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

Southern Housing (202309721)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309721

Southern Housing

16 December 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 reports of a leak from the roof, and the associated repairs.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in a flat in the upper floor of a block. The landlord does not have any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. The resident moved into his property in 2017, and at the time the property was newly built.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 24 March 2021, and reported that a recurring issue with the roof leaking had started again. He explained that the developer of the building had attended to fix the issue in 2017, but the fault had returned and there was damage to his ceiling from water ingress. It is unclear what action the landlord took at that time.
  3. The landlord completed some works to the roof in early 2022, and the evidence shows the landlord said to the resident, in March 2022, that it had planned to “finally” get the property watertight. It is unclear what action it took at that time. The resident made a complaint on 1 April 2022 as he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the issue.
  4. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 22 April 2022. It gave a history of the repairs and cited access issues had contributed to the delay. It apologised and said that not all of the delays were due to adverse weather. It set out it planned to complete further works on 25 April 2022. It offered the resident £200 in compensation.
  5. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response and asked for his complaint to go to stage 2 of its procedure on 20 May 2022. He said the issue was not resolved, and there was “constant damage” to his personal property. The landlord’s contractor completed works to the roof around this time, the exact date is unclear.
  6. The landlord completed further works to the roof in July 2022, as the earlier works had not resolved the leak. The evidence indicates the works were completed on 8 August 2022.
  7. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response (which it calls a ‘review panel’) on 10 August 2022. It gave a history of the repairs, and upheld the resident’s complaint. It said it had now completed the works to the roof, and would do follow up testing to ensure the leak was resolved. It offered the resident £850 in compensation, £50 of which was for the delay in sending the stage 2 complaint response.

Events after the complaint process

  1. The landlord completed testing in August and October 2022, and it was found more roofing works were needed. The landlord completed more works to the roof in March 2023 which resolved the leak. In April 2023, the landlord make an increased offer of compensation of £1,300. This included its previous offer of £50 for its complaint handling delays.
  2. The landlord completed remedial works inside the resident’s property in May 2023.
  3. The resident contacted this Service on 6 November 2023 and asked us to investigate his complaint. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s compensation offer, and the delays in fixing the leak. The resident said he wanted compensation equivalent to the approximately £7,000 of rent arrears he had accrued due to withholding rent while the matter was outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Throughout his complaint, the resident raised concerns the landlord’s handling of the repairs, and the resulting condition of the property had impacted on his health. The serious nature of this is acknowledged and we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance, or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit.
  2. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. However, we have considered any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of errors by the landlord.
  3. The resident’s complaint also set out a concern that his personal possessions were damaged by water ingress to the property. While we do not seek to dispute the resident’s claim, it is not the role of this Ombudsman to determine liability for the resident’s damaged items. This would normally be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. Matters of insurance fall outside the complaints process and the insurer is a separate organisation from the landlord. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot comment on the insurer’s actions if a claim is made to it or the likely outcome of such a claim.
  4. When the resident asked this Service to investigate his complaint, he explained that he had withheld rent for a year while the matter was outstanding. He asked us to consider an order for compensation equivalent to his rent arrears. He also expressed dissatisfaction with the fact the landlord had served him a notice of seeking possession (NOSP). It is worth noting that a failure to pay rent may be considered a breach of the resident’s tenancy agreement, and could result in the landlord taking possession proceedings against him.
  5. This investigation has focused on the matters raised as part of the resident’s initial complaint. The NOSP was not raised as part of the complaint, as such the landlord did not have the opportunity to respond as part of the complaints process. As such its handling of that issue is not within the remit of this investigation. The resident may wish to raise a new complaint with the landlord about its handling of the rent arrears, and NOSP. We could then investigate if the resident remained unhappy after exhausting the landlord’s complaint procedure.
  6. It should also be made clear that the Ombudsman cannot review complaints that concern the level of service charge or rent. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The resident is advised to seek independent legal advice if he wishes to challenge the amount of rent that was payable.
  7. We have considered the landlord’s handling of the repairs and whether there were any failings that caused the resident a detriment. We have not made a determination on whether the rent was due, or whether the resident’s rent arrears should be waived. Such a determination is not within our remit and is better suited to a court.
  8. When the resident made his complaint he said the issue with the leak in the roof was ongoing since he moved in 2017. The landlord’s complaint responses assessed its handling of the repairs from 2021 onwards. Due to the passage of time, this was reasonable in the circumstances, and in line with the approach set out in our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). We are also unable to investigate matters dating back to 2017, due to the passage of time. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
  9. Therefore, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence we have assessed the landlord’s actions from March 2021 onwards. This is based on what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. Reference to the events that occurred prior to 2021 are made in this report to provide context.
  10. The landlord issued its final complaint response in August 2022. At the time of its stage 2 response the substantive issues in the complaint were outstanding. For fairness, this Service has increased the scope of the investigation beyond the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response to fully consider the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues raised in the complaint.

The resident’s reports of a leak from the roof, and the associated repairs.

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it attends to emergency repairs within 6 hours of the repair being reported. For routine repairs it does not give a timeframe for completion, but states it aims to complete the repairs “as soon as possible” at an agreed appointment with the resident.
  3. The landlord accepted that its handling of the roof repairs was unreasonable and the time taken to complete repairs was “poor” and went on for an “unacceptable amount of time”. Once it was satisfied it had resolved the leak, the landlord made an increased offer of compensation to try and put right the evident failings in its handling of the repair. This investigation has considered the overall offer of compensation and whether it fully put things right for the resident, as a whole. However, to promote learning for the landlord, this investigation has considered the landlord’s handling of the repairs issues below, identified areas of particular concern, and points of learning.
  4. The evidence shows the landlord was put on notice that the leak from the roof had started again, in March 2021. It is unclear what actions the landlord took at that time, and it accepted, in its stage 2 complaint response that when the repairs were raised in 2021 there was “poor management of [the] subcontractor supply chain”. It is noted that the landlord contracted out the repairs to the roof, and it accepted the contractor handled the repair poorly.
  5. As the contractor was completing the repairs on the landlord’s behalf, the detriment caused by any failings is the responsibility of the landlord. That the repairs did not progress at that time was unreasonable and caused the resident an inconvenience. He was evidently distressed at the condition of his property, the failure to progress with a repair increased the distress he experienced.
  6. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of April 2022 appropriately apologised for the delay in progressing with the repairs. While it was reasonable to set out when it hoped to progress with the repair (25 April 2022), its response lacked transparency and learning. The evidence seen for this investigation shows that the resident reported the leak again in March 2021, but the stage 1 response stated the resident had raised the issue as an “informal complaint” in October 2021. That the landlord failed to assess its handling of the matter dating back to March 2021 was unreasonable, and the resident was inconvenienced by its failure to appropriately assess its handling of the matter.
  7. The information provided for this investigation indicates that the repair did not go ahead as planned on 25 April 2022. This failing is evidenced by the fact the landlord sent an email chasing its contractor for an update on 19 May 2022, as the resident had not heard anything. This was a further failing that contributed to the delay and increased the detriment the resident experienced.
  8. In July 2022, according to the evidence provided, the landlord’s contractor could not complete the full works and testing of the roof due to the scaffolding being erected in the wrong place. This indicates that the landlord’s communication and oversight of its contractors was poor, which can reasonably be concluded to have contributed to the delay. The further delay increased the detriment the resident experienced. It is worth noting that the landlord experienced issues with permission for scaffolding in another resident’s garden. This contributed to the overall delay, and some of the delay was therefore outside of the landlord’s control.
  9. The evidence shows that the landlord did not appropriately oversee repairs being carried out on its behalf by contractors. The repair records lack detail about what contactor was completing repairs, and there is very little in the way of recorded outcomes. The evidence indicates there was an over reliance on emails, and poor record keeping, in terms of recording outcomes and follow up. The over reliance on emails evidently what stage individual repairs were at.
  10. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of August 2022, was detailed and transparent about the delays with the repairs and issues it had with its contractor. This was appropriate and evidence the landlord sought to learn from the outcomes of the case, and build trust with the resident. The response also accepted it was back on notice from early 2021, which went some way to putting right the shortcomings of its stage 1 complaint response. However, that the landlord’s complaint response was silent on the resident’s concerns about damage to his personal property was inappropriate, and a shortcoming in its response.
  11. While we do not seek to make a determination on whether the resident’s possessions were damaged by the leak, that the landlord did not advise the resident on how to make a claim through its liability insurer, was unreasonable. The landlord should pass on its liability insurer’s details to the resident now if it has a liability insurer so he can raise a claim if he wants to. Matters of insurance fall outside the complaints process and the insurer is a separate organisation from the landlord. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot comment on the insurer’s actions if a claim is made to it, or the likely outcome of such a claim.
  12. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response appropriately apologised for its handling of the repairs. It showed learning by setting out that it was conducting a review into its handling of the repairs, and particularly its management of its contractors. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence the landlord sought to learn from the outcomes of the case. Considering the learning the landlord showed in the response to the complaint, we have decided not to make a learning order.
  13. At the time of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response the matter was outstanding and further repairs were needed. We welcome the fact the landlord made an increased offer of compensation to try and put right its admitted failings. Given the roof leak was not resolved at this time, we do not consider the compensation offered at the time fully put things right for the resident.
  14. The evidence shows the landlord resolved the leak in March 2023, this was 2 years after the resident put it on notice about the issue. While we note there were issues with another resident giving permission for scaffolding, which contributed to the delay, the evidence shows there were also failings that contributed to the delay. The resident experienced distress and inconvenience as a result of the lengthy delays in resolving the roof leak.
  15. While this Service welcomes the landlord’s decision to revisit its offer of compensation in April 2023, once it had resolved the leak, in order to try and put right its evident failings. It is concerning that after the resident exhausted its complaints procedure, in August 2022, it took a further 7 months to resolve the leak. At the time of its final offer of £1,250 in compensation, some of the issues remained outstanding (the remedial works inside the resident’s property). As such, we have determined that its offer of compensation did not fully put things right for the resident.
  16. The evidence shows that after it resolved the leak, in March 2023, it took a further 2 months to complete the remedial works inside the resident’s property. This was an unreasonable delay that caused a further inconvenience to the resident.
  17. Given the failings identified above, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this issue. Our remedies guidance states that when there is a “severe long term impact” over a “significant period of time”, an order for over £1,000 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident. It is evident the above applies in the landlord’s handling of this case.
  18. We acknowledge the landlord’s offer of £1,250 in compensation, and welcome its effort to try and put things right for the resident. However, as the issue was outstanding at the time, and there was a further delay, we have determined an order for a further £250 in compensation is appropriate to fully put things right for the resident.

Complaint Handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our Service’s expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states stage 1 complaint responses must be sent within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses sent within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it may be able to resolve service requests outside of its complaint process, but if it needs to make “further enquiries” it will open a formal complaint. The policy states that at stage 2, the resident can either have a resident’s panel consider the complaint, or an “appropriately trained” member of the landlord’s staff.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of April 2022, stated that it had an “informal complaint” open for the resident from October 2021. It is unclear what it meant by an “informal” complaint, and it appears to have deviated from its complaints policy by holding the complaint in this way. The evidence shows the resident raised the roof leak with the landlord in early 2021. We have not seen evidence of the complaint made in October 2021, as the landlord has not provided it for our investigation. That it did not open a formal complaint in October 2021 was a failure to abide by the approach set out in its complaint policy, and the Code.
  3. The Code states that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction however made and should be progressed as a formal stage 1 complaint. That the landlord did not open a formal complaint until April 2022, amounts to an unreasonable delay that created a hard to access and protracted complaints process. This inconvenienced the resident, and he experienced further time and trouble of having to raise his complaint again in April 2022.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 22 April 2022, 14 working days after it opened the investigation. While not an excessive delay, it did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay in its response, which was inappropriate. The resident experienced an inconvenience of a delayed complaint response without appropriate recognition, or redress.
  5. The evidence shows that the stage 2 complaint was progressed through the resident’s panel, in line with the landlord’s procedure. However, the inclusion of a panel hearing at this stage created a protracted complaint process for the resident. The panel hearing took place on 30 June 2022, 28 working days after the resident made the stage 2 escalation request. That it took a further 30 working days for the landlord to issue its final complaint response was an unreasonable delay that caused a further inconvenience to the resident.
  6. The stage 2 process took a total of 58 working days to complete, which is well outside of the timeframe set out in its complaint policy and the Code. We welcome the fact the landlord apologised for the delay in sending the complaint response, and sought to put things right by offering compensation. However, its response had little in the way of learning about the complaint handling delays, and what it would do to prevent similar failings happening again in the future. We have therefore made a determination of maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  7. We have determined that, considering the failings identified above, the £50 the landlord offered for its complaint handling did not put things right for the resident. In line with our remedies guidance, as set out above, we have determined a further £100 in compensation would put things right for the resident in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling errors.

 

 

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the roof, and the associated repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 6 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
    2. Pay the resident £1,650 in compensation. Its offer of £1,300 should be deducted from this total if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
      1. £1,500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the leak from the roof.
      2. £150 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by errors in its complaint handling.
    3. The landlord must provide the relevant details about how the resident can make a claim on its insurance for damage to his possessions.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended the landlord remind its staff responsible for investigating complaints the importance of:
    1. Opening a formal complaint when an expression of dissatisfaction is made, in line with the approach mandated by the Code.
    2. A meaningful complaint investigation that seeks to learn from outcomes, and put things right for the resident.
    3. Showing learning and offering appropriate redress for complaint handling delays.