Southern Housing (202200062)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200062

Southern Housing Group Limited

9 November 2023

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 communal entrance door.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a shared owner of the property which is a two-bedroom apartment. His ownership commenced on 1 November 2002. The landlord is a housing association which holds a 50% share in the property.

Landlord obligations

The landlord’s repairs responsibilities policy and The Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) states the landlord is required to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling.
The landlord operates a repairs policy which categorises repairs between emergency and routine repairs:
1. It does not provide expected timescales for reported repairs, other than emergency repairs which would be made safe within 24 hours. It states it aims to complete all other repairs as quickly as possible.
2. All routine repairs will be arranged by appointment and if it cannot make an appointment, it will inform the resident as soon as possible and discuss an alternative date.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints policy. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 days and stage 2 complaints within 20 days. If the resident requests a stage 2 review, the resident has the option to request a senior manager review. If this option is selected, the manager will contact the resident and provide an opportunity to explain the position and clarify any points or answer queries to assist them in reaching a conclusion.
The landlord’s compensation procedure explains it may consider a further financial award to reimburse a resident where a resident incurs costs or there has been a financial loss.

Summary of events

On 15 November 2020, the resident reported the communal entrance door was not closing properly and needed to be repaired.
On 18 November 2020, the landlord’s contractor attended. The landlord’s repair log confirmed the door was tested and part of the door release button mechanism on the CISA latch was broken. It was deemed non-repairable and a replacement was ordered. It was categorised as a routine repair.
On 8 December 2020, the resident emailed the landlord for an update. He was concerned he had not been updated since the repair part was raised from the contractor. He complained the landlord did not prioritise these types of repairs or provide timelines for completion. He raised a formal complaint.
On 9 December 2020, the landlord apologised for the delays and acknowledged his complaint.
On 21 December 2020, the landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge his complaint about the front door which was broken for over one month. It explained it was experiencing delays responding to his complaint due to a backlog and therefore would have to prioritise other complaints based on the date they were made. It aimed to investigate and respond to the complaint a soon as it could.
The repair log confirmed the door was repaired on 26 January 2021.
On 3 March 2021, the landlord provided its stage 1 response. The landlord has not provided a copy of this letter.
On 4 March 2021, the resident emailed the landlord explaining it did not address his concerns regarding his complaint. The points he raised in respect of the communal front door were:
1. He requested confirmation of how long it would take for the landlord to complete the repair.
2. The stage 1 response he received was not acceptable. He said that it should never have been sent to him as it was just an internal discussion between the landlord and the cyclical repairs team.
On 9 March 2021, the resident requested his complaint be escalated to stage 2 with a senior manager review.
On 13 April 2021, the landlord provided its formal stage 2 response. It explained:
1. It reviewed all the correspondence associated with the reported issue including emails and documents the resident provided, the door repair history from its contractor and other repair information dating back to 2002.
2. The door was not an emergency repair.
3. Since 2002 there were approximately 42 repair calls. However, the job descriptions were more general descriptions of vandalism and a broken door. It recognised the descriptions made it difficult to interpret the actions taken and would improve in this area. It recognised the repairs sometimes failed soon after it was completed, leading resident’s to believe the repair was not completed.
4. It offered £75 compensation in recognition of its service failure for the delays to repair the door in a timely manner.
On 14 April 2021, the resident emailed the landlord in response to its stage 2 response. He explained his reasons for escalating the complaint to stage 2 were not addressed which were:
1. Why the landlord delayed in responding to his complaint.
2. Why the landlord believed it was acceptable the communal entrance door did not close, despite there being over 40 call outs related to the door and no repairs had been made.
3. Why the landlord did not consider the door repair as an emergency repair as it is a security issue.
The landlord arranged a telephone discussion with the resident and the complaint handler who considered his stage 2 complaint on 16 April 2021. The landlord has not provided evidence of the call to this Service. However, the resident summarised the call in an email dated 19 April 2021. In relation to the door repairs:
1. The resident explained the landlord’s response did not address the complaint handling delays, he was not kept up to date and the landlord failed to offer him a discussion of his complaint before providing its stage 2 response.
2. He raised concerns with the number of repairs to the door and argued this showed the repairs to not be of good quality.
3. In his email, he asked whether he would need to make a new complaint about the landlord’s failure to adequately repair the door over the past 20 years, or if this could be responded to further by the landlord.
On 29 April 2021, the landlord responded to the resident’s email. It stated:
1. It offered the resident £125 compensation broken down as:
  1. £25 for its delayed responses which caused the complaint to be open for longer than necessary.
  2. £25 for failing to offer a call with the complaint handler prior to issuing the stage 2 response.
  3. £75 previously offered in its stage 2 response.
2. It confirmed it believed the communal front door was an acceptable standard. Whilst it recognised there was a delay to repair the door, as it had already responded to the issue in its stage 2 response, it would not raise a second complaint about the matter.
The resident complained to this Service on 1 April 2022.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman considers its Dispute Resolution Principles. This is good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution:

a. be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes

b. put things right, and

c. learn from outcomes.

Repairs to the communal entrance door

On 15 November 2020, the resident reported the communal door was broken and would not close. The door was repaired on 26 January 2021. This was approximately 10 weeks since the repair was reported.
Whilst this Service accepts such a repair may have a lead time to order a part to complete the repair, this Service would expect for this to be clearly communicated to the resident and manage his expectations. This Service acknowledges the period for the repair overlapped with the Christmas period. However, there is no evidence the landlord communicated effectively with the resident and advised him of any reasons why the door was not repaired or any unforeseen delays. This is evidence of poor communication and a service failing.
Whilst the landlord’s repairs policy does not confirm an expected timescale for making appointments and completing repairs, the landlord showed good practice by arranging for its contractor to attend to inspect the repair within 2 days. However, this Service considers the landlords failure to provide clear timescales to complete repairs was unreasonable. Due to the lack of clear and agreed timescales in the repairs policy, it leaves an inconsistent approach and the resident left not knowing what the expected level of service should be.
Whilst the repair to the communal front door was classed as a routine repair, this may have posed a security and health and safety concern to the resident. This Service would expect to see evidence the landlord assessed such a risk and gave some consideration to any priority that this may have needed. This Service would also have expected to see the landlord communicated the risk to the resident as he raised concerns on this point. No evidence has been provided which shows these considerations occurred or were explored and discussed with the resident.
The landlord’s repairs policy does not provide a timescale for routine repairs to be completed and it failed to manage the resident’s expectations, relating to the repair of the door by keeping him updated about delays. It also did not conduct a risk assessment of the security and health and safety relating to the the broken door. This caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience. Whilst the landlord did recognise the delays in the service delivery and offered £75 compensation, it failed to recognise the communication failings effectively and sought to redress this with the resident, therefore this Service has found service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the communal entrance door.

The associated complaint

The resident complained to the landlord on 8 December 2020. The landlord showed good practice by acknowledging the resident’s complaint within 5 days.
The landlord did not however provide its stage 1 response until 3 March 2021. This was a delay of approximately 3 months.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires a landlord to respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. However, it is able to agree an extension if it has good reason. If an extension beyond 20 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties.
Whilst the landlord explained within its acknowledgement letter that it was experiencing a backlog of complaints which would cause it delays responding, it did not keep the resident updated on when he should expect to receive a response. Neither did the landlord agree a date with the resident to provide its response. This left the resident in the complaints process without a clear and expected date for a resolution. The landlord failed to meet its complaints policy and the Code. This is evidence of poor complaint handling and poor communication.
The landlord has failed to provide this Service with a copy of its stage 1 response. Based on the information in the resident’s response to the stage 1, it suggests the landlord failed to properly investigate the matter and provide a thorough response, addressing the resident’s complaint. This is evidence of poor information management and complaint handling.
On 29 April 2021, the landlord would not accept a new complaint from the resident to address the quality of the door repairs because it had already responded to the issue in its stage 2 response.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states a landlord must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. A complaints policy must clearly set out the circumstances in which a matter would not be considered, and these circumstances should be fair and reasonable to residents. It provides examples of exclusions such as matters that have previously been considered under the complaints policy.
The evidence provided to this Service does not show the resident previously complained to the landlord about the quality of repairs to the communal front door in the context of the 42 repairs historically reported. This was a complaint which should have been accepted by the landlord as a new complaint under its complaints policy. This is evidence of a complaint handling failure.
As part of the resident’s request to escalate his complaint to stage 2, he asked for a senior manager review. The landlord’s complaint policy states the manager would contact the resident to discuss the complaint and clarify issues. The landlord acknowledged in its response to the resident that it did not contact the resident before issuing its stage 2 response. This was a failure to meet its policy position and the landlord also missed an opportunity to fully understand the resident’s complaint and seek a resolution. The failure to give the resident an opportunity to be heard left the resident frustrated and with a final complaint response that failed to take into account all of his concerns.
The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where a landlord has offered suitable redress to resolve a complaint. In this case the Ombudsman recognises that in its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged failures with the service it provided, and the delays caused. Whilst it offered the resident £50 in total compensation for its complaint handling failures, the compensation did not go far enough to remedy the complaint. The resident was left in the complaints process for an extended period of time. He also received a final response that failed to take account of all of the matters he raised because the landlord failed to discuss this complaint fully before it issued the stage 2. This caused the resident inconvenience and time and trouble.
The landlord acted unreasonably by providing its stage 1 response 3 months after the resident complained and it did not keep the resident updated. It also refused to accept the resident’s new complaint, misapplying the Code’s exclusion principles. It failed to uphold the Code and its complaints handling policy. The delays left the resident in the complaints process, without a clear resolution. This Service finds maladministration failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the communal entrance door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord’s handling of the repair to the communal door was poor. The landlord’s repairs policy does not contain timescales for repairs to be completed. It therefore failed to manage the resident’s expectations and did not communicate effectively with the resident and kept him updated until repairs were completed.
The landlord’s complaint handling was unreasonable and there was a 3 month of delay in responding to the stage 1 complaint. It incorrectly applied the exclusions of the Code and failed to uphold its complaints policy.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. If it has not already done so, pay the resident £125 it previously offered the resident following its stage 2 response and subsequent email dated 29 April 2021.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £300.00 in compensation comprising of:
1. £50 for the inconvenience caused by the communication failures in its handling of the repair of the communal door.
2. £250 in recognition of the time and trouble caused to the resident by its poor complaint handling and the landlord’s failure to accept the resident’s new complaint.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman has recently made a number of orders and recommendations in other investigations to this landlord about reviewing its complaint handling approach, repairs service and record keeping. The Ombudsman has therefore not made further recommendations around these aspects of service in this report but expects the landlord to take all relevant learning points from this case into account in its overall reviews of complaint handling, repairs service and record keeping.
Contact the resident to discuss any ongoing matters and consider whether these can be resolved, or assist the resident if he wishes to make a new complaint.