The stage 2 complaint response said that the potable expansion vessel was previously replaced on 1 May 2020 however the repairs log provided to this Service shows no evidence of this. It shows instead that a potable expansion vessel was fitted on 19 February 2020 following a leak and that another “uncontainable leak” was reported on 15 June 2020, following which a supervisor attended on 17 June 2020. This error led to the resident losing further faith in the landlord’s investigation of the complaint and meant there was a further breakdown in their relationship.
The landlord did not address the resident’s complaint about the delay in receiving dehumidifiers. The resident’s said her house was like a “giant puddle” and she waited 5 working days for dehumidifiers while walking on wet carpets. The failure to address this in the complaints responses was a further complaint handling failure by the landlord as it meant that the resident still had unanswered questions. The complaints response also showed no empathy regarding how the leak and damage to property would have affected the resident and her family.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in place at the time said, “a complaint investigation must be conducted in an impartial manner, seeking sufficient, reliable information from both parties so that fair and appropriate findings and recommendations can be made”.
However, there is evidence that the landlord made decisions prior to the investigation being completed. The landlord’s email of 25 February 2023 said the complaint handler should “close (the complaint) as soon as possible with an apology for delay in complaint handling” which meant that the outcome was decided before the investigation was complete. This was a further complaint handling failure by the landlord as it hindered an impartial investigation.
Considering the above failings there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation for water damaged carpets following a leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord must:
Pay the resident directly a total of £1,075 in compensation. Any compensation already paid should be deducted from this amount. Compensation is broken down as follows:
1. £775 already offered by the landlord in its stage 2 complaint response.
2. £150 for time and trouble.
3. £150 for distress and inconvenience.
Ensure that a senior manager apologises to the resident in writing about the failures in this case.
Ensure that the resident is supported to make a claim via its insurance company for the damaged carpets.
Ensure that a further inspection of the potable expansion vessel and surrounding area is carried out. This is to make sure that the leaking gasket has been replaced and to ensure that no other issues are apparent, to prevent a further occurrence of the issue.
The landlord must review its procedures and ensure that they are amended to include information that a claim can be made against the landlord’s insurance where appropriate. This order is to be completed within 3 months of the date of this report.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders by the above deadlines.

Recommendations

If the insurer determines that the landlord is not liable to pay the resident compensation for the damaged carpets, the landlord should engage with the resident to seek a resolution and appropriate compensation to reflect the additional cost of a like for like replacement beyond its offer at stage 1. In the event that a resolution cannot be reached the resident should be supported to raise a new complaint regarding this.