The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Southern Housing Group Limited (202304117)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304117

Southern Housing Group Limited

26 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s ceiling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. He occupies a 3-bedroom property with his wife. The landlord at the time of the issue and complaint was Optivo, which has since been incorporated with Southern Housing Group. The landlord’s actions have been assessed against the policies and procedures of Optivo, covering this period.
  2. On 1 June 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that there was a crack on his bedroom ceiling and the ceiling was bowing. On 15 July 2022 the resident reported that the situation as getting worse and he feared for his safety. The landlord’s contractors attended on 18 July 2022 and reported that the bedroom ceiling had collapsed and needed to be tested for asbestos. Further work was identified relating to a disused water tank and replastering of walls in the hall.
  3. The landlord arranged for a specialist contractor to attend on 15 August 2022 to remove asbestos containing material (ACM) from the bedroom ceiling. The following day, the landlord’s contractors attended in relation to a leak from the water tank and reported that the ceiling joists looked completely rotten and needed to be assessed urgently by a carpenter.
  4. On 13 October 2022 the resident complained to the landlord. He explained that a plasterer had attended that day to carry our remedial works to the bedroom ceiling but was unable to as the rotten joists had not yet been repaired or replaced. The resident was upset the situation was ongoing. He said he had been unable to use the bedroom for a month, had needed to dismantle his furniture, and had been living out of suitcases. He also expressed that he did not believe the surveyor had done his job properly.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 9 December 2022, in which it acknowledged it should have identified the scope of works required when the ceiling was removed in August 2022 and the joists and tank became visible. Instead, it took until October 2022 until the job was raised. It noted the matter had since been further delayed as asbestos had been identified, requiring a specialist contractor. It offered compensation of £150 for the delay and disruption caused, and £50 for delays in its complaint handling. It said it would highlight the weakness that had been identified in its communication and coordination to its surveying team and contractors.
  6. The specialist contractor attended again on 14 December 2022 and removed the ACM. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 December 2022 expressing concern that follow on works would not be completed before Christmas. He said he had been left with no ceiling or insulation, causing the property to be cold, and asked that this be resolved as soon as possible.
  7. The landlord’s records indicate that the joists were replaced on 6 January 2023. The water tank was moved on 23 January 2023 and, in February 2023, the ceiling was plastered and insulation was installed. Final decorative works to the bedroom were completed on 11 March 2023.
  8. The resident escalated his complaint on 29 March 2023, when he expressed discontentment with the landlord’s communication throughout, the length of time it had taken to resolve the problem, and the level of compensation he had been offered. The landlord responded on 18 April 2023 and increased the compensation to £300, in recognition of its further delay in completing the works. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and its offer of compensation and brought his complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

  1. Under the terms of the tenancy and Section 11 of the the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA), the landlord is obliged to keep the structure of the home in repair and working order. This includes inside walls, floors and ceilings. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states non-urgent repairs will be conducted as soon as possible. Emergency repairs should be attended within 6 hours. Emergency repairs are those causing immediate risk to the health, safety and security of any occupants, or causing immediate damage to a property’s structure, fixtures and/or fittings, and can include the risk of structural collapse.
  2. The resident first reported that the ceiling was ‘cracked’ and ‘bowing’ on 1 June 2022 and the landlord attended to inspect the problem on 18 July 2022. The indication is that the landlord initially categorised the issue as a ‘non-emergency’. Based on the limited information available this can be considered fair. While the landlord’s responsive repairs policy does not specify time limits for when it will complete non-emergency repairs, the Ombudsman considers a 28-day period to be typical and appropriate, so the landlord’s response represented a slight delay.
  3. The landlord has provided job notes indicating it scheduled an appointment on or around 15 July 2022, but it cancelled this without informing the resident. On the same day, the resident told the landlord that the situation had worsened and he was fearful for his safety. The landlord then requested for this to be categorised as an ‘emergency call out’, but it took another 3 days for it to attend and inspect. Its policy states emergency repairs should be addressed within 6 hours so, again, this represented a slight delay. The circumstances around the scheduling of the appointment are unknown and had to be based on the convenience of both the landlord and resident, so the landlord cannot be held wholly accountable for this. However, it was responsible for informing the resident it was unable to attend on 15 July 2022 and it failed to do so, causing him further delay and inconvenience.
  4. A section of the bedroom ceiling collapsed during the inspection by the landlord’s contractors on 18 July 2022 and they determined that it would need to be tested for asbestos. This work was scheduled and completed a month later, on 15 August 2022. Given this work required input from a specialist contractor and the job notes indicate the resident was consulted about when the work could take place, the timeframes and actions taken by the landlord at this juncture can, therefore, be considered appropriate.
  5. The landlord’s contractors attended the following day, on 16 August 2022, and reported that the ceiling joists looked rotten and needed to be ‘urgently’ assessed by a carpenter. Despite this, there was no inspection, and it was only when a plasterer attended on 13 October 2022, and discovered that the situation remained the same, that a work order was raised to have the joists renewed.
  6. The resident was understandably distressed to discover that structural work was required, and the matter had been allowed to drift. The 2-month delay, between mid-August 2022 when the issue with the joists was known, and mid-October 2022 when the work order was raised, was unnecessary and to the detriment of the resident who was inconvenienced by being unable to use his bedroom. The landlord appropriately acknowledged this as a service failure in its complaint response and offered compensation that went some way to remedying the situation.
  7. In his complaint, the resident expressed that he did not believe a specific surveyor had done his job properly. The landlord refuted this and said that delays had occurred when this surveyor had been on leave, but acknowledged that there had been a lack of continuity between the contractors involved. This is considered to be a fair explanation. The job notes do not identify individual responsibility for the delays. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the collective failure and assured it would highlight issues with communication and coordination between those involved.
  8. However, the delay continued beyond mid-October 2022. It was not until 5 December 2022, 7 weeks later, that contractors attended to inspect the ceiling and determined that it needed to remove further ACM before it could proceed with the joist renewal. The landlord outlined in its stage 1 response that it had attempted to contact the resident to progress the works and had been unable to reach him. Accepting this was the case, the landlord cannot be held responsible for further delays at this juncture.
  9. Following removal of the remaining ACM on 14 December 2022, the resident expressed concern that follow on works would not be scheduled until the new year. The landlord outlined in its stage 1 response that it anticipated the follow-on works taking a minimum of 2 weeks to complete and said it did not want to leave them incomplete over the Christmas period. The landlord’s job notes indicate works commenced on 6 January 2022, but were not completed until mid-March 2022.
  10. The landlord can be considered to have acted reasonably in delaying the follow on works until the new year given the likely disruption over the holiday period. Works were progressed from January 2023 onwards. There were multiple appointments involving structural and remedial works, including the removal of a water tank, renewal of the joists, electrical installations, and plastering and decorating. It is not clear how these works should have been sequenced and progressed, and what the specific timeframes were for each. However, the landlord had anticipated and communicated that these would take a minimum of 2 weeks and they took 3 months. The landlord ultimately acknowledged, in its stage 2 response, that the works took longer than they should have.
  11. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer additional compensation for the ongoing disruption the resident experienced up to March 2023 (bringing the total compensation for delays in coordinating and completing the works to £250). However, given the overall length of the delays, and the impact of them, this sum is not considered proportionate to the failings identified in this report. The resident was left without the use of his bedroom for an unnecessarily extended period, and he incurred additional heating costs as a result of having no bedroom ceiling or insulation through the winter months. An offer of £400 is considered more appropriate, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
  12. The resident also complained about the landlord’s poor communication. He expressed, in his email of 3 March 2023, that ‘once again’ contractors had failed to attend a scheduled appointment without notification. He said he had been let down many times and felt ‘fed up’ with the situation. He escalated his complaint at the end of the March 2023, having received no update for over 3 weeks, despite assurances the surveyor would contact him.
  13. In its stage 2 response the landlord offered no acknowledgement of its poor communication, and therefore no redress. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, a further award of £200 compensation is considered appropriate, in recognition of the frustration and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s communication failures. These include at least 2 occasions when it failed to notify the resident visits were cancelled, its failure to manage the resident’s expectations about the scope of works and how long they would take, and its failure to contact the resident following his request for an update on 3 March 2023.
  14. Overall, the landlord’s unnecessary delays in coordinating and progressing the repairs to the ceiling and its poor communication amount to maladministration, for which it should award a total of £600. It is understood that the landlord awarded £50 compensation for delays in its complaint handling, which has not been included in this total and should be paid in addition, if it has not done so already.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs required to the resident’s ceiling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must pay the resident £600 compensation (£400 for the inconvenience caused and additional heating costs incurred by the resident, due to its unnecessary delays in repairing the ceiling, and £200 for failures in its communication). This is in addition to the £50 it offered for delays in its complaint handling. If the £250 previously offered to the resident during the complaints process has already been paid, it can be deducted from this total.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should undertake a review of its policies and procedures in relation to repairs and ensure they promote accountability for coordinating and progressing repairs within appropriate timeframes. The policy should also emphasise the importance of effective communication with residents. It is understood that the landlord has been incorporated into Southern Housing Group and appreciates that policies and procedures may have undergone revision as part of this merger.