Southern Housing Group Limited (202220777)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220777

Southern Housing Group Limited

17 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. repairs to the stairs, kitchen unit, bathroom, and the water pressure.
2. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident occupies a 2-bedroom house. She has an assured shorthold tenancy agreement.
The resident moved into the property on 7 February 2022. On 10 February 2022, she reported that the water pressure in the shower was low, and she was unable to use it.
The resident reported the kitchen cupboard door was missing on 16 March 2022. She also reported on the same day that the wood flooring on the stairs was chipped and splintering. The landlord told the resident that the flooring on the stairs was gifted and therefore the resident’s responsibility. On 16 June 2022, the resident reported that the bathroom wall was crumbling.
The resident complained on 2 August 2022. She said:
1. she had raised the repairs about the kitchen cupboards and the stairs but had not heard anything until she raised it again in April 2022
2. the landlord had confirmed on 17 May 2022 that the stairs were dangerous
3. the landlord said it could strip the flooring from the stairs, but that the resident would be responsible for refitting
4. the water pressure was low, and she struggled to have showers and was washing from a bucket
5. the landlord told her to buy a water pump to improve the water pressure
6. the bathroom wall has ‘bits’ falling off when water touches it
7. she wanted the repairs to be completed.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 13 August 2022. The landlord said:
1. it had attended to check the water pressure twice and that it was due to ‘gravity’
2. the resident could buy a pump that may help but she would be responsible for repairs to the pump
3. kitchen cupboard was repaired on 17 May 2022
4. if the actual stairs needed to be repaired, it would be responsible for this
5. the floor coverings on the stairs were gifted to the resident and were therefore her responsibility to replace
6. an appointment had been made for 6 September 2022 for the bathroom wall
7. it offered £50 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £25 for the delays
  2. £25 goodwill gesture.
The resident remained unhappy and asked for her complaint to be escalated. The landlord provided its final response on 13 December 2022. The landlord said:
1. all repairs had been assessed
2. the issues with the stairs and water pressure were the resident’s responsibility
3. it was responsible for the kitchen unit and bathroom wall
4. it had not completed or handled the repairs correctly
5. there had been delays in making appointments, lack of communication and delays with the complaint responses:
6. t offered £150 compensation comprised of:
  1. £50 delays in completing the repairs
  2. £50 service failure
  3. £50 complaint handling

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the water pressure

The issue is whether the landlord is responsible for the low water pressure or whether it acted reasonably in asking the resident to purchase her own pump.
The Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord is only responsible for the water pressure where the fault or issue lies within the property, or the boundary of the property and that the landlord owns this (see s.11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and Niazi Services Ltd v Van der Loo [2004] EWCA Civ 53).
When the resident told the landlord that the water pressure was low, it attended within 3 working days to investigate. It told the resident she needed to contact the water company about the pressure. The resident contacted the water company who told her that it was not responsible for the pressure to the property and to contact the landlord.
OfWat (Water pressure – Ofwat) explain that if water pressure is too low, the plumbing in the property should be checked to establish that there are no problems, such as a partially closed internal stop tap (if fitted) or a leak. If no problems can be found internally, then the resident or the landlord could contact the water company to take pressure flow measurements. This would determine whether the problem was with the landlord’s or water company’s pipes.
Overall, the landlord has not provided any evidence to show what actions it took to investigate the water pressure before reaching the conclusion it did. This is not acceptable.
Whilst not an issue being investigated in this report, it is worth noting that the resident has reported no heating or hot water several times and a leak from the boiler. One of the faults OfWat contribute to low water pressure is a leak. Whilst the Ombudsman cannot say for certain the two issues are linked, it should be something the landlord is conscious of when carrying out its assessment of the water pressure. A repair was also raised on 16 January 2023, as there was no supply of water to the bathroom at all. There are no notes added to the repairs log to say how this issue was resolved or if there was any link to the water pressure.
The landlord fell below the standard expected by failing to consider the reason for the low pressure and investigating the possible causes in light of the intel it had.

The stairs

After the resident reported the stairs on 16 March 2022, the landlord confirmed they were dangerous. It said it would repair the stairs, but the resident would be responsible for recovering them, as the flooring in place at the start of the tenancy had been ‘gifted’ to her.
The tenancy agreement states that where the landlord has provided furniture, fixed floor coverings, or equipment as part of the tenancy, it will aim to keep them in good repair and working order. It states it will provide an inventory where appropriate and include the Schedule to the Particulars of the tenancy.
On the sign-up form, it explains that gifted items are taken as seen and that the landlord cannot guarantee the condition or suitability. It also states the resident is responsible for future maintenance and replacement. This information conflicts with both the repair policy and the tenancy agreement that places responsibility on the landlord.
The resident’s sign-up form dated 3 February 2022 has no items listed under gifted items. Therefore, there are no grounds for concluding that the landlord gifted the flooring.
Even if this wasn’t the case, Bradley v Chorley (1985) and Vukelic v Hammersmith & Fulham LBC [2003] EWHC 188 confirm that a landlord is responsible for putting back decorations into the condition they were in where repairs have damaged them. There is no reason to doubt that would apply to flooring and carpets which form part and parcel of household decorations. Even where this is not the case, it would be fair in all the circumstances for the landlord to be responsible for making good carpets, flooring or decorations where its repairs damage them and where the repairs (damage) have not been caused by an insured peril, which an insurer would cover.

The kitchen unit

The resident raised the repair on 16 March 2022. The landlord stated it was repaired on 17 May 2022, but the resident disputes this. The resident states the work was not completed until June 2023. In correspondence with this service, the landlord has confirmed that the kitchen cupboard was resolved in June 2023, 15 months after the resident first reported it. The landlord has not produced evidence to show this delay would have been outside its control.

The bathroom wall

Where a repair is reported, the law states that a landlord must inspect to determine if it is responsible to repair. Where the landlord is responsible, it must conduct a repair within a reasonable time. What is a reasonable time will depend on all the facts, including the type of repair. In most cases, landlords have repair policies which set out when repairs ought to be completed.
The resident reported this repair on 16 June 2022. There is no evidence that the landlord raised the repair or attended. The resident raised the repair again as part of her stage 1 complaint on 2 August 2022.
The landlord’s operative failed to attend the appointment booked for 5 October 2022. It also failed to notify the resident that the appointment was cancelled. The resident had taken time off work and waited in all day. This is not acceptable.
The landlord’s notes state that the operative had confirmed he would need more time than had been allocated for the job, and that the repair needed to go out to a contractor. The landlord did not call the resident until 4pm on the day of the appointment to tell her it was cancelled. The landlord knew the operative would not be attending in the morning and should have contacted the resident much sooner, it failed to do this. This is not acceptable.
The evidence does not show when the repair to the bathroom wall was completed. The landlord said the repair was completed when it issued its stage 2 dated 13 December 2022. The resident told this service that it was not completed until June 2023, 12 months after it was first reported. The landlord has not produced evidence to substantiate that the repair was completed before 13 December 2022.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord failed to do this, which has impacted this service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.

Conclusions on the repairs

The landlord has failed in its responsibilities to repair within a reasonable time and to make adequate and clear records. The landlord’s handling will, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, have caused some distress, frustration and inconvenience to the resident. For this reason, the Ombudsman has ordered compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The landlord has a 2 stage complaint process. It states that:
1. at stage 1, the complaint will be acknowledged within 1 working day and responded to within 10 working days.
2. where a resident asks for the complaint to be escalated, it will provide a stage 2 complaint response, within 20 working days of the date of the request.
3. if it needs more time to investigate, it will contact the resident to let them know why and when they can expect a response. The policy states this will not exceed a further 10 working days.
On 2 August 2022 the resident lodged her complaint. In line with its policy, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 13 August 2022. This was appropriate as it was consistent with the landlord’s policy.
The resident escalated her complaint on 10 October 2022. The landlord should have provided its stage 2 complaint by 7 November 2022. The landlord extended the time to respond to the complaint on 21 November 2022, which was 14 days after the deadline. It provided its stage 2 complaint response on 13 December 2022. This was 46 days after the resident escalated her complaint, and 22 days after the revised deadline. This is not in line with its policy and is a service failure.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the stairs, kitchen unit, bathroom, and water pressure.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the complaint and level of compensation.

Orders

The landlord must within 28 days of the date of this decision, pay the resident £900 compensation as follows:
1. £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in completing the repairs, including how it responded to the concerns about the low water pressure.
2. £100 for the failings in complaint handling.
The Ombudsman further orders the landlord to, within 28 days of the date of the decision:
1. arrange for the water pressure to be assessed to establish if there is anything the landlord can do to improve this. It must evidence the investigation carried out and provide the Ombudsman with that evidence.
2. complete the repairs to the stairs.
3. agree with the resident on adequate new coverings for the stairs. If the landlord chooses to gift these coverings to the resident, it must provide her confirmation of this in writing.
4. provide evidence to this service of compliance with the Ombudsman’s orders.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord shares our recent spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management with its staff. This explains the importance of effective management of knowledge and information in the housing sector, with a focus on best practices. Knowledge and information management (KIM)