Southern Housing (202314357)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314357

Southern Housing Group Limited

11 September 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 response to:
1. The resident’s report of a repair to a bin store.
2. The resident’s report of staff misconduct and its decision to place a joint visit flag onto her account.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She lives in a 2 bedroom house and her tenancy began on 2 November 1998. The landlord has recorded the resident to have a visual impairment and that “staff need to hand their ID card to her to see them clearly”. The landlord also has a joint visit required and female operatives only flag recorded on the resident’s account.
The resident reported her bin store required a repair on 23 February 2023, notes state the resident raised this through an online account and the job description said, “hinges on wheelie bin cupboard rotted and coming away”. The repair was booked for 20 March 2023, the notes of this job state a wheelie bin store hinge repair was raised. The landlord attended on 20 March 2023 and found the job to be bigger than expected as the cupboard itself was rotted. It is noted by the landlord that the operative said he would need to rebook a follow on job. The resident was allegedly not happy with this and allegedly filmed the operative; the operative reported to feel uncomfortable so left the job.
The resident contacted the landlord to make a complaint on 20 March 2023. The landlord’s notes show the resident called the landlord to advise she wanted to make a complaint against an operative for being rude and leaving the job unsafe. The landlord called the resident on 13 April 2023 to discuss and acknowledge her complaint. It then sent a follow on email to say it would formally acknowledge her complaint by 20 April 2023. No details of either of these phone conversations have been provided.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 28 April 2023. Within its response, the landlord:
1. Advised the repair to the bin store was not completed on 20 March 2023 as the operative had reported the resident to have been “abusive towards him and begun filming him”.
2. Said the operative tried to explain he was there to make safe and would attend again to complete the repair but, when this did not diffuse the situation, he left and the job was closed down.
3. Said that, following a report of an injury, an emergency job was raised on 17 April 2023 to make the bin lid safe.
4. Advised the repair was completed in full on 21 April 2023.
5. Said that, to avoid further situations, it would consider future repairs being attended to by 2 people to “protect” both the resident and its operatives.
6. Concluded that the named operative would not return to the resident’s property.
7. Apologised for the complaint not being logged correctly.
8. Apologised that the works order was closed after the incident and the resident sustained an injury.
9. Stressed the importance of letting operatives conduct repairs when they first attend.
10. Apologised for the service received and offered £50 for its “unsatisfactory complaint handling”.
The resident told the landlord she was “extremely disturbed” by its response and lack of outcome on 28 April 2023. She requested to know what she allegedly said, or did, that was deemed abusive to the operative and what evidence this was based on. She advised she had a doorbell video which did not portray abusive behaviour. The resident refuted the operative’s version of events and gave her version in detail. She stressed she would not accept 2 men to undertake repairs as it was not only intimidating but would make her feel vulnerable.
The landlord emailed the resident on 5 May 2023, detailing it would now conduct joint visits. The resident strongly disagreed with this and requested the issue be escalated on 5 May 2023. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation of complaint on 24 May 2023.
The landlord held a stage 2 panel hearing which was attended by the resident via MS Teams on 6 June 2023. It provided its final response on 11 July 2023 and said:
1. It acknowledged the long standing history between the resident and operatives.
2. It was now placed in a position where the resident had no trust in in the landlord or its contractors.
3. It wanted to ensure it provided the repair service the resident needed and that it balanced the needs of all parties.
4. It confirmed:
  1. All operatives should show their ID to the resident.
  2. All operatives should carry shoe covers and wear them.
  3. It was unable to guarantee operatives would be talkative, smile, or engage with the resident whilst in the property.
  4. It would request a female operative to attend where possible.
  5. It upheld its decision to have a joint visit in place.
  6. It appreciated the resident did not want 2 operatives in her home and therefore would be happy to arrange for a female employee to be on site as an independent party to prevent allegations and counter allegation.
  7. It believed this to be the best way to have all parties protected from allegations.
  8. The flag would be reviewed in a year from 24 July 2023.
5. The landlord concluded by advising its offer of £50 was still available.
The resident approached the Ombudsman on 20 July 2023 and requested we formally investigate her complaint. The resolution she sought was for the 2 person marker to be removed from her account.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Evidence has been seen which suggests the resident sustained an injury prior to the bin store being repaired. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the authority of the Ombudsman to make a determination on liability. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her injury was due to any action, or lack thereof, by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident reports that they experienced because of any errors by the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a repair to a bin store.

It is not disputed that the landlord was responsible for the repair to the bin store. Once put on notice, a landlord is required to carry out the repairs it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
The resident reported the repair needed to the wheelie bin store on 23 February 2023. The repair was booked for 20 March 2023. The landlord’s repair policy says it will arrange non-emergency repairs as soon as possible and does not specify a timeframe. It was reasonable for the landlord to not consider the repair as an emergency as from the description of the repair reported, no immediate risk to health and safety could be identified. The repair was booked within 28 calendar days which is seen as a reasonable amount of time and standard across the sector.
The landlord’s repair records, the resident’s email to the landlord dated 17 April 2023 and its stage 1 response dated 28 April 2023, confirm the repair was made safe on 17 April 2023 and then completed on 21 April 2023. During the period between 20 March 2023 and 13 April 2023, no action to follow up the repair was undertaken despite the resident chasing and requesting to make a complaint.
Whilst it is appreciated that the circumstances around the repair not being completed required some investigation, the landlord would still be expected to act in a timely manner and communicate effectively with all parties to reach a resolution and ensure it fulfils its repairing obligations. In this case, the landlord took 18 working days to contact the resident after she complained on 20 March 2023 and a further 23 working days to complete the repair. Although the landlord has provided evidence of its actions to try and resolve the issue and complete the repair, it failed to communicate in a timely manner with the resident following her phone call on 20 March 2023. Therefore, a finding of service failure has been made.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of staff misconduct and its decision to place a joint visit flag onto her account.

The resident expressed dissatisfaction in relation to an operative’s conduct at her property whilst carrying out a repair. The Ombudsman will not form a view on whether the staff member’s actions themselves were appropriate or inappropriate. Instead, it is the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available. For example, the landlord would generally be expected to conduct interviews and gather evidence from all parties, making an informed decision based on its findings.
The landlord recorded a detailed account from the operative of the incident which resulted in the repair to the bin store not being completed on 20 March 2023. The landlord failed to record an account from the resident of the incident, although the resident did give her version of events in an email to the landlord when disputing its stage 1 response. The resident was undoubtedly upset by the allegation of her being abusive. In her email dated 28 April 2023, the resident advised the landlord that she had doorbell video footage that did not correlate with her being abusive. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord acknowledged this or attempted to view this. As noted above, the landlord would be expected to conduct interviews and gather evidence from all parties to show it thoroughly investigated the matter. Further, it has not been able to demonstrate through the evidence provided that it discussed the resident’s version of events with her, which is not appropriate.
Evidence has been seen to show that the landlord followed its user define codes (UDC) procedure in requesting a flag on the resident’s account following the operative leaving the job on 20 March 2023. It also advised the resident by email on 5 May 2023 of the alert being placed onto her account. Although the landlord did have an obligation to ensure its contractors or staff are able to work in an environment free from abuse, it has not been able to demonstrate that it came to this conclusion following an adequate level of investigation.
The landlord requested internally that all future visits to the property should be in pairs on 3 May 2023. The resident made it very clear to the landlord that she did not agree with this and advised of how it would make her feel. The landlord advised the resident on 5 May 2023 that this was to protect both, the operatives and her from any “potential miscommunication” and that she had not “done anything wrong”. This would have caused confusion to the resident. The landlord had detailed in its stage 1 response that the operative had reported her to be abusive toward him, yet the landlord had concluded it was a miscommunication.
Within its stage 2 response, the landlord demonstrated that it listened to the resident’s concerns and attempted to put things rights. It offered for a female employee to attend when repairs were required which was a reasonable compromise in the circumstances. It also clarified its position on ID cards, professionalism and shoe covers which was appropriate. It is positive the landlord evidenced a focus on resolution in its final complaint response.
It is apparent from the evidence seen by this investigation that the relationship between the landlord and resident had broken down. The resident was undoubtedly upset with what she saw as inappropriate conduct at her property and being advised she had been abusive. The Ombudsman is unable to form a view as to which party’s account of the incident on 20 March 2023 is most accurate, nor is it able to offer a judgement of the issue.
The Ombudsman does not expect the landlord or its contractors to tolerate unreasonable behaviour from its residents. However, all customers should be dealt with fairly, honestly, consistently and appropriately, including those whose actions are considered unacceptable. It is also important to recognise that all customers have a right to be heard, understood and respected. Whilst landlords have a duty to protect employees, they also have an obligation towards residents.
In summary, there has been service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns related to staff conduct and its decision to place a flag on her account for joint visits. The landlord evidenced it focused on resolution and took reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns about the operative at her property by contacting its contractor. However, it failed to provide evidence of a balanced investigation into the incident, therefore failed to demonstrate that it came to its conclusion following an adequate level of investigation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s complaint policy says it will acknowledge complaints at each stage within 5 working days. It will aim to respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 workings days of the complaint being acknowledged.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 28 April 2023, 28 working days after the resident had called to complain on 20 March 2023. It is not clear why a complaint was not logged at this time. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint in a call on 13 April 2023 and apologised in its stage 1 response on 28 April 2023 for the complaint not being logged correctly. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident and recognise that she had to wait for longer than what was acceptable and to offer £50 compensation. This position is in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. However, the landlord could have gone further and explained that it had looked into this error, found the cause and explained what steps it would take to improve its service.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 11 July 2023, 46 working days after the resident had escalated her complaint on 5 May 2023. It should be noted however that the resident replied to the stage 1 response on the same day it was issued, clearly marking her dissatisfaction with the outcome. It would have been appropriate therefore for the landlord to have considered this as an escalation and contacted the resident within 5 working days as per its policy. It did not acknowledge the resident’s request to escalate her complaint until 24 May 2023. This delay was not acknowledged in its final complaint response which was not appropriate.
It was positive that the landlord focused on the resolution of the substantive issue of getting the repair completed and making a plan to ensure future repairs could be completed. It failed to evidence however, it had looked into why it failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaints at each stage of its process outside of its policy timescales.
Given the delays in the landlord acknowledging the resident’s complaint at both stages of its complaints process, its failure to either acknowledge or apologise to the resident for the delay in its final complaint response and, more significantly, its failure to demonstrate its commitment to learning from outcomes, a finding of maladministration has been made. In order to redress these failings, the landlord has been ordered to apologise to the resident and to pay her £200 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for circumstances where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and/or made no attempt to put things right. Further orders have also been made with regards to actions the landlord is to take in order to prevent similar failures reoccurring.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in relation to its response to the resident’s report of a repair to a bin store.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in relation to its response to the resident’s report of staff misconduct and its decision to place a joint visit flag onto her account.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £400 compensation which includes:
  1. £100 for the failure in its response to her report of a repair to a bin store.
  2. £100 for the failure in its response to her report of staff misconduct and its decision to place a joint visit flag onto her account.
  3. £200 for its failures identified in its handling of her complaint (inclusive of the £50 it already awarded through its complaints process).
The landlord should provide evidence to this Service that it has complied with the above orders within 4 weeks of this determination.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord should review its handling of this case. It should consider the processes it has in place for delivering follow on repairs and logging complaints. It should reply to this Service to confirm how it will avoid similar failings in future.
The landlord should provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the above order within 12 weeks of this determination.

Recommendations

It is recommended, if it has not already done so, that the landlord review the flags on the resident’s account to ensure they are valid and up to date. It should advise the resident of the outcome of this review and explain its decision to her.