Southern Housing (202213458)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213458

Southern Housing Group Limited

29 November 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. alleged anti-social behaviour,
2. repairs to the resident’s property,
3. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property since 2013. The property is a 2-bedroom flat within a block. The evidence provided shows the landlord was aware the resident had been diagnosed with mental health conditions and was vulnerable.
The resident contacted the landlord on 17 January 2022 to report repairs for the property’s windows and the front door. The landlord carried out an inspection of the resident’s property on 15 August 2022. It noted repairs were needed for the property’s windows, toilet, kitchen units, living room ceiling and the flat’s front door. It also said a mould wash and stain block was required for the walls in the living room and hall.
The landlord scheduled the repairs for September and October 2022. On 21 October 2022, the landlord sent a warning letter to the resident about her alleged behaviour towards its staff.
On 21 December 2022, the resident raised her complaint to the landlord. She said it had not completed the repairs she had raised. The resident also said she had been the victim of anti-social behaviour (ASB) from other resident’s within the block of flats.
On 9 January 2023, the landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its internal complaints process regarding the alleged ASB. It said it would deal with the repairs in a separate complaint. It told the resident it could not investigate the alleged ASB as the allegations were out if its remit.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its internal complaints process on 28 March 2023 regarding the repairs. It admitted it had delayed carrying out the repairs and this was a service failure. The landlord also admitted a delay in its complaint handling. It offered the resident £385 total in compensation. It also booked in an appointment for the following month to complete the repairs at the property.
On the 18 April 2023, the resident escalated her complaint regarding the repairs with the landlord. She said it had not fully investigated her concerns or followed its own policy’s. On 20 April 2023, the landlord attended the resident’s property but no access was given.
The resident told the landlord, on 2 May 2023, she was not happy that the “issues with the neighbours had not been resolved”.
The landlord replied at stage 2 of its internal complaints process on 17 May 2023. It said when it attended the previous month for a repairs visit the resident did not give access to her property. The landlord asked the resident to call its call centre to book a new appointment for the repairs. It said the offer of compensation remained at the same amount offered at stage 1. The landlord also said the resident’s ASB complaint was being handled separately.
On 26 March 2024, the landlord told this Service the resident did not escalate the ASB complaint beyond stage 1 of its internal complaints process. No evidence has been provided to us to show the repairs have been completed at the resident’s property.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response dated 9 January 2023 it provided a response to a complaint of ASB raised by the resident. The landlord explained it had pieced together reports from various emails sent by the resident directly to the landlord and also to partner agencies.
The landlord identified that some of the issues reported were not complaints about the landlord and its service provision, but were about partner agencies, and as such were not the responsibility of the landlord to answer. Another issue reported concerned the behaviour towards the resident of a member of the public who was not a tenant of the landlord. As such, the landlord stated it was unable to investigate the matter.
Furthermore, the response detailed that the resident had made general, unspecified reports of ASB within her block and neighbourhood. The resident provided a large amount of information in files the landlord was unable to access, or realistically process.
The landlord provided specific instruction to the resident about what information it required to progress an ASB complaint and in what format it was to be provided. It asked the resident to provide this with a 2 week timescale, otherwise it would consider the case closed. The timescales set by the landlord were consistent with those published in its complaints policy.
The resident failed to provide any information within the relevant timescales as required by the landlord to progress the matter, which as a result was subsequently closed by the landlord.
On 2 June 2023, as part of the correspondence with the landlord, amongst other matters raised in regards to other complaint issues, the resident indicated that a neighbour had thrown dog faeces at her windows. The landlord has not provided any evidence to suggest any further investigation took place in regards to any ASB related issues that were reported by the resident.
Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. Unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
The evidence shows that the initial, unspecified reports were not advanced beyond stage 1 by the landlord and there is no evidence a formal complaint regarding ASB was subsequently made by the resident. As such, as the matters in relation to this complaint point have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint’s process, they are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s property

On 17 January 2022, the resident raised repairs to the landlord for all the windows and the front door to her flat. She said the “windows did not close” and the front door did “not work properly”.
The evidence shows the landlord sent an internal email on 15 August 2022 following an inspection of the resident’s property. The landlord listed the following repairs as being required:
1. An overhaul was needed for the windows and frame of the balcony door.
2. A clean to the balcony and inner area of the internal walls in the lounge.
3. To renew the frame of the front door.
4. To apply a mould wash and stain block on the hallway walls and near the balcony due to damp and mould.
5. To box in a pipe in bedroom for the resident’s safety as the pipe could get hot.
6. To “urgently” fix the blocked toilet and slow draining system.
7. Fix the toilet pan to the floor and complete grouting in the bathroom.
8. Repair damage in the living room ceiling.
9. Repairs to the kitchen units, flooring and trunking.
In an internal email on 1 September 2022, sent by the landlord, it said:
1. An appointment to clean the balcony “could” be booked in for the 3 September 2022.
2. The window repairs were booked in for 7 September 2022.
3. An urgent repair for the toilet was booked in for 9 September 2022.
4. All other remaining repairs were booked in for 19 October 2022.
The landlord’s repairs policy details the areas of the property it is responsible to keep in a “reasonable state of repair and in proper working order”. The policy showed all repairs identified were the responsibility of the landlord.
The resident approached this Service on 23 September 2022. She said the landlord had not completed the repairs to her property.
On 21 October 2022, the landlord sent a letter to the resident. It said during a repairs visit 2 days earlier she had behaved in “an unacceptable way”. The landlord warned her it would not tolerate inappropriate behaviour towards its staff. It said it would “take steps against” her if she behaved in the same manner again.
The landlord’s “acceptable behaviour policy” states it will not accept when a resident’s “anger escalates into aggression towards our staff”. The policy states it recognises that a resident’s actions may be “affected by a vulnerability, including mental health issues”. It also states that an “equality impact assessment” will be conducted with the resident before any formal action is taken. This is to understand the resident’s needs. The policy also states the landlord will provide support to the resident including “signposting” to relevant organisations such as “mental health services”.
No evidence has been provided to show the landlord considered the resident’s known mental health conditions when it responded to her behaviour towards staff. There is also no evidence to show it completed an equality impact assessment for the resident or that she was signposted for support. The landlord’s failure to comply with its policy was a missed opportunity to improve the landlord and tenant relationship.
On 21 December 2022, the resident complained to the landlord. She said she was not happy it had not completed the repairs needed at her property.
The landlord replied at stage 1 of its internal complaints process on 28 March 2023. It found there had been a “service failure” due to the delays in completing repairs and for this it offered the resident £335 in compensation. This was broken down as:
1. £25 for the service failure,
2. £60 for delays in completing the repairs,
3. £250 for inconvenience caused by the delays.
The landlord also said it had attended the property at times to complete the repairs but had not been given access. It said it planned to attend on 20 and 21 April 2023 to “rectify all the issues raised in the complaint”.
When the landlord responded at stage 1 the resident had been waiting around 15 months for it to complete the repairs to the windows at her property. It had also been around 8 months since the inspection at her property where the landlord had noted the other repairs. It is not clear from the evidence provided to this Service if some of the repairs had been completed by the landlord at that stage. However, the length of time the resident waited for the landlord to attend her property was unreasonable. It was far beyond the expectations provided by the timescales in its repairs policy.
The stage 1 response referenced the landlord’s inability to access the property. However, it failed to account for the missed opportunity to improve the situation by conducting the actions in accordance with its acceptable behaviour policy.
As part of its response to the resident’s behaviour, the landlord appropriately warned the resident as to her future conduct. This was a reasonable step for the landlord to take if it believes its staff have been subject to unacceptable behaviour from a resident. However, there is no evidence that the landlord followed the steps detailed by its policy to help manage potential underlying causes and ongoing interactions. The landlord did not conduct an equality impact assessment despite being aware the resident was vulnerable, which was inappropriate.
The landlord took steps to try and put things right for the resident, however, by arranging a new appointment for repairs. This was a reasonable response.
On 18 April 2023, the resident escalated her complaint. She said she thought the landlord had not fully investigated her complaint or followed its own policies.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 20 April 2023 to carry out repairs. In an internal email it said “it was not able to get access to the property despite calling her mobile and knocking”.
The landlord replied to the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of its internal complaints process, around 19 working days later, on 17 May 2023. It said it understood the resident was unhappy that the repairs had not been completed. The landlord said:
1. An appointment letter was sent to the resident 3 days before the 20 and 21 April 2023 but no access was given to the property. It asked the resident to contact the landlord to rebook a new appointment for the repairs.
2. The level of compensation offered was in line with its compensation framework and therefore the amount would remain the same.
At stage 2 the landlord upheld its previous complaint findings and compensation offer. It admitted there had been delays in dealing with the repairs and that repairs were still outstanding. The landlord detailed it had made an appointment in an attempt to complete repairs at the property. When it was not given access it told the resident how she could book a new appointment with the landlord to complete the repairs. These were all appropriate actions to take to progress matters.
However, the stage 2 response, like the stage 1 response, failed to acknowledge the resident’s vulnerabilities, or take steps to advance the measures required of it in accordance with its acceptable behaviour policy. The failure to follow the policy was a missed opportunity to set the conditions to improve the landlord and tenant relationship .
Evidence provided shows a further property inspection by the landlord took place, 6 months later, on 29 November 2023. An internal email sent by the landlord on 4 December 2023 noted the resident’s living room window was smashed and needed to be replaced. The email shows the mould wash to the walls in the property, window repairs, kitchen repairs and damage to the living room ceiling were all still outstanding.
The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 9 April 2024. It said it had raised an appointment to replace the smashed living room window on 22 April 2024. It noted that the other jobs would remain outstanding as the resident had “refused” to make further appointments. No evidence has been provided to this Service to show if the remaining repairs to the resident’s property have been completed.
When a failure is identified, as in this case, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord offered £335 compensation at both stage 1 and 2 of its internal complaints process. This was for the delays in completing repairs and the inconvenience caused. At the time it issued its stage 2 response the resident had been waiting around 16 months for repairs to her property’s windows. This was far beyond the timescales outlined in its repairs policy. The evidence shows the landlord had attempted to complete the repairs on 3 occasions but was not given access by the resident.
The evidence shows there has been a breakdown in the landlord and tenant relationship. The landlord is aware that the resident has vulnerabilities in regard to her mental health and that it had cause during the timeline to warn the resident as to her behaviour towards its staff.
The landlord has in place policies in which it should consider if a contributory factor in resident’s behaviour may be because of mental ill health. In such instances impact assessments should be undertaken and effective signposting to agencies to provide support should be engaged. The landlord has not provided evidence it has done these actions in this case, where there is evidence to support that it should have due to the resident’s vulnerabilities. As such, it is reasonable to conclude it has not done all it has committed to do as part of its interactions with its vulnerable service users.
The landlord has not provided evidence it took actions regarding the resident’s vulnerabilities and mental health. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has been able to evidence it made reasonable and proactive efforts to otherwise resolve the complaint. This was through the steps it took to complete the repairs at the property. It also tried to “put things right” in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles with the offer of compensation.
The landlord offered £335 compensation for the failures in its handling of repairs. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there were failures which adversely affected the resident as occurred in this case, but which did not result in a permanent impact on the resident. The landlord’s attempts to put things right and an appropriate offer of compensation amounts to a determination of reasonable redress for this complaint point.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

On 21 December 2022, the resident raised her complaint regarding outstanding repairs to the landlord. On 7 March 2023, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord and asked it to respond to the outstanding stage 1 complaint raised by the resident.
The landlord replied at stage 1 of its internal complaints process, around 66 working days later, on 28 March 2023. The landlord’s complaints policy says that at stage 1 it aims to give ‘a full response within 10 working days’. There was a delay of around 56 working days in responding to the resident’s complaint by the landlord. This was an inappropriate breach of the landlord’s policy and will have caused inconvenience to the resident.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response it upheld the resident’s complaint and offered her £50 compensation for the delay in its complaint handling. This was an appropriate step by the landlord.
The resident escalated her complaint on 18 April 2023. 19 working days later the landlord replied at stage 2 of its internal complaints process. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will respond at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord therefore acted within its policy.
The landlord acknowledged the delay in replying to the resident’s complaint at stage 1. It offered £50 compensation to put things right for the resident. This amount is in line with an award which would be made by the Ombudsman when considering our remedies guidance.
As such the landlord’s offer of £50 compensation for its handling of the associated complaint leads to a determination of reasonable redress, in that the landlord’s actions put things right for the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the resident’s complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of alleged ASB was outside of this Service’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has provided reasonable redress in its handling of repairs to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has provided reasonable redress in its handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendations

The findings of reasonable redress in respect to the landlord’s handling of repairs and the associated complaint relies on it providing proof of payment to this Service. The landlord should provide this evidence within 6 weeks to show it has paid the £385 compensation awarded to the resident.
The landlord should conduct the necessary assessments and signposting as applicable to vulnerable users. It should re-engage with the resident and provide a schedule of works to complete the necessary repairs. The repairs should be conducted under any reasonable conditions agreed by both parties.
The landlord should contact the resident regarding the ASB and establish if there are any ongoing concerns. It should reiterate and reassure the resident how to report any further ASB.
The landlord should conduct a review to ensure that all steps with residents are taken in accordance with its acceptable user policy. There should be an emphasis on dealing with service users who are known or could be vulnerable due to mental ill health. The landlord may benefit from referring to this Service’s spotlight report on “Attitudes, respect and rights” and the recommendations contained within the report.