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

Southern Housing (202305489)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305489

Southern Housing

30 August 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:
    1. The resident’s reports of repairs to the communal lift.
    2. The resident’s reports of repairs to the intercom and main entrance door.
    3. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began in 2008. The property is a 2-bedroom upper floor flat within a block of flats. The resident lives with her adult son.
  2. The landlord is aware that the resident is disabled, with restricted mobility due to arthritis. She has explained to the landlord that, as a result of her disability, she is reliant on the communal lift in order to be able to go out, and is reliant on the intercom system to let in visitors through the communal front door on the ground floor.
  3. The lift was out of service for the majority, if not all, of the time between 10 March and 24 May 2023. The resident was provided with temporary hotel accommodation by the landlord between 14 April and 26 May 2023.
  4. On 2 March 2023 the resident complained about the intercom and the lift repeatedly breaking down. She wanted the landlord to replace them rather than keep repairing. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 28 March 2023.
    It apologised that the lift was out of service at that time and said it would endeavour to get it working again as soon as possible. It said lift replacements were scheduled for 2032-33. It did not respond to the resident’s complaint about the intercom.
  5. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and requested escalation to stage 2. She wanted compensation, installation of a reliable lift, or to be rehoused. She pointed out that the landlord had not addressed her complaint about the intercom.
  6. The landlord raised a new complaint about the intercom and main entrance door on 21 April 2023, and responded to this at stage 1 on 28 April 2023. It did not dispute that the resident had grounds for complaint, but said it had made improvements in January 2023 and was not aware of any current issues.
    No compensation was offered.
  7. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 30 May 2023. It acknowledged that the lift had been out of service for 67 days since 10 March 2023, and apologised that the resident had had to be in temporary accommodation. It had replaced the contractor in charge of lift repairs and said that this would improve reliability of the lift. It offered compensation of £175, and said that it would follow up with an occupational therapist regarding assessment of whether the resident needed a move to a more suitable property. It did not address the complaint about the intercom at stage 2.
  8. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response and requested this service investigate on 6 June 2023. She wanted an increased offer of compensation in recognition of the impact on her of the lift being out of service, and extra costs she had incurred as a result of this. She wanted the intercom to be repaired.

Assessment and findings

Lift repairs

  1. The tenancy agreement acknowledges the landlord’s responsibility to “take reasonable care to keep the common entrances, halls, stairways, lifts, passageways, rubbish chutes and any other common parts, including their electric lighting, in reasonable repair and fit for use by the Tenant and other occupiers and visitors to the Premises.”
  2. The landlord’s communal lift breakdown protocol requires a contractor to attend within 4 hours of a report that the lift has broken down (or within 1 hour if people are trapped in the lift). If the contractor is not able to return the lift to service on the first visit the landlord must telephone residents to offer support and assess the impact that the lack of lift has on them. The landlord should keep a record of the impact assessment and actions taken to support residents. If the lift will be out of service for more than 5 days the landlord should meet with the lift contractors daily to assess the contractor’s information and plan, ensure this is appropriate, and ensure there is no more effective solution available.
  3. The protocol states that if the lift will be out of service for more than 10 days, as well as the above steps, the landlord’s “lift consultant” will visit the site, ensure the contractor’s diagnosis is correct, and assess the site for temporary stairlifts. If the lift will be out of service for more than 25 days, if feasible, the landlord will fit a temporary stairlift.
  4. The records provided by the landlord show that in the 6 months prior to the resident’s complaint it received 2 reports of faults with the lift:
    1. 6 September 2022 – there was a delay with the door closing when on the fifth floor.
    2. 25 November 2022 – the lift doors were “constantly opening and closing” on the top floor.

There is no clear evidence how long the lift was out of service, if at all, on each occasion, so it is not possible to say whether or not the landlord acted reasonably.

  1. On 2 March 2023 the resident complained that the building intercom and lift were “continually breaking.” She explained that due to her arthritis she could not go out when the lift was broken, and when the intercom was broken she could not let anyone in, leaving her feeling isolated. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and wanted the lift and the intercom to be replaced. Given the resident’s disability, the landlord was obliged, under the Equality Act 2010, to have considered whether her circumstances placed her at a disadvantage when the lift was out of service, and whether any reasonable adjustments were required as a result. No evidence has been seen that this was done.
  2. The landlord’s records show that a fault to the lift was reported on 10 March 2023, with the lift being out of service. The landlord’s contractor attended that day but left as they were unable to access any of the upper floors as they did not have a key fob. There is no clear record of when the contractor returned but on 22 March 2023 the landlord recorded that the lift had been out of service since 10 March 2023. By this point, as per its communal lift breakdown protocol, the landlord should have been meeting with the lift contractors daily to assess their information and plan, ensure this was appropriate, and ensure there was no more effective solution. However, no evidence has been seen that the landlord contacted or met with the contractor at all.
  3. As per the protocol, the landlord’s “lift consultant” should also have visited the site, ensured the contractor’s diagnosis was correct, and assessed the site for temporary stairlifts. No evidence has been seen that this was done.
    The landlord should have offered support to residents and assessed the impact that the lack of lift had on them, but no evidence has been seen that this was done. The landlord therefore breached protocol and failed to take reasonable care to keep the lift working.
  4. The stage 1 response, on 28 March 2023, acknowledged that the resident was “reliant on the lift” due to mobility problems, and said that:
    1. The lift was currently out of service, required further investigation, and this had been booked for 27 March 2023. The landlord apologised for this and said it would “endeavour” to get the lift fixed “as soon as is possible.”
    2. There had been 4 call outs due to lift problems in the previous 12 months, and all resulted in the lift being repaired and left in service the same day.
    3. Replacement of the lift was on a major works programme, scheduled for 2032-33.
    4. The landlord apologised for the impact on the resident and said it would offer “support and sign posting” while the lift was out of action.
  5. The stage 1 response gave insufficient detail as to the reason for the delay repairing the lift, and the steps the landlord was going to take to rectify this.
    It also did not give a clear timescale for the lift being back in service.
    This cannot but have left the resident feeling uncertain how or when the issue she had complained about would be resolved.
  6. Whilst it is appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the impact on the resident and apologised for this, despite promising it would contact the her to offer support, no record has been seen that this was done. Furthermore, no evidence has been seen that it considered its duties under the Equality Act 2010, a second missed opportunity to reduce detriment to the resident.
  7. The contractor attended on 30 March 2023 and reported that the lift was not working, but they were unable to repair it as it was a 2-person job.
    The contractor attended again on 13 and 21 April 2023 but was unable to repair the lift. The contractor reported on the first visit that further investigation was required, and on the latter visit that a new part was needed. By this point the contractor had attended at least 4 times and failed to repair the lift. No evidence has been seen that the landlord intervened, checked the contractor had diagnosed the issue correctly, or worked with the contractor to ensure a more effective and quicker solution. There was an overall lack of accountability and oversight by the landlord.
  8. On 14 April 2023 the resident told the landlord that she had injured herself using the stairs. The landlord provided the resident with temporary hotel accommodation from 14 April to 26 May 2023. The landlord has said that it provided the resident with a food and laundry allowance for this time. It was appropriate that the landlord provided temporary accommodation, but this was 35 days after the lift first broke down. As the landlord was aware that the resident was reliant on the lift to go out, and had not installed a temporary stairlift, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not provide temporary accommodation sooner. 
  9. The contractor attended again on 17 May 2023 but reported that they had difficulty gaining access as they did not have a key fob, and also that replacement parts were needed. As the issue of not having a key fob had been raised by the contractor on 10 March 2023, it was unreasonable that the landlord had not previously resolved this. Under it’s communal lift breakdown protocol the landlord should have been meeting the lift contractor every day. or otherwise have had oversight into why the repairs had not yet been effected.
  10. The contractor returned on 24 May 2023, replaced the parts and reported that they left the lift in working order.
  11. The stage 2 response, on 30 May 2023, acknowledged that the resident was “reliant on the use of the lift and when out of service this impacts on your wellbeing and ability to leave your home.” The response said that:
    1. The lift had been unavailable for 67 days since 10 March 2023.
    2. The landlord apologised that the resident had to spend time in temporary accommodation.
    3. The landlord had now employed a different contractor to repair and maintain the lift. It was confident that this would improve the reliability of the lift.
    4. It offered £175 compensation, made up of £100 for the lift being out of service for 8 weeks, and £75 for 3-6 months inconvenience, time and trouble, in line with its compensation matrix.
    5. It said it would “follow up with an Occupational Therapist,” and “may work with you to assess your needs to see if you would be more suited to an alternative property.”
    6. Going forwards it had learned that it must ensure contractors are performing at all times, and must act quicker when lifts are out of service for extended periods.
    7. The landlord offered a total of £175 compensation, made up of £100 for the time the lift was out of service and £75 for “inconvenience time and trouble.”
  12. The landlord’s communal lift breakdown protocol set out the compensation that can be paid to residents to recognise the inconvenience caused by a
    non-functioning lift:
    1. Repair within 2-4 weeks – £25 compensation.
    2. 4-8 weeks – £50.
    3. 8 weeks+ – £100.
    4. 56 days+ combined intermittent loss – £50.

The landlord’s offer of £100 for this was therefore in line with its protocol.

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy allowed for discretionary payments to make up for unquantifiable loss, such as inconvenience and distress caused by the landlord’s failure(s), taking into account the severity of the issue, vulnerability of the people affected, the impact and time taken to resolve:
    1. Payments of £50 to £250 can be made where there has been some on the resident, for short duration.
    2. £250 to £700 where there has been considerable service failure, but no permanent impact on the resident.
    3. £700+ where there has been severe long-term impact on the resident.

The landlord’s offer of £75 for “inconvenience, time and trouble” was too low, and not in line with its compensation policy, given the extent and duration of service failure, and impact on the resident, including social isolation, and having to move and be in temporary hotel accommodation for over 6 weeks.

  1. As the resident had raised that she had injured herself using the stairs as a result of the lift being broken, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have addressed this issue and referred her to its insurance provider to enable her to make a claim if she so wished. That the landlord did not do so was a failure.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy provided that when a resident has incurred additional costs due to a service failure a £25 goodwill payment may be made. For requests over £25 the resident must provide proof of loss or incurred costs and it is at the landlord’s discretion as to whether to pay all or part of the loss depending on the circumstances. Although she has told this service that she paid extra for food delivery whilst the lift was out of service, no evidence has been seen that the resident asked the landlord for reimbursement of food delivery costs at the time of her complaint, or provided the landlord with proof of the additional costs.
  3. Considering the landlord’s handling of repairs to the lift overall, it is not disputed that it failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that the lift was repaired within a reasonable period of time. No evidence has been seen of it monitoring or assessing the actions of its contractors, or intervening to ensure a more effective and quicker solution. No evidence has been seen of appropriate assessment under the Equality Act 2010. The resident suffered detriment as a result of not being able to leave her flat safely, or at all, for around 6 weeks, and was then in temporary hotel accommodation for around 6 weeks. The offer of compensation did not sufficiently recognise. Cumulatively, this constitutes maladministration on the part of the landlord.

Intercom repairs

  1. On 2 March 2023, at the same time as complaining about the lift, the resident also complained that the intercom was “continually breaking,” and said that the main entrance doors to the block had been broken/insecure “for a long period of time.” She explained that when the intercom was not working she was unable to let anyone in through the entrance door on the ground floor, and felt isolated. The landlord initially did not acknowledge or respond to these elements of her complaint.
  2. On 14 April 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to say that it had missed out her complaint about the intercom. She said that even though she was aware it was going to be fixed/changed, she was worried about her safety up until that time, as when the intercom was not working she would not be able to let paramedics into the building if needed. The landlord provided the resident with temporary accommodation from 14 April to 24 May 2023. It raised a new complaint about the intercom and main entrance doors on 21 April 2023.
  3. The landlord has not provided its repairs records relating to the intercom and the main entrance door, however, it does not dispute that the resident had grounds for complaint. The stage 1 response regarding the intercom/entrance door, dated 28 April 2023, says that the landlord raised works in relation to the intercom/entrance door 4 times in 2023, and that prior to 2023 “there were many more issues.” It said it had made improvements in January 2023, including:
    1. Employing a single door entry contractor “to ensure responsibility and ownership.”
    2. Assigning the contractor “to enable full control of the site for any door entry.”
    3. Upgrading the door locks.
    4. Working with the police to reduce vandalism to the door entry system.
    5. Regularly inspecting the door entry system.
  4. The landlord said that it was not aware of any current issues at the time of the stage 1 response but would “act accordingly” if repairs were reported.
    The landlord said it had asked its contractor to “appoint a complaints officer to pick up on any projects which may not have been progressed and track through to completion.”
  5. Whilst the landlord acknowledged that door entry issues could cause inconvenience and stress to residents, it failed to recognise the heightened impact on the resident as an individual, given her disability. It also failed to acknowledge her concerns regarding her safety, should she need to let paramedics in. Given the impact upon her, and potential for risk to her safety, it was inappropriate that it did not offer compensation.
  6. The landlord did not address the intercom and entrance door in its stage 2 response. On 6 June 2023 the resident told this service that the intercom was not working.
  7. Considering the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports regarding the intercom and main entrance door overall, whilst it was appropriate that it acknowledged where it had fallen short, and had taken steps to improve reliability, no evidence has been seen that it considered the resident’s disability, or acted with an appropriate degree of urgency. No evidence has been seen regarding the success of the steps taken by the landlord. There is doubt around this, given that the resident reported to this service that the intercom was not working in June 2023. Cumulatively, given the detriment to the resident and the potential for harm in light of her disability, there was maladministration on the part of the landlord.

Complaints handling

  1. Landlords must follow an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and rebuild good relationships with residents. The landlord’s complaints policy required it to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond in full within a further 10 working days. If it could not respond within this time it would contact the resident to explain why and agree an extension, not to exceed a further 10 working days, without good reason. This was broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) current at the time.
  2. The landlord’s policy stated that requests to escalate the complaint to stage 2 had to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to in full within 20 working days. If the landlord could not respond in full within this time it would contact the resident to explain why and agree an extension, not to exceed a further 10 working days, without good reason and the resident’s agreement. Again, this was broadly in line with the Code current at the time.
  3. The resident telephoned the landlord on 2 March 2023 and complained that:
    1. The intercom and lift were “continually breaking.”
    2. Due to her arthritis, if the lift was broken she was “stuck in the building.”
    3. If the intercom was broken she could not let people in and felt isolated.
    4. She felt the repairs team were “nonchalant” in their response and did not consider her.
    5. She wanted the intercom and the lift replaced rather than repaired.
  4. The landlord emailed the resident on 17 March 2023, 12 working days later, to acknowledge her complaint. This was inappropriate as it was in breach of the landlord’s policy, which states it will respond within 5 working days.
    The landlord also failed to properly define the resident’s complaint, as although it outlined the lift part of the resident’s complaint, it did not mention the resident’s complaint about the intercom, a failing on the part of the landlord.
  5. The stage 1 response was provided on 28 March 2023, 8 working days after the complaint acknowledgment. However, because the acknowledgement was late, the resident had to wait a total of 19 working days from her initial complaint, which was too long overall, and cannot but have further damaged the landlord/tenant relationship. It was appropriate that the landlord apologised at stage 1 but it did not fully acknowledge the impact of the lift being out of service on the resident, as a disabled person. The response said that a technician had been booked to attend to the lift on 27 March 2023, but no update was given regarding this. 
  6. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and requested escalation to stage 2 on 5 April 2023. The landlord acknowledged this by letter on 12 April 2023, 5 working days later. The resident replied on 14 April 2023 informing the landlord it had not captured the intercom element of her complaint in its complaint definition. She also said that she had injured herself on the stairs when she had tried to use them, and that the lift being out of service was “really hard for me physically, mentally and financially.”
  7. The landlord informed the resident on 21 April 2023 that it had raised a new complaint regarding the intercom and main entrance door, acknowledged this by email on 24 April 2023, and provided a stage 1 response on 28 April 2023. Whilst this was within 5 working days of acknowledgement, it was 41 working days after the resident’s initial complaint, which was far too late.
  8. The stage 1 response regarding the intercom failed to acknowledge the specific impact on the resident as an individual of the problems, despite her having clearly informed the landlord that she was unable to let visitors in, and was concerned for her safety should she require paramedics. The apology was insufficiently sincere, as the landlord merely said it was sorry the resident “had cause to complain.”
  9. The landlord provided a stage 2 response 30 May 2023, 32 working days after acknowledgement, and therefore outside of the time required by the landlord’s policy and the Code. No evidence has been seen that the landlord contacted the resident to explain why or to agree an extension, which cannot but have added to the resident’s frustration and sense that the landlord was not responsive.
  10. It is appropriate that the stage 2 response apologised to the resident, acknowledged the extended length of time the lift was out of service, and that the landlord had not acted appropriately or quickly enough. It was appropriate that the landlord shared its learning from the complaint. Employing a new contractor was a reasonable response, although this did not make good the resident’s experience, or sufficiently acknowledge the impact on her as a disabled person. The response was incorrect that the lift was out of service for a total of 67 days; the landlord has confirmed to this service that it was 78 days. This shows a lack of care in complaints handling.
  11. The landlord failed to address the resident’s complaint about the intercom and entrance door at stage 2, despite her consistently raising the issue. The Code says that landlords must make it easy for residents to complain by providing different channels through which they can make a complaint. The Code also says landlords must recognise the difference between service requests and complaints. It clearly failed to do this.
  12. Considering the landlord’s complaints handling overall, there were delays at both stage 1 and stage 2, and a lack of communication with the resident to explain this. The landlord did not acknowledge and fully address the resident’s complaint about the intercom and entrance door, despite her chasing it about this. The landlord could have gone further to show it understood the impact of its failings on the resident, in light of her disability, and to sincerely apologise. Consequently, the complaints process was ineffective in putting right the issues complained about and restoring the damaged landlord/tenant relationship. Cumulatively, this constitutes maladministration on the part of the landlord.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of lift repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the intercom and main entrance door.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence to this service of compliance with the following orders:
    1. A senior officer of the landlord, at minimum Director level, must apologise to the resident for the impact of its failures, having regard to the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
    2. In accordance with paragraph 54.g. of the Scheme, the landlord must review the learning from this case with particular reference to ensuring compliance with its communal lift breakdown protocol, and duties under the Equality Act 2010. The landlord must share a written report of the review’s findings with the resident and this service within 6 weeks of the date of this report, and bring any identified improvements into its day-to-day operations within 3 months of the date of this report.
    3. The landlord must meet with the resident and discuss any outstanding repairs to the lift, intercom and main entrance door. The landlord should then confirm in writing to the resident what repairs are outstanding along with timescales of when the said repairs will be completed.
    4. The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £1,250. The landlord may deduct the £175 already offered if this has already been paid. The redress is broken down as follows:
      1. £500 for distress and inconvenience arising from the landlord’s failures in handling repairs to the communal lift.
      2. £500 for distress and inconvenience arising from the landlord’s failures in handling repairs to the intercom and entrance door.
      3. £250 for time and trouble experienced pursuing the complaint.