Southern Housing (202306922)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306922

Southern Housing Group Limited

13 September 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 resident’s reports of issues with the heating and hot water system.
2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is one of the joint tenants of a 2-bedroom semi-detached house. Her joint assured tenancy began in December 1993 between herself, her ex-partner and the landlord.
The resident lives with her husband. The resident’s contact with the landlord was usually with her husband acting as her representative. References to ‘the resident’ include the contact he raised on her behalf.
The resident submitted a complaint form to the landlord in early August 2022 about a different repair. She raised concerns about her heating on 15 August 2022, explaining that using hot water caused her radiators to turn on and increased her bills. The landlord added the heating issue to her complaint.
The landlord visited the property across September. It recorded having fixed the system on 22 September 2022.
On 23 September 2022, the landlord provided a stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint. It said that it had not received any reports about a heating issue since it installed a new boiler in 2020. It apologised for the time taken to repair the issue up to 22 September 2022. It offered the resident compensation of £50 for this delay and a £25 as a ‘goodwill gesture’.
On 27 September 2022 the resident replied. She expressed dissatisfaction at the landlord’s response; it had not fixed the heating issue. The landlord said it would contact its contractors and come back to her.
The landlord recorded doing repair works on 10 November 2022 and a note that the hearing system was ‘left working’. The resident sent it an email on 28 November 2022 raising concern that 3 recent visits had not fixed the heating problem. Between December 2022 and March 2023, the resident made further reports to the landlord that the issue was ongoing. The landlord logged repair jobs as ‘complete’ on its system, noting it had been unable to find a fault or access the property. On 17 March 2023, the landlord visited the resident’s home. It noted potential causes of the heating issue, with the engineer commenting ‘I really don’t have a clue’. The landlord’s subsequent complaint response said it completed repairs at the end of March 2023, of which there was no associated record.
On 16 August 2023 the resident emailed the landlord, saying that it had not raised a stage 2 complaint and the heating issue was ongoing. The landlord informed the resident that it had closed her complaint due to the time passed. The resident contacted this Service and we wrote to the landlord on 16 November 2023 requiring that it respond to her complaint.
On 27 November 2023 the landlord left a message for the resident about a repair.
The landlord prepared a stage 1 complaint response dated 5 December 2023, sent to the resident by email on 7 December 2023. She later disputed receiving a copy. The landlord’s response:
1. Summarised a background to the heating issue from its records.
2. Advised that it had the parts needed to repair to the system and had tried to contact her resident to arrange this.
3. Accepted that the issue was outstanding. It apologised for its delay, standard of service and any inconvenience caused to her.
4. Offered compensation of £385.47 broken down as follows: £105.47 no hot water; £25 failure to respond to timescales; £15 miscommunication/ incorrect information; £15 repeat failures to reply; £60 repair failure; £15 repeat visits for outstanding issues; £150 inconvenience.
On 20 March 2024 the resident requested that the landlord escalate her complaint. She said that heating problem was continuing, and the compensation offered did not reflect the extra energy costs caused. The resident chased a reply on 25 April 2024. On 29 April 2024 the landlord confirmed it had escalated her complaint.
The landlord issued a final complaint response to the resident on 20 May 2024. It considered the background to the heating issue and her complaint dating back to June 2022. This included additional dates it described attending the property. It promised contact from a senior engineer to investigate any ongoing issue. It passed on advice from its heating service about the potential cause and impact on energy bills. It offered to review its position about energy costs if provided with evidence or if it found a fault that increased energy usage. It apologised for delay escalating her complaint. It offered further compensation of £50 for this delay and £50 for the inconvenience, time, and trouble it had caused her.
The landlord has since made further visits to investigate and try to repair the heating issue. The resident has re-reported the issue as ongoing. The landlord advised this Service that as of 6 August 2024, it was in the process of doing work to address the issue, with an appointment due on 12 August 2024. The resident updated this Service that on this date the landlord attended but did not knock/ buzz and left before she knew that they were there.
The resident referred her complaint for investigation by this Service. She explained feeling frustrated that the landlord visited her home many times but did not fix the problem, causing her household discomfort, stress, and extra heating costs. She considered that the landlord had not listened to her, causing her to repeatedly chase progress and feel let down.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Under the rules of the (then) Scheme, this Service may not investigate matters that were not brought to the attention of a landlord within a reasonable period, usually considered as within 6 months of the matter(s) occurring. The resident expressed her complaint to the landlord in August 2022. This Service focused its investigation from this point. There were no records produced showing any contact between the landlord and resident about the heating issue in the 6 months prior to the complaint, nor in the 2 years prior. The resident told this Service that the issue was ongoing since 2014. It is not considered reasonable to review the landlord’s handling of the matter from this time. No formal complaint was brought to the landlord until 2022.

The resident’s reports of issues with the heating and hot water system

The records kept by the landlord impacted this Service’s ability to establish a full and clear chronology of the landlord’s response:
1. There were few records of the multiple calls it had with the resident.
2. It kept no record of information that it relayed when visiting her.
3. Its repair system notes gave no clear or coherent picture of its actions.
4. The landlord’s complaint responses listed actions it described taking; however, many were missing any associated evidence in its records.
5. Other dates and details relied on did not match up with its repairs system, for example it logged the repair as resolved on 5 September 2022, however its response noted a part as outstanding on this date.
The landlord failed to maintain reasonable records. Appropriate record keeping was required to support an effective and consistent response. Considering the landlord had difficulty over a lengthy period to effectively diagnose or repair the issue, its failure to accurately record what it had already done likely contributed to its overall delays. A lack of understanding of the work already attempted would reasonably hamper an effective and coherent response.
Failings in the landlord’s record keeping also caused it to provide incorrect information to the resident about the status of its repair in its (second) stage 1 response. This caused the resident time and trouble in having to correct the landlord that the repair remained outstanding.
The landlord reported to this Service being unable to locate a copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement. This is an essential document recording the basis of the landlord and tenants’ rights and obligations. The landlord’s failure to maintain a key record is a serious failing.
Although this Service could not establish a detailed background of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports, review of its records showed that an effective repair to the heating issue was subject to significant delay.
The landlord was under an obligation to the resident in accordance with section 11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair and working order the installations for space heating and heating water. A repair was required to be completed within a reasonable period.
At the point of the landlord’s final response on 20 May 2024, the repair reported by the resident in August 2022 was outstanding. While the landlord attended the resident’s home on multiple occasions and completed work to the system, these efforts were not effective. This represented unreasonable delay by the landlord, out of compliance with its legal repairing obligation. The landlord’s repairs policy did not support a timely response; it provided no guidance timescales for non-emergency repairs.
While the resident accepted that there were 2 occasions on which she was not at home to allow access for repair/s, this had a minimal impact on the overall delay. In any event, there are no associated records of the landlord’s prior notice of visits demonstrating that it gave the resident reasonable prior notice.
The resident reported to the landlord that she was unable to control the temperature of her home and stop the heating system turning on. In addition to the obligation to repair, the landlord was also responsible, by operation of the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, to ensure that the property was fit for human habitation throughout the tenancy. The existence of any hazard as defined by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System was a relevant factor to assessing fitness. Hazards arise from faults or deficiencies that could cause harm to occupants and include threats from excessively high indoor air temperatures.
The landlord’s response showed no regard to or recognition of the risk of harm or discomfort that could arise to the resident’s household from overheated living conditions. The resident was unable to control the temperature of her home should she wish to use hot water for over a year and a half. The landlord’s failure to have regard to this impact was inconsistent with its fitness obligations and an appropriate risk-based approach.
The landlord was aware that the heating issue was ongoing or repeated. This should reasonably have prompted it to take particular care to adopt a proactive approach to ensuring the works it did fixed the problem. It did not do this. Its response was instead reactive and dependent on the resident’s repeat reports. There was little evidence of post-monitoring of works to check they had the intended effect. The landlord’s lack of proactive management placed an unfair burden on the resident to re-report and contributed to its unreasonable delay.
The landlord’s records show it was at some difficulty identifying or fixing the cause of the issue, even up to the point of its final response. The landlord’s response assured the resident it had assigned further resolution to a senior specialist. It was appropriate that the landlord identified the need for senior level involvement given the pattern of recurrence. However, recent status updates suggest the issue is still unresolved. The landlord’s failure to complete an effective repair despite multiple efforts over 2 years raises concern as to its in-house ability to correctly diagnose or treat the issue.
The resident’s complaint expressed disappointment about how the landlord communicated. The landlord’s contact in response to her reports and chasers was at times delayed or lacking. The landlord’s communication failings caused the resident to incur time and trouble chasing update and response. The landlord in its final response acknowledged responsibility for ‘miscommunication/ incorrect information’ and repeat failure to reply. It was appropriate that it acknowledged and offered compensation specific to this failing in line with its policy.
However, the landlord’s responsiveness was not the only issue noted in its contact with the resident. Multiple communications displayed a failure by the landlord to take ownership of its responsibilities. Its responsive repairs policy said that if a member of its staff was made aware of a report, they would report it as soon as possible. This was not consistently the resident’s experience. The landlord frequently directed her to re-report the issue. This placed her at unreasonable burden, contrary to its stated policy.
It is also apparent that the landlord’s guided route/s for an appropriate ‘report’, were not consistently accessible or timely. The resident reported issues with use of an online portal. The landlord required the resident to call its contractors or a separate service, only for them to redirect her to the original point of report or another service. These issues added to the overall delay and the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
The landlord acknowledged to the resident on 30 November 2022 that it had no access to its contractors’ records. It also asked the resident to provide it an account of its contractor’s recent visit. This was an unreasonable ask of the resident; it was the landlord’s responsibility to operate effective systems and oversight of its contractor’s actions. Any oversight in its systems or practices should not have placed the resident at the detriment of further time and trouble.
The landlord’s complaint response acknowledged that repair of the heating issue was outstanding and apologised for its delay, standard of service and the inconvenience caused. It offered compensation of £385.47, broken down into a list of fallings in line with its policy. This appropriately provided the resident with partial recognition of her experiences and went some way towards putting matters right. However, the amount offered was disproportionately low considering the significant length of time the repair was outstanding, 21 months at the time of the final response. It also did not consider and provide any specific redress for the impact of excess heat on the resident’s use of and comfort in her home, despite this being a separate category of compensation allowable by its policy. While this Service considered that there were 2 failed access attempts, these had little impact on the overall lengthy delay.
The landlord is responsible for maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the heating and hot water system. It is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £300 in addition to its prior offer, if not already paid. This award is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance where there has been maladministration and the landlord made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the extent of detriment to the resident and made an offer disproportionate to the failings identified. This Service had particular regard to the period over which the resident experienced failings and their repeat nature.
This Service considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for additional energy costs. The landlord’s final response of 20 May 2024 offered to review her request on receipt of evidence showing an increase in usage or confirmation of a causative fault from its senior engineer. This Service considers its offer to have been reasonable, however there is no evidence that the review subsequently took place. The landlord is ordered to take steps to support the completion of this review to determine if further compensation is to be paid in line with its previous offer.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

As acknowledged by the landlord in its final response, the resident raised her complaint about heating issues in mid-August 2022. The landlord’s stage 1 response of 23 September 2022 explained that if she was unhappy with its reply, she was to return in 20 days with reasons why. It said it would then consider a review at the next step of its complaint process. This guidance was in line with the landlord’s complaint policy and procedures. It was also consistent with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’). The Code required the landlord to take a complaint to stage 2 if it not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction.
The resident’s reply to the landlord on 27 September 2022 gave a clear expression of dissatisfaction with its first stage response. While the landlord acknowledged her contact, there is no evidence it considered her representations in line with its complaint procedure or the Code. The resident followed the steps expected of her to escalate her complaint, however the landlord inappropriately failed to follow this step.
When the resident tried to bring to this to the landlord’s attention, it refused to move her complaint to stage 2 in August 2023. There is no evidence that it reviewed the relevant prior contact with the resident. This would have enabled it to identify its earlier failure. Instead, the landlord unreasonably attributed delay to the resident and refused escalation. This caused the resident distress and frustration. It led to her seeking the assistance of this Service to intervene in the process, causing her additional time, trouble, and inconvenience.
During its further complaint handling, there is no evidence that the landlord had regard to the resident’s correspondence of 27 September 2022. This was an unreasonable failure to review relevant records. It treated the resident’s complaint as a fresh complaint, taking it through another stage 1 complaint investigation. This added to the resident’s feeling and distress that she was, as expressed by her, on a ‘merry-go-round.’
The landlord’s final complaint response apologised for delay following the resident’s stage 2 request of March 2024 and offered compensation in line with its policy of £100. However, it did not identify having failed to action her much earlier previous request. It therefore failed to reflect the resident’s experience or provide any redress specific to its failing towards putting matters right.
The landlord’s complaint handling eroded the resident’s trust in the landlord. The landlord had multiple opportunities, including those given to it by the resident, to identify and put right its failing at an earlier stage. Its prolonged and repeat failing exacerbated the detriment to the resident and caused a protracted complaint process.
The landlord is responsible for maladministration for its handling of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord is ordered to pay compensation to the resident of £200 in addition to its previous offer of £100, if not already paid. This sum is within the range of awards set out in this Service’s remedies guidance to reflect the detriment caused to her by its failure to action her earlier request.

Special investigation

The Ombudsman published a report in May 2024 about the landlord following a special investigation using its powers under paragraph 49 of the Scheme. It found the landlord responsible for a series of significant systemic failings impacting residents. This included findings that the landlord was failing to take effective ownership and management of repairs leading to delays, and poorly communicating with residents. The landlord’s lack of repair timescales was highlighted as a contributory factor to its failings. Concerns were identified about the landlord failing to recognise stage 2 complaints. It was also noted that there was a pattern of inadequate record keeping, for example it was noted that the landlord’s lack of access to its contractor’s information and systems compounded repair delays. The Ombudsman required the landlord to make changes including improvements to its handling of repairs, complaints and how it kept records.
The failings identified by this complaint largely mirror those identified by the special investigation that are part of the ongoing improvement work ordered, for which this Service remains in liaison with the landlord. As such, and in view of the age of this complaint, we have not made any wider order in this investigation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the heating and hot water system
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for an apology in writing to the resident from a senior member of the landlord’s staff for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £450 compensation. It is comprised of:
  1. £250 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble arising from its handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the heating and hot water system.
  2. £200 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble arising from its handling of the resident’s complaint.

The above ordered compensation should be paid direct to the resident and not be offset against any outstanding arrears.

Pay its previously offered compensation of £485.47 unless this has already been paid to her.
Arrange for an inspection of the property by a specialist heating engineer at a time mutually agreed with the resident to assess what works, if any, are required to resolve the heating/ hot water issue and, if possible, the impact on energy usage from any identified defect. Within 2 weeks of the inspection the findings and any recommended works must be detailed within a written report, shared with the resident and this Service. If works are identified, the timescale for completion should be set out in the report, together with details of how and when the landlord will post inspect any works to sign off completion.

Within 6 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to assess and provide an updated written response to the resident’s request for compensation for additional energy usage in line with its offer of 20 May 2024. The landlord should invite the resident to submit any evidence of usage that she wishes for it to consider alongside the opinion of its specialist engineer.