Southern Housing (202311890)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311890

Southern Housing

23 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. response to the resident’s reports of various repair issues at the property, including:
  1. windows;
  2. intercom;
  3. rear door;
2. response to the resident’s concerns about parking;
3. complaints handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since October 2019. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
Shortly after moving into the property, the resident reported a number of repair concerns. These included a cracked bath panel, damage to her door frame, issues with the front door intercom, and that the communal rear door did not close correctly. The landlord acknowledged these reports and advised they had been forwarded to its repairs team. It is not evident what repairs were subsequently completed at this time.
In or around October 2021, the resident reported that her window was broken and not locking. The landlord attended on 8 November 2021 but was unable to complete works as a ladder was required. It attended again on 14 February 2022 and attempted to secure the window while it sourced a new lock. The resident reported on 17 February 2022 that the temporary works were unsuccessful, and the landlord made an emergency visit to fit a temporary new handle. It subsequently arranged for further repairs to occur on 25 March 2022.
On 21 February 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint. She noted that her window was broken and that the door entry system still did not work. She also noted that she had received a parking fine and had requested for her housing officer to contact her to discuss it, but that this hadn’t happened.
The resident chased an update on 1 March 2022. The landlord replied on 4 March 2022 and advised that its records stated the communal rear door issue had initially been reported on 9 April 2021 and had been marked as resolved. As there had been no further reports within the previous 6 months, it would not include this concern in its complaint response.
On 5 March 2022, the resident disputed the issue had been resolved and reported someone had attempted to enter through the rear door that day and provided video evidence. She expressed concerns for her safety as a result.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 18 March 2022, which included the following:
1. It reiterated it would not consider the complaint about the communal door.
2. It noted that the parking operator had cancelled one of the fines issued to her. It noted a second fine would remain in place as it was issued after the expiry of her temporary code but prior to her applying for a new code. It also noted that it had corresponded with the parking operator on her behalf as a gesture of goodwill, but that this was not the landlord’s responsibility.
3. Regarding the window, it provided a breakdown of the actions it had taken to secure the window and reiterated the upcoming further repair works on 25 March 2022. However, it acknowledged its service had been delayed, for which it apologised.
4. Regarding the intercom, it advised its records stated that this had been repaired on 15 November 2021. However, given the resident’s further reports, it advised it would arrange for a further inspection.
The resident escalated the complaint on 17 June 2022. She noted she was still awaiting repairs to the intercom and rear door. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 12 July 2022 and advised it was experiencing a backlog of complaints and that there would be a delay to its stage 2 response. It repeated its apology for the delay to the response on 27 July 2022 and 1 August 2022.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 26 August 2022, which included the following:
1. It acknowledged there had been ongoing delays, for which it had apologised.
2. It noted the ongoing confusion surrounding parking and advised that it would discuss a permit with the parking operator, rather than a quarterly code.
3. It acknowledged that the rear door was in a poor state of repair and advised that it had arranged urgent works to address this. It would ensure the works were post inspected and offered £50 for the distress and inconvenience this had caused.
4. It reiterated its apology for the delays to the windows and acknowledged they had been stuck open during the winter months. It offered £150 compensation to reflect the impact this would have had on heating, calculated at £1 per day for 150 days.
5. Regarding the intercom, it noted it had not attended to repairs in a timely manner. It advised that works had been raised and that a post–inspection would also be undertaken.
It is evident that the rear door lock was changed on 30 August 2022, which the resident reported had solved the issue. The landlord also carried out an inspection of the intercom on 5 September 2022, and it subsequently ordered necessary parts for a repair.
Following the period of the complaint, the resident continued to report repair issues, such as ongoing issues with her bath panel, damage to her door frame, and further issues with the intercom and her windows. The landlord opened a new formal complaint to address these issues, which are not the subject of this investigation.
In a conversation between this service and the resident in December 2024, the resident advised that she continues to experience issues with the intercom and the front door to the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident has raised concerns about how the issues she reported and the landlord’s subsequent service delivery may have impacted her health.
The Ombudsman is unable to make a determination that the actions or omissions of a landlord have had a causal impact on a person’s health. Such a determination is more appropriate through an insurance claim or by a court. Should the resident wish to pursue a claim relating to the impact on her, she has the option to seek legal advice.
The Ombudsman has, however, taken into account any general distress and inconvenience that the landlord’s service delivery may have caused.
Further to the repair issues raised throughout the period of this complaint, the resident has noted that she continues to be impacted by ongoing repair issues with the door frame at her property and the intercom. This is of particular concern given that these are the same issues that she raised upon moving into the property in 2019, and they remain outstanding. These concerns have been the subject of a separate complaint. While outside of the scope of this investigation, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to contact the resident and enquire about any outstanding repair issues and then subsequently provide its position.

Repairs – Windows

The landlord’s repairs policy notes that it will respond to complete routine repairs “as quickly as possible” and complete repairs “first time, where possible.”
Following the resident’s reports about her window in October 2021. The landlord attended on 8 November 2021 but was unable to complete any repairs or inspections as it did not bring a ladder. This demonstrates that it did not adequately discuss the issue with the resident prior to its attendance, as it should reasonably have known and recorded the location of the window. This, therefore, meant a further visit was required, which unreasonably delayed the resolution of the issue.
While the landlord’s policy does not specifically provide a timeframe for routine repairs, the Ombudsman would expect them to be completed within a reasonable timeframe, dependent on the circumstances. In this case, it is evident that parts needed to be ordered to provide a permanent fix. While this created a delay, it was nevertheless reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord also appropriately sought to carry out temporary works. While these were initially unsuccessful, the landlord appropriately arranged to carry out further temporary works. However, these further works were arranged for over a month after the resident reported the initial temporary fix had been unsuccessful. The landlord did not provide a reason for this delay. Given her reported concerns about draughts and about security, this timeframe was unreasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged in its stage 1 response that there had been delays to its service, for which it apologised. In its stage 2 response, the landlord also acknowledged that the delays had caused financial detriment to the resident due to the loss of heating. It noted the difficulty in an accurate assessment of the loss but provided an offer of £150 compensation, which was proportionate in the circumstances. However, it failed to consider any redress for the distress and inconvenience caused by having an unsecured window and for the time and trouble the resident spent chasing the issue.
Given the impact these issues caused the resident and the inconvenience of multiple avoidable visits, contrary to the landlord’s repair policy, a finding of maladministration has been made. An order for £300 compensation has been made, being made up of £150 towards the resident’s heating costs and £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £150.

Repairs – Intercom

Regarding the door entry system and intercom, the landlord advised in its stage 1 response that its records stated that the issue had been resolved on 15 November 2021. However, given that the resident reported that it was broken in her formal complaint on 21 February 2022, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had carried out a reasonable investigation of the concern as part of its complaint response. While it acknowledged that it had experienced inconsistencies with its previous contractor and committed to complete a further inspection, it failed to do this at the earliest opportunity.
Having committed to a further inspection, it did not provide the resident with an indicative timeframe, and it is not evident any inspections took place. This caused the resident to have to expend time and trouble chasing the issue and escalating her complaint. The landlord appropriately acknowledged in its stage 2 response this had caused distress and inconvenience, for which it apologised. However, it once again failed to consider its compensation guidance or offer any compensation to the resident.
The Ombudsman notes that while some works were subsequently completed to the intercom, the resident continued to experience repair issues with it; however, these were the subject of a separate complaint and are beyond the scope of this investigation.
In summary, the landlord missed the opportunity to resolve the intercom issue at the earliest opportunity. It also failed to deliver on its initial promise to investigate the issue, which caused further time and trouble for the resident. In the circumstances, a finding of maladministration has been made, for which an order for £150 compensation has been made. This order is in accordance with this service’s remedies guidance for instances where there has been a failure which has adversely affected the resident, but where there is no permanent impact.

Repairs – Rear door

Regarding the communal rear door, the landlord noted that it had not received a report since April 2021 and that its records noted the issue had been marked as “resolved.” The landlord did not provide advice about what this resolution entailed, and it is not evident that its records were sufficiently detailed to be able to provide such advice. This demonstrates a deficiency in the landlord’s record keeping. This is particularly concerning given that its internal communications noted that the door was being tampered with, and so in the absence of evidence that it had been made tamper-proof, it was difficult to conclude it could have been resolved.
The landlord advised that it would not consider the complaint as there had not been a report within 6 months. While this approach is not set out in the landlord’s policy, the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) active at that time noted that this approach could be reasonable. Consideration should have been had to whether the quality and availability of evidence meant that an effective investigation wasn’t possible. Nevertheless, it was evident that the resident was reporting that this was an ongoing concern. While it may have been reasonable to exclude the issue from its investigation, it failed to raise any further investigations or otherwise provide a position.
It was therefore reasonable that it addressed the issue in its stage 2 response and apologised for the delays in having taken action. It appropriately committed to carrying out any necessary works and to ensure these were post-inspected. The resident has since noted that the replaced lock resolved the issue. The landlord also appropriately recognised the distress and inconvenience its delays had caused and offered £50 compensation.
While it was appropriate that the landlord made an attempt to put things right, its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the length of the delay and the distress caused by the safety concerns of the resident. A finding of service failure has therefore been made. An order for £150 has been made to reflect the impact caused to the resident. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £50. The Ombudsman notes that a finding of maladministration would have been made had the landlord not acknowledged its failings and made some attempt to put things right.

Parking

The resident has access to parking at the property, which also allowed for visitors to park. It is evident that the landlord explained how to use a code to allow for parking when the resident moved to the property. She was initially given a temporary code, and it was explained that she had to apply for a new code in order to keep using the parking facilities.
It is not disputed that the resident received 2 fines, at least 1 of which was issued after the expiration of the temporary code but prior to the resident’s request for a new code. The landlord appropriately liaised with the parking provider on her behalf and relayed to her that one of the fines had been cancelled. However, it was not responsible for the fine she received when without a valid code. Nevertheless, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the inconvenience that the code system presented and agreed to discuss an alternate permit-based system with the parking operator.
In summary, while it is evident that the resident was frustrated with delays to communication with her housing officer about the issue, it is not evident that the landlord was responsible for the parking fine received by the resident. It was also appropriate that it sought to assist the resident going forward. A finding of no maladministration has therefore been made, along with a recommendation for the landlord to provide the resident with the outcome of its discussion about a parking permit, if it has not already done so.

Complaints handling

The landlord operates a 2–stage complaints policy. It will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of an escalation. It will discuss any delays to these timeframes with the resident. The policy does not specifically mention any exclusions of an issue due to being out of time.
The resident made an initial complaint on 21 February 2022. It is not evident that it was acknowledged at that time, and the resident had to expend time and trouble chasing updates. The landlord did not provide its stage 1 response until 18 March 2022. This was 19 working days after her initial complaint. It is not evident that the landlord explained that its response would be delayed.
The resident escalated her complaint on 17 June 2022. The landlord did not acknowledge her complaint until 12 July 2022 and did not provide its stage 2 response until 26 August 2022. This was 50 working days after the resident’s escalation request. On this occasion, the landlord advised on 12 July 2022 that its response would be delayed, although it failed to provide this update prior to the expiration of the timeframes of its policy. While it was appropriate that it explained its response would be delayed and that it provided 2 further interim updates, it failed to consider any remedy for the inconvenience this would have caused. The landlord’s compensation policy notes it may offer compensation where it has failed to deliver its service in line with its published standards; however, it is not evident it considered this.
In summary, both the stage 1 and 2 responses were delayed, and while the landlord explained this was due to a backlog, it did not provide this explanation in a timely manner, and it failed to consider compensation. A finding of service failure has therefore been made. An order for £100 compensation has also been made, being £50 for each delay. This order is made in accordance with our remedies guidance for instances where there has been a failure by the landlord in the service it provided, and it did not appropriately acknowledge these or fully put them right.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s reports about the windows at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s reports about the intercom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s reports about the rear door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s concerns about parking.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £700, comprising:
1. £300 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failures relating to the windows;
2. £150 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failures relating to the intercom;
3. £150 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failures relating to the rear door;
4. £100 for its ineffective complaints handling.
This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £200. This amount (less any amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offer) must be paid within 6 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord is to contact the resident and include the following:
1. Enquire about any outstanding repair issues and then subsequently provide its position.
2. Provide her with the outcome of its discussion with the parking operator about a parking permit instead of a code, if it has not already done so.