Southern Housing (202221251)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221251

Southern Housing Group Limited

1 October 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:
1. Handling of a repair to the resident’s bedroom window.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
3. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 1 bedroom, fourth floor flat. The landlord is a housing association which owns the freehold of the property. The landlord’s records state that the resident has a health vulnerability. It says that it is helpful to provide him with visual cues.
The resident raised a stage 1 formal complaint on 3 November 2022. He said a bedroom window at the property did not close properly. This left the room “bitterly cold.” His complaint said he had reported this “5 or 6 times over the years” and “for several years since he moved in in 2015.” He asked the landlord to inspect and repair the window “for the sake of his health and the property.” He said it was costly to heat the property and he did not want to spend another winter unable to use the bedroom due to the cold.
The landlord confirmed receipt of the resident’s complaint by email on 6 November 2022. It formally acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 9 November 2022. It understood his complaint to be that the bedroom window did not close, making the room very cold.
On the 16 November 2022 the resident said the landlord’s stage 1 complaint acknowledgement did not include his reports of mould in the property’s bedroom. The resident said mould had grown on and around the bedroom walls and ceilings due to the window disrepair. He said he told the landlord in October to November 2021 and its contractor treated the bedroom walls on 29 November 2021. Yet the mould continued to grow.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident on 8 March 2023. It said:
1. There had been a service failure. It had failed to complete the required repair within its repair timescales and acknowledged its delays to resolve the resident’s complaint.
2. Its investigation showed it had raised an inspection for the property’s bedroom window on 19 December 2022. It attended on 4 January 2023 and passed the repair to its contractor. It acknowledged its contractor missed the appointment and did not inform the resident.
3. It apologised and rearranged the window repair for 16 March 2023.
4. It had included a schedule of works with a target date for completion on 16 March 2023.
5. It upheld his complaint and offered £180 compensation as a good will gesture. This made up:
  1. £60 for its delays to complete the window repair.
  2. £25 service failure.
  3. £20 for the contractors missed appointment.
  4. £25 for the inconvenience caused.
  5. £50 for its complaint handling delays.
On 16 March 2023 the resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaint process (ICP). He said the planned repair that day did not take place. He remained dissatisfied that the landlord’s stage 1 response did not include his reports of damp and mould. He did not consider the landlord’s offer of compensation adequate for the service failures he had experienced.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 17 March 2023. We wrote to the landlord on 31 May 2023. Our letter, a final request for action, asked the landlord to provide the resident with its stage 2 final response. It did this on 5 June 2023. It said:
1. It was “deeply sorry” for the delays the resident had experienced.
2. It accepted there had been poor communication about the repair and also complaint handling delays.
3. Both it and its contractor had tried, unsuccessfully, to contact the resident since 17 May 2023. It asked that he contact it to arrange the repair.
4. It had identified learning for its contractor. It said it should ensure staff had the specialist skills and materials for each repair and ensure it kept residents informed.
5. It upheld the resident’s complaint and offered £350 compensation. This made up:
  1. £50 for its delays to complete the window repair.
  2. £50 for its complaint handling delays.
  3. £250 discretionary payment.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service. On 31 November 2023 the resident said the landlord did not keep a repair appointment on 17 August 2023. It had not contacted him since to rearrange. On 30 January 2024 the resident informed us that the repair remained outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

We note the resident’s correspondence said the landlord’s handling of his repair and complaint affected his physical and mental health, and wellbeing. We do not doubt the residents comments.
Although we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to prove legal liability on whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. Therefore we are unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. A court or insurer must make an assessment of liability in such matters. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wants to pursue a claim for damages for any adverse effect on his health.
In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint, we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine the complaint by reference to what is, in our findings, fair in all the circumstances of the case. Where we identify a failure by a landlord, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
We note the resident’s correspondence says he raised the window repair to the landlord from the start of his tenancy in 2015. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint through its ICP. This is to ensure it took reasonable steps to resolve the resident’s complaint within its 2 stage process. Therefore, the findings made in this investigation will be based on whether the formal complaint responses provided reasonable redress, up to its stage 2 complaint response on 5 June 2023.

Handling of a repair to the resident’s bedroom window

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985), the landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, including windows. The landlord acknowledges this obligation in its repairs and maintenance procedures.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance procedure states that it will complete or make safe emergency repairs within 24 hours. It will complete routine repairs ‘as soon as possible.’
Under the Decent Homes Standard a property is considered in a reasonable state of repair if certain criterions are met. However, if key components of a dwelling, such as windows are old and, because of their poor condition need replacing or a major repair, it would fail to meet these criteria.
The resident says he reported the need for an inspection from the start of his tenancy but “nobody followed through contacting him.” While we do not doubt the resident’s comments, and acknowledge the distress this would cause, we are unable to assess historical complaints. The resident has not provided evidence that he brought a complaint to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable period, normally within 12 months of the matter arising. Furthermore, neither party has supplied evidence which demonstrates the resident had informed the landlord of the repair need prior to October 2022.
The resident said he made his last repair and inspection request via the landlord’s customer service team on 11 October 2022. The resident chased the landlord on 2 November 2022. The landlord said, “nothing was noted.” On these occasions, the resident was able to be precise with the dates and names of the landlord’s customer service officers he spoke to. He explained this led to the landlord raising his complaint.
At this stage, the landlord did not demonstrate effective communication or record keeping. Its failure to record or raise the resident’s repair demonstrates a training need. Its delays caused time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience as the resident chased to resolve matters.
There is evidence following the resident’s complaint of 3 November 2022 that he contacted the landlord again on 9 December 2022. In which he said the flat was “freezing” and said it was affecting his health. The resident informed the landlord of his concerns yet it is unclear what action it took, if any, at this stage to remedy the resident’s repair.
There is evidence the landlord completed an inspection of the resident’s window on 4 January 2023. The landlord’s contractor was due to complete the work but did not attend. It was unreasonable that the resident needed to chase the landlord on 20 January, 1, 13, and 20 February 2023, as he received no update or action from either the landlord or its contractor.
The landlord does not dispute that there had been delays completing repairs within a reasonable timeframe. It is our role therefore 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 we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles. Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord’s stage 1 response apologised for the delay to complete the resident’s window repair. It offered £20 compensation for a missed appointment, and a total of £110 for the effects of the repair service failure and delays. It set an action plan to complete the resident’s repair by 16 March 2023. While this demonstrates the landlord recognised its failures and took steps to put things right, it failed to demonstrate any learning.
The landlord’s stage 1 response simply “assured” the resident that it was committed to learn from his window repair complaint. It did not explain what it would do to learn to prevent similar failings happening again. Furthermore, the landlord demonstrated its failure to learn when it did not complete the resident’s repair by the date it promised.
The landlord’s stage 2 response on 5 June 2023 said the resident reported his window repair in December 2022. It is unclear why it does not refer to events prior to this date or the date of the resident’s complaint on 3 November 2022. This did not demonstrate the landlord had completed a thorough investigation or maintained accurate records about the resident’s concerns.
However, the landlord agreed it had taken no action to complete the repair following an inspection in January 2023. It was therefore appropriate for it to apologise and offer additional compensation. Furthermore, its response demonstrated improved identification and explanation of learning it would undertake with its contractor. This included ensuring its staff had the appropriate training, skills, and access to the materials to complete the job. The landlord offered compensation of £300. It assured the resident it would complete the repair by 7 July 2023. That it did not achieve this date further demonstrated the landlord’s failure to learn from outcomes.
It was appropriate for the landlord to recognise its repeat failures and offer the resident additional compensation. However while the landlord referred to both the window and damp and mould repairs within its stage 2 response, it did not breakdown how it had attributed its compensation offer. It has therefore affected our ability to assess the reasonableness of the landlord’s offer for each failure. The landlord may benefit from providing complaint handling and compensation payment refresher training to staff associated to this complaint.
On 30 January 2024 there is evidence the resident says he last received an update from either the landlord or contractor on 17 August 2023. He explained the window repair remained outstanding. We note the landlord says it had been unable to contact the resident in May 2023. To overcome this, it said it asked him to contact it directly. This was not sufficient mitigation for the failures and delays the resident experienced up to this point.
Furthermore, given the landlord’s record of a health vulnerability, it has not provided evidence of alternative communication efforts to overcome the lack of contact with him. The resident had therefore waited between 3 November 2022 to at least 30 January 2024 for the landlord to complete the window repair. 453 calendar days. This did not demonstrate the landlord effectively monitoring the outstanding repair or the actions of its contractor.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. These regulations set out the minimum standards for housing conditions, including the proper functioning of doors and windows. Landlords are responsible for ensuring that windows open and close properly to provide adequate ventilation and escape routes in case of emergencies.
The resident’s complaint on 3 November 2022 put the landlord on notice. It is therefore unclear why the landlord did not prioritise the repair to prevent further draughts. The landlord did not demonstrate that it met its obligations under HHSRS, and it failed to take the appropriate action to remove the hazard at the property.
During our communication with the landlord in September 2024, we asked it to confirm the date it completed the resident’s window repair or window replacement. While the landlord responded efficiently to acknowledge our requests, it could not answer this question. While we acknowledge the landlord said it had changed contractor since the resident’s complaint, its inability to access this information does not demonstrate effective record keeping.
Furthermore, we asked it to confirm payment of the compensation it offered the resident. While it was able to confirm it paid £370 offered at stage 2 of its ICP on 15 June 2023, it was unable to confirm it had also paid its offer of £180 made at stage 1. This demonstrated a further record keeping failure.
Based on the evidence we find maladministration with this matter. It was not appropriate that the landlord failed to meet its obligations under LTA 1985, the Decent Homes Standard, nor HHSRS. Furthermore, there is evidence in this case of ineffective record keeping and it repeatedly failed to complete the repair as promised. These delays left the resident with a home affected by the cold. This caused him avoidable distress and inconvenience.
The Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance sets out that compensation in the range of £100 to £600 should be awarded where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay £600 for this matter. As we have been unable to clearly identify how the landlord attributed compensation to each complaint, the sum can be deducted from our total compensation order.

Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible to keep the structure and exterior of the property in good order.
As with the resident’s window repair, he says he had reported the presence of damp and mould to the landlord since the start of his tenancy. We note the resident says the landlord completed work for this issue on 29 November 2021. The landlord has not provided any records for this time. This has therefore affected our ability to accurately assess the resident’s claim of an ongoing issue. This indicates a record keeping failure.
The resident’s email on 16 November 2022 clearly informed the landlord of damp and mould in the property. Although the resident asked the landlord to include this in his complaint, it is unclear why the landlord did not treat the resident’s communication as a service request at this stage. That it took no action demonstrates a dismissive approach by the landlord to the resident’s concerns.
The landlord’s records provide evidence that it did not plan an inspection of the reported damp and mould at the property until the 5 and 12 April 2024. Approximately 5 Months after the resident’s reports. The landlord’s stage 2 response on 5 June 2024 says, “there were inspections arranged however no actions can be found recorded as works orders on the repair’s history.” This demonstrates poor record keeping and the landlord’s failure to monitor the required work.
Without good knowledge and information management (KIM) a landlord is unable to deliver its services efficiently and effectively. It is imperative that records are accurate and maintained to keep both the property and the resident safe now and in the future. There is evidence in this case that the landlord failed to appropriately record the resident’s reports or monitor the necessary inspection. This was not appropriate and delayed it progressing the resident’s repair.
Under HHSRS the landlord has a responsibility to keep a property free from hazards, including protection from infection, damp and mould, and excess cold. Given the resident’s reports that the property was “freezing” on 9 December 2022, it was unclear why the landlord did not demonstrate taking more decisive action sooner to inspect and resolve the matter.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should:
1. Adopt a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this.
2. Ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and effective resolution.
3. Ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
4. Identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used. This includes sharing the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner.
Had the landlord adopted the approach set out in these recommendations, it may have avoided the service failings identified in this report.
The landlord’s stage 2 response on 5 June 2023 says it had tried unsuccessfully to contact the resident on 1 and 2 June 2023. The landlord says its contractor had similar difficulties in May 2023. The evidence indicates the landlord believed its telephone number for the resident may be incorrect.
However, there is further evidence the resident responded and confirmed there had been no changes to his contact details. We are unable to assess or determine what happened in this situation. It is however unclear why the landlord has been unable to provide any evidence of copies of written correspondence it sent to the resident as an alternative means of communication. Had it done so, it may have overcome the delays sooner.
During the investigation, we asked the landlord for further information relating to this issue. It advised it had completed a mould wash at the resident’s property on 4 May 2023. It is unclear why this information was not initially available in the landlord’s repair records. This demonstrates a record keeping failure.
The evidence shows the resident waited approximately 5 months for the landlord to inspect his reports of damp and mould. It took 169 calendar days from his report for the landlord to complete a mould wash. While the landlord’s repair’s policy says it will complete routine repairs “as soon as possible,” this was an unreasonable delay. The landlord failed to demonstrate how it met its obligations under HHSRS, nor that it had adopted a zero tolerance approach to reports of damp and mould. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience as he lived in a property which he believed could affect his health.
Based on our findings, we find maladministration with the landlord’s handling of this matter. Given the history of the resident’s reports, we may have made a finding of severe maladministration if the evidence identified a significant detriment to him. However, given the delays, poor record keeping, and communication, we order it to pay £600. This is in line with the remedies guidance available to use when the landlord’s failure adversely affected the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s relevant complaints policy states it will respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days of the acknowledgement date.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out requirements for member landlords that will allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. The purpose of the Code is to enable landlords to resolve complaints raised by their residents quickly. Also, to use the data and learning from complaints to drive service improvements.
The Code 1 (April 2022) required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days. To respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of the resident’s complaint. To respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of the resident’s escalation request.
The landlord’s relevant complaints policy was not compliant with the Code. It should have sent a stage 1 complaint response to the resident within 10 working days of his complaint. Not from its acknowledgement date. We have identified this issue in recent investigations. We ordered the landlord to pay particular attention to the complaint stages when it completed a self-assessment of its complaints policy.
In this investigation, we found failures in the landlord’s complaint handling policy. However, we note that the landlord’s website includes a revised policy from 17 May 2024. The landlord’s changes are now in line with the statutory Code. Our assessment will continue based on the landlord’s relevant policy during its handling of the resident’s complaint.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 3 November 2022. Therefore, he should have received a stage 1 acknowledgement by 10 November 2022 and a stage 1 response by 17 November 2022. It was appropriate that the landlord met the obligations of the Code by sending a timely acknowledgement. However, it sent its stage 1 complaint response 76 working days beyond the expectations of the Code, on 8 March 2023.
There is evidence the resident responded to the landlord’s stage 1 acknowledgement on 16 November 2022. He said the landlord had failed to include his reports of damp and mould on and around the bedroom wall and ceiling. Paragraph 5.7 of the Code (April 2022) states:
1. Where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these should be incorporated into the stage 1 response if they are relevant and the stage 1 response has not been issued. Where the stage 1 response has been issued, or it would unreasonably delay the response, the complaint should be logged as a new complaint.
We note that the resident’s written complaint on 3 November 2023 did not specifically raise damp and mould issues. It would therefore have been reasonable for the landlord not to include this in its acknowledgement.
However, given the resident raised the concern separately prior to the landlord’s stage 1 response, the landlord should have addressed this. Had the landlord considered it would have unreasonably delayed its response, it should have opened a separate complaint and investigated it in line with its ICP. That it did not do this demonstrates a training need. While it did not follow its ICP correctly, it was reasonable in the circumstances that the landlord included this matter in its stage 2 final response. The detriment of this failure to the resident would have been minimal.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s ICP on 16 March 2023. The landlord should therefore have sent an acknowledgement by 23 March 2023 and a stage 2 final response by 14 April 2023. While it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint the next day, it failed to meet the expected response timescales
The resident sought help from the Housing Ombudsman Service as the landlord continued not to respond when he chased it. We sent the landlord a final request for action letter on 31 May 2023. This was not reasonable and caused the resident time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience while he tried to progress matters. The landlord provided its stage 2 final response on 5 June 2023, 33 working days beyond the expected response timescales. This was not appropriate.
The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles encourage learning from outcomes. While the landlord’s complaint responses acknowledged its complaint handling delays, it failed to set out what steps it would take to prevent similar failings happening again. It failed to demonstrate any learning from its stage 1 failures, also providing its stage 2 response beyond its own and the Code’s expected response timescales. This was not appropriate. It failed to demonstrate it had learned and repeated the same failure within its 2 stage ICP.
The landlord offered £50 compensation for complaint handling delays at stage 1 and stage 2 of its investigation. Its £100 offer of compensation was reasonable and in line with the remedies guidance available to us. When there has been service failure, the remedies guidance suggests redress between £50 to £100. We may have made a finding of reasonable redress but for the landlord’s failure to demonstrate any learning from the complaint. Therefore, we find service failure.
This finding is in line with complaint handling failures identified in a special report on the landlord by the Housing Ombudsman Service, published in May 2024. In which, we made recommendations in relation to improving complaint handling, including staff training. Therefore, it has not been necessary to make additional orders as they overlap the expectations of the special report.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of a repair to the resident’s bedroom window.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. A senior member of the landlord’s staff to write to the resident and apologise for the findings of this report.
2. Pay the resident £1,300 compensation. £430 offered by the landlord within its ICP can be deducted from this total, if already paid. The compensation is made up of:
  1. £600 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of a repair to the resident’s bedroom window.
  2. £600 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
  3. £100 compensation offered within its stage 1 and 2 responses for complaint handling failures, if not already paid.
Within 6 weeks, the landlord is ordered to arrange a visit to the property. During which, it must update its property records. This should include any action required to address any outstanding damp and mould in the property. It should also satisfy itself that it has completed the required window repair or replacement. The landlord is to share a copy of its findings and action plans with us.

Recommendations

The landlord should ensure that its health and vulnerability records accurately reflect the resident’s circumstances.