Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Southern Housing (202232643)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232643

Southern Housing

20 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of asbestos in the property.
    2. Reports of several outstanding repair issues.
    3. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 2-bed flat owned by the landlord. The tenancy began in October 2022 following a mutual exchange.
  2. The resident reported to the landlord, on 10 October 2022, that her contractor had discovered asbestos in the property. It responded to this report on 10 and 11 October 2022. She reported further issues with the toilet flush, blown window seals and poor plaster to it on 12 October 2022.
  3. On 26 October 2022, the resident complained to the landlord about its response to the asbestos in the property and her concerns. She included more than 10 repair issues as part of her complaint.
  4. The landlord provided the resident with its stage 1 complaint response on 16 November 2022. It stated that as she completed a mutual exchange, she accepted the property as seen. It provided advice in relation to asbestos and provided dates for the repairs she raised as it had no prior knowledge of these.
  5. The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 30 November 2022. She disputed some points made by the landlord in its complaint response in relation to the repairs, the discovery of asbestos and whether it should have decanted her once it confirmed the discovery of asbestos.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 20 February 2023. It stated that it was satisfied that it had correctly followed its asbestos procedure but apologised for the repairs that remained outstanding and the delays in completing these. It provided a completion date of 27 February 2023 and offered £75 compensation for the delays.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaint and its failure to offer her backdated rent as she felt unable to move into the property at the beginning of her tenancy. As such, she brought her complaint to this Service for investigation.

Assessment and findings

Asbestos

  1. The resident reported the finding of asbestos in a ceiling in the property to the landlord on 10 October 2022. She had hired an electrician who had drilled into the ceiling. The landlord requested its asbestos surveyor attend the property to check all ceilings and provide a report. The surveyor attended within 2 hours of it raising works. Its repairs policy states that it will attend an emergency repair within 6 hours of a report. Its prompt raising of works and attendance by its surveyor was within its policy timescale.
  2. Following the survey on 10 October 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that its operative told her the property was not safe to be in. It followed this up with its contractor within 20 minutes and they advised that this was not the case as the works had not exposed the asbestos. There is no evidence that it communicated this to the resident to ease her concerns which would have been good practice in the circumstances.
  3. The landlord’s asbestos contractor attended the resident’s property again on 11 October 2022 to complete works to make the ceiling safe and complete an air safety test. They confirmed that there was no risk to the health and safety of the resident prior to completing works and provided an air safety test certificate demonstrating that the property was safe. Its response to the initial disturbance of asbestos was fast and demonstrated a good adherence to its repairs policy.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord about several issues on 26 October 2022 and included its response to her reports of asbestos as part of this. She felt its advice to remain in the property after the discovery of asbestos was unprofessional and that it had disregarded her health and safety. She requested clarity on where asbestos was situated in the property and a response to her concerns. She also requested that it remove a hook from the ceiling that contained asbestos.
  5. The landlord raised works to remove the hook from the resident’s ceiling on 4 November 2022. These works were then cancelled on 8 November 2022 with notes that the works had been completed on a different order, but the evidence provided in the case demonstrates that this had not been completed by the time it provided its stage 1 response on 16 November 2022, or when she requested escalation of her complaint on 30 November 2022. While this was a minor repair issue, it appears that the landlord lost track of this in dealing with several other repairs. It would have been good practice for it to double check the status of the work ahead of closing the repair on its system.
  6. In its stage 1 complaint response of 16 November 2022, the landlord advised the resident that as she completed a mutual exchange for the property, she accepted it as seen. It noted that her own privately contracted electrician had drilled into the asbestos and requested that she provide it with the details of her electrician so it could ensure their credentials and asbestos training. It explained that if her electrician had correctly taped and sealed off the disturbed area, she could have remained in the property after the contractor completed the air test. This statement was confusing as it had advised her to remain in the property at the time.
  7. The landlord provided the resident with an asbestos advice sheet, copies of the asbestos reports, its own asbestos spreadsheet, and a copy of the air test certificate as part of its stage 1 complaint response. While it did explain that the contractor listed the asbestos in her property as low risk in the report, it did not make any attempt to ease her concerns and instead focused on the shortcomings of her own electrician. It was appropriate of it to provide the relevant paperwork and while unsympathetic, its response was factual and accurate.
  8. The resident was dissatisfied with the way the landlord managed her complaint and requested escalation of it on 30 November 2022. She stated that it had failed to uphold its responsibility to inform her of the presence of asbestos in the property. She said that it had advised her to continue using the area and that it had not offered to decant her while it conducted the appropriate tests. She requested that it explain why it did not tell her about asbestos in the property ahead of moving in and why it did not decant her.
  9. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 20 February 2023. It stated that it was not aware that her electrician had drilled into the ceiling until she informed it afterwards and that it would have expected her electrician to request information from it ahead of doing so. If they had done this, it would have happily provided any information it had or requested a test if necessary. It confirmed that its contractor safely removed the cement on 11 October 2022 and completed an air test which found no asbestos fibres in the air following this. The contractor had now also removed the ceiling hook. It provided another copy of its asbestos information leaflet. It stated that it was satisfied that it had followed its asbestos procedures correctly. The landlord’s complaint response was factual and accurately reflected the events that had taken place.
  10. Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of asbestos were prompt and demonstrated a thorough approach to health and safety. The tenancy agreement states that a resident must not make any alterations, additions or improvements to fixtures and fittings in the property without first obtaining written permission from the landlord and it reflected this in its complaint response. The asbestos management leaflet that it provided to her explains that it will remove asbestos if a repair or alteration takes place on or near it, and this was the case here with removal of the asbestos the day after it was disturbed.
  11. While this Service acknowledges that the presence of asbestos in a home can be concerning for a resident, there is no evidence to indicate that there was any risk to the resident in this case and therefore it was reasonable of the landlord to avoid an unnecessary decant. Its management of the situation was appropriate, and a finding of no maladministration is reasonable in the circumstances.

Outstanding repairs

  1. Prior to the resident beginning the tenancy with the landlord on 10 October 2022, it completed an electrical installation condition report on 2 August 2022. It found that there was evidence of additions and alterations, but the surveyor was unable to assess most points as the previous tenant was in the process of moving and had obstructed sockets with heavy items. It also completed a post-inspection report on the same day and approved works to renew a wooden door frame and fit new internal kitchen and bathroom and external garden doors.
  2. For routine day-to-day repairs, the general standard among social landlords is around 28 working days. As the landlord’s policy does not state a specific timescale for routine repairs, this will be used as the baseline against which to consider its actions in this case.
  3. The resident raised several repairs to the landlord on 12 October 2022, including a faulty toilet flush and blown window seals. She then reported further issues within her stage 1 complaint on 26 October 2022 which included problems with the boiler breaking down, a structural defect on a bedroom wall, a defective external door lock and issues with plumbing pipework. She had discovered these after completing the mutual exchange and beginning the tenancy.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord’s income department on 7 November 2022, advising that she had been unable to move into the property due to the ongoing repair issues. She stated that she was currently living in privately sourced temporary accommodation and wanted reimbursement for the costs of this, along with an adjustment of her tenancy start date as it had charged her rent. There is no evidence that the landlord responded sufficiently to this point in any of its complaint responses or communications.
  5. In response to the resident’s reports, the landlord completed a further property inspection on 10 November 2022. It found that the internal kitchen fire door and external rear doors still needed installation or replacement. The boiler was not working but it was addressing this on the same day. It found corrosion on the bottom of the toilet, and that the toilet should be replaced. The kitchen fan was not working, and it confirmed an issue with the plasterwork on a bedroom wall. While it was good practice for it to complete an inspection following her reports, it found that it had failed to complete previously identified works over 3 months later.
  6. It is likely that most of these works would have been routine repairs, and the landlord had clearly exceeded the standard 28 working day timescale for these. The plasterwork issue on the bedroom wall, if structural, may have required more comprehensive works and is not considered within this timescale.
  7. In its stage 1 complaint response of 16 November 2022, the landlord stated that the resident had not reported the repairs previously and it provided dates for attendance on all of these. Some of these dates had already passed and it did not include any updates from these works. It did not offer any form of redress for failing to complete the repairs it had previously identified. Overall, while its response contained a lot of information, it did not include an action plan for a resolution or information about what it had already completed.
  8. As part of her complaint escalation on 30 November 2022, the resident listed the repairs that remained outstanding which included the internal door frame, defective external door lock, plumbing pipes, and issues with the windows, among others. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 20 February 2022, it acknowledged that repairs had been outstanding since November 2022 and apologised for this. It advised that it was due to undertake repairs on 6 separate issues on 27 February 2023 and complete the structural defect works 29 February 2023.
  9. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £75 for the repair delays alongside its apology. It explained that its maintenance surveyor would oversee the repairs and would update her if it required more time. It stated that it could learn lessons from the resident’s experience to ensure it keeps residents updated with the progress of works and to progress works as quickly as possible.
  10. Where there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  11. The landlord’s compensation policy is based upon the remedies guidance published by the Ombudsman. It recommends payments between £50 and £250 for service failure. It also allows for payments of £10 plus £2 a day until it completes the repair, up to a maximum of £50 for repair delays. This commences from the date it agreed to complete works.
  12. When considering the landlord’s offer of £75 compensation in relation to its compensation policy, its offer was not sufficient. It agreed to complete several works between 26 October and 10 November 2022 and did not complete these until 27 February 2023. This was 85 and 74 working days, respectively. As such, its offer did not include its late repairs payments, and it did not reflect the failings or the impact on the resident.
  13. In conclusion, the landlord’s approach to repairs was poor. The records it provided to this Service did not clearly demonstrate completion dates for works and it often cancelled repairs, noting that it had completed work on other works orders, which was not the case. This may have contributed to delays.
  14. The landlord’s compensation offer was not sufficient to address its failings, and it did not acknowledge her request for reimbursement for private temporary accommodation in relation to the outstanding repairs. It would have been good practice for it to acknowledge this and explain the reasons for its decision in relation to this request. In communication with this Service in April 2024, she stated that some repairs remained outstanding.
  15. Considering the above, a finding of maladministration is appropriate, and this Service will make an order for further financial compensation in the orders and recommendations section of this report.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy. It will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and provide a response within 10 working days of acknowledgement. It will acknowledge stage 2 escalation requests within 5 working days of receipt and will then provide a response within 20 working days of acknowledgment. If it requires more time to provide a response at either stage, it will contact the resident to explain why and agree a new response date.
  2. The landlord did adhere to its complaints policy at stage 1 by advising the resident that it needed to investigate further and extending its response period to 16 November 2022. It provided its response on this date.
  3. Following the resident’s complaint escalation request on 30 November 2022 and subsequent chasing email on 6 December 2022, the landlord acknowledged her complaint at stage 2 on 7 December 2022. This exceeded its 5 working day acknowledgement period for complaints, although this delay was not excessive.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 20 February 2023, 50 working days after acknowledgement which far exceeded the 20 working days timescale. It has not provided evidence to show that it had agreed this with the resident as per its policy.
  5. The landlord did not acknowledge the delays at stage 2 in its complaint response and it offered no redress to the resident for this. As such, a finding of service failure is appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:
    1. There was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of asbestos in the property.
    2. There was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repair issues.
    3. There was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation totalling £450 (inclusive of the £75 offered previously as part of its stage 2 response), comprising:
    1. £300 for the failures identified in its handling of repairs, made up of its maximum of £50 per delayed repair for 6 separate repairs.
    2. £75 for the failures identified in its complaint handling.
    3. £75 offered as part of its stage 2 complaint response if it has not paid this already.
  2. The landlord must write to the resident, acknowledging and apologising for its failures in the handling of her complaint.
  3. The landlord must provide proof of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of this decision.
  4. The landlord must arrange with the resident a full and thorough survey of the property to identify and arrange any outstanding or additional required works. It should provide a timescale for the completion of the works to both the resident and this Service. It must provide proof of compliance with this order within 6 weeks of this decision.

Recommendations

  1. Considering the shortcomings found in this investigation, the landlord should consider self-assessing its practices against the knowledge and information management (KIM) spotlight report published by this Service in May 2023, if it has not already done so.