Southern Housing (202311483)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311483

Southern Housing

29 January 2025

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:
1. The time taken for the landlord to replace the resident’s front door.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association since April 2010. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. There is no record of any vulnerabilities. However, the landlord’s records indicate that English is the resident’s second language.
The resident notified the landlord that her door was damaged on 3 January 2023. Its subcontractor attended the same day and completed temporary repairs. The landlord’s records indicate that the subcontractor confirmed the door was beyond repair and provided a quote for a new one.
On 15 January 2023 the landlord fitted a new door handle and temporarily repaired the lock. It identified that a new lock was required. The landlord made several appointments which it rescheduled, then attended on 31 January 2023 but the resident was not home. The resident informed the landlord she was unaware of the appointment.
The resident made a formal complaint on 7 February 2023 as she was unhappy with the delay in repairing the door and said she felt unsafe in her home. She was also unhappy that workers had left rubbish on her balcony after a previous visit. She stated that following the failed appointment on 31 January 2023 she contacted the landlord to rebook and was told the door was not ready. The landlord confirmed receipt of her complaint on 10 February 2023.
On 17 February 2023 the resident reported further damage to the door, including glue in the lock and substances posted through her letterbox. The landlord’s records state that the fire brigade had needed to force entry to the property and caused damage as a result. The resident said she felt she had been targeted and felt unsafe in her home. Internal records show the landlord intended to add a fireproof bag to the letterbox however notes indicate that as the door had already been ordered it was not able to amend the specification.
The landlord sent a formal complaint acknowledgement on 12 March 2023 which said it would provide a formal stage 1 response within 10 working days. The stage 1 response was issued on 29 June 2023 stating:
1. It was not aware of any visits to the property from its staff that would have resulted in rubbish being left. It directed the resident to the on-site caretaker for support with removing it.
2. A temporary repair was completed on 13 June 2023, and while a quote for a new door was submitted on 28 March 2023 it acknowledged delays in this being approved. It agreed to compensate for the inconvenience.
3. On 16 June 2023 a quote was approved for a new front door, which was a fire door, and the manufacturer had given a lead time of 10 weeks. The resident would be contacted directly to arrange installation.
4. It awarded compensation to the resident of £475 made up of:
  1. £25 for “service failure”
  2. £50 for delays in complaint handling
  3. £150 for “delays to complete”
  4. £250 for inconvenience for 4 months.
The landlord issued a separate stage 1 response to another complaint on 6 July 2023. This Service has not seen a copy of the new complaint, however the stage 1 response states that as the complaint is regarding the same issues, it would be closed as a duplicate. It referred the resident to the stage 1 response issued on 29 June 2023.
On 2 August 2023 the resident contacted her local MP for support with requesting the landlord replace her door. The landlord confirmed to the MP that it had ordered the door. The landlord contacted the resident on 30 August 2023 and arranged to install the door on 19 September 2023. The appointment did not go ahead as it could not gain access to the property. On 21 September 2023 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. The landlord provided a stage 2 response to the second complaint on 2 November 2023 which stated that as the complaint was a duplicate it was not being upheld. It referred the resident to the original complaint.
The resident informed the Ombudsman on 10 November 2023 that she wanted to escalate her complaint to stage 2 as she had requested it directly on 21 September 2023 but it had not been actioned. The landlord progressed the complaint and apologised as it recognised an error which meant the complaint was not escalated earlier.
Throughout November 2023 there were discussions between the landlord, resident, and MP to try and arrange installation of the fire door however no date was confirmed. On 4 December 2023, the landlord asked the MP to discuss the installation with the resident and stress the importance of contacting it to advise of which days were most suitable. It provided a summary of the actions it had taken which included:
1. Inspecting the front door and ordering a new one which had a 2-month lead time.
2. Fitting a padlock to the door as a temporary measure, so that no one could enter without a key. No date was given for this.
3. Multiple attempts to fit the new front door, which failed due to a lack of access.
4. Attending prebooked appointments with the resident, who then asked the operative to leave.
5. Unsuccessfully attempting to contact the resident to discuss her issues with the repair since June 2023.
The new fire door was fitted on 7 December 2023. On 8 December 2023 the landlord sent a stage 2 response. It included a timeline of events and a list of all calls between them. It said that it called her on 30 August 2023 to make an appointment to fit the door, and an appointment was scheduled for 19 September 2023, but the resident was not home. The landlord revised its offer of compensation to £605 made up of:
1. £100 for delays in complaint handling
2. £60 for delays to repair
3. £45 for service failures x 3
4. £400 discretionary payment for inconvenience, time, and trouble.
The resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the replacement door.

Assessment and findings

Front door replacement

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it will make safe an insecure door within 6 hours of the report. It specifies that if more intensive works are required it will make an appointment with the resident and reattend later. The landlord completed a temporary repair within its policy timescales, and ordered a replacement door the same day after it found it was beyond repair.
It received a quote for the new door from its operatives on 3 January 2023, but it is not clear to this Service whether this order was placed, and if so, what happened to it. On 21 February 2023 internal records stated that the order had been placed with a lead time of 7 weeks, however the landlord did not refer to it again. In correspondence with the MP, the landlord stated that the door was ordered on 28 March 2023 but only approved on 16 June 2023 with a 10 week lead time. At this point, the resident had already been without a secure and functional front door for 23 weeks, and no explanation was given for the length of time taken to approve the work.
After the door was ordered in June 2023, the landlord contacted the resident on 30 August 2023 to book an appointment to install it. This was 10 weeks after the door was ordered, which is consistent with the estimate it gave to the resident. Several attempts were made to book the installation, and once it was booked it attended and was unable to gain access.
Its compensation policy states that it will consider awarding compensation for service failure, or if an operative has directly caused damage to the resident’s belongings.
Following the resident’s complaint about rubbish being left on her balcony, the landlord attempted to speak to her to gather more information, but records show it was unsuccessful. Given the lack of information around the incident, it is reasonable that the landlord did not address this matter further in the stage 2 response.
When it was unable to contact the resident, the landlord contacted her friend to pass information to her and to book appointments. Records show that it did have authority to speak to this friend. This action was appropriate as emails between the resident and landlord indicate that there may have been a language barrier which could have affected the resident’s understanding of the situation. The landlord’s records corroborate its position that it was unable to make successful contact with the resident for several weeks to book the installation of the door. This was not within its control, and it made sufficient effort to book an appointment including contacting the resident’s friend and their MP.
While this delay was understandable, the Ombudsman has seen no explanation for the delay in ordering the door. The resident did not have a working front door for 23 weeks before the door was ordered and this was inappropriate.
In her emails to the landlord the resident told the landlord that she felt unsafe in her home, felt like she had “lost her rights,” felt targeted by people in her area, and felt she needed to stay with family and friends. This was not addressed by the landlord. Its records indicate that the door was damaged by tampering from unknown third parties, and by the fire brigade gaining entry following substances being put through the resident’s letterbox. It is also not clear to this Service whether the fireproof letter bag was added to the final door specification, as it was requested on the original order which was not followed up. Given the concerns about fire the resident should not have been left without a fire door for such a long time.
The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the door repairs. The first door order from January 2023 was not followed up on, and the second order from March 2023 was not approved until June 2023. The resident felt targeted by individuals in her community, and the landlord did not consider the impact that being unable to secure her property may have on her wellbeing. She informed the landlord on several occasions that she felt she had lost her rights, and that she was distressed by the lack of security. The landlord did not provide any reassurance, and did not provide an explanation for the delays. Positively however, when the door arrived it did contact her immediately to book and appointment and tried to install it at the earliest opportunity. When this failed, it used several contact methods to arrange an appointment with the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It promises to respond within 10 working days at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2. The policy also states that if a resident makes a complaint and it completes its process, it will not accept another complaint about the same issue unless there was new information.
The resident made a second complaint prior to the original complaint completing the internal complaints procedure. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 6 July 2023 and told the resident that it would not proceed with the new complaint as it was a duplicate. The landlord should have escalated the original complaint at this point, as it was clear the resident remained dissatisfied. When she requested escalation in September 2023, the landlord responded to the duplicate complaint rather than the original. The original complaint was escalated in November 2023 following the intervention of this Service.
The landlord sent the stage 1 response 74 working days after the resident made the complaint, which is considerably longer than the timescale in the policy. It awarded £50 for delays in the complaint process; however, it is unclear whether other compensation awarded for “service delays” and “inconvenience” was related to complaint handling or to delays with the front door. The landlord should have been clearer about what it was compensating for, and which elements of the resident’s complaint each amount was for.
It was 57 working days from the date the resident escalated the original complaint to the associated stage 2 response being issued. This is more than double the timescale stated in the policy. The landlord revised compensation at stage 2 and increased it to £100 for complaint handling failures.
The resident did not refer to the original issue of rubbish on her balcony at any point following the stage 1 response. We find it was reasonable that it was not mentioned by the landlord in subsequent communications.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it awards compensation of £50 for complaint handling service failures. It also gives scope for complaint handlers to offer discretionary compensation in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. Given the length of the delay in complaint responses, the landlord should have offered additional discretionary compensation for complaint handling. There was an additional amount of compensation offered for distress and inconvenience but it was not clear whether this related to complaint handling or repairs.
Overall, the failings in this case amounted to maladministration. While we recognise that compensation was offered it did not accurately reflect the inconvenience experienced by the resident. It was reasonable that the landlord would not proceed with the duplicate complaint. However, the confusion regarding this complaint contributed to the delay in stage 2 response as the landlord escalated the wrong complaint. It was also unclear which areas of the complaint it was compensating for in the complaint responses. This caused more inconvenience for the resident as she felt she had to contact her MP to get her complaint escalated.
The compensation offered did not provide appropriate redress for the complaint handling so the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the door replacement.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. Within 2 weeks of this report the landlord must:
  1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case. The apology should be made by a senior manager, and in the format and language preferred by the resident.
  2. Contact the resident and determine whether she has any ongoing issues with feeling targeted in her property. If any incidents have occurred, the landlord should consider raising an anti-social behaviour case and discussing the resident’s options with her.
  3. Contact the resident to discuss whether she requires any reasonable adjustments or translation services for future communications. The landlord must record any requested adjustments on its system and ensure they are visible to all staff.
2. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should pay the resident the sum of £1000 made up of:
  1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble incurred because of the landlord’s failures in its associated complaint handling.
  2. £800 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble incurred by the resident because of the delays in the landlord replacing the front door.
  3. If the £605 awarded by the landlord during the complaints procedure has already been paid to the resident, this can be deducted. Proof of prior payment must be provided to the Ombudsman.
  4. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not towards her rent account unless this is specifically requested. Evidence of compliance with the order must be provided to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
3. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must assess whether it is able to install a fireproof bag to the door. If not, it must consider other options to increase protection for the letterbox for the resident given the prior incidents of third parties posting items through.
4. Within 8 weeks of this report the landlord must review how it manages repairs where items need ordering to specification from a third-party supplier. The review should consider:
  1. Where it keeps a record of the order specification and whether any changes can be made after the original order.
  2. Where it records the expected timescale for arrival.
  3. The effectiveness of any temporary repairs and how it would assess if there is an ongoing threat to the security of the property.
  4. How it tracks the progress of the order.
  5. Which department is responsible for monitoring orders.
  6. How frequently the landlord will update the resident and which team is responsible.