Southern Housing (202325876)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325876

Southern Housing

13 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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. A replacement front door and missing security features.
2. Reports of staff conduct issues.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 1-bedroom house. She has lived at the property alone since November 2013. The landlord has told this Service it is aware the resident suffers with diagnosed mental health illnesses.
On 5 January 2022 the resident reported her front door had gaps above the door frame that were letting in a draft. The landlord carried out 3 inspections of the property in April and May 2022, but no repairs were completed.
On 5 October 2023, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. She said:
1. Her front door was a fire hazard and despite bringing this to the landlord’s attention on multiple occasions the issues had been ignored.
2. She had experienced inappropriate behaviour from staff members of the landlord and one particular staff member, referred to here as Contractor A, had a criminal record.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 10 November 2023 and said:
1. It had fitted a new front door on 19 October 2023 and the delay to fitting the door was due to a lack of female operatives, as the resident had requested the attendance of a female.
2. It would return to the property the same day to fit a spy hole, door number, chain, and deadlock.
3. From the landlord’s perspective, it was unclear as to what unprofessional and inappropriate behaviours needed to be investigated as the resident had not provided details. The landlord advised the resident to provide it with details of the exact incidents.
The resident escalated her complaint on 14 November 2023. She stated the door remained a fire hazard and the safety lock and doorbell had not been fitted.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 13 December 2023 and apologised for the issues the resident had experienced. The landlord said it had investigated her complaints, and it had found:
1. It had fitted a new front door that met with current standards and regulations. However, it would return in the following days to fit a new lock, house number and doorbell.
2. It had been unable to identify a staff member or contractor with the details provided by the resident. The landlord said that without further information, it was unable to investigate the matter further.
3. It was also unable investigate the allegations of inappropriate behaviour as the resident had not supplied any details of the staff members involved or when the events had occurred.
4. Due to the issues surrounding the fitting of the new doorbell and house numbers the landlord offered the resident £50 compensation.
The resident remained dissatisfied and brought the complaint to this Service. As a resolution to her complaint, the resident is seeking a lock to be fitted that she can operate in an emergency and compensation for the distress caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
In her correspondence with this Service, the resident has raised matters that occurred both before and after those subject to this complaint, that have not been through the landlord’s complaint process. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to matters which have been considered by and completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 13 December 2023. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this Service.
The resident has informed this Service how the issues have impacted on her health. It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. The evidence shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. The resident has multiple concerns about the landlord’s activities. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, complaints about personal injury are better dealt with by the courts because they will often have the benefit of an independent medical expert who can give evidence on the diagnosis, prognosis and cause of any injury. This means we are unable to determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or personal injury.

A replacement front door and missing security features

In March 2019 the landlord fitted a new front door to the resident’s property. On 5 January 2022 the resident reported that there were large gaps above the door frame that were letting in a draft.
Landlord records from 5 and 21 April 2022 indicate inspections were conducted at the property and it was recommended that the front door was replaced, and a quote had been obtained. Notes from the last inspection requested a surveyor attend the property to check the gaps. The landlord sent a surveyor to the property on 21 April 2024. The surveyor assessed the door from the outside only, as the resident was not home and reported that no repairs were required.
The resident’s tenancy agreement places an obligation on the landlord to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property, which includes the front exit door. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy only gives time scales for emergency repairs. For all other repairs, the policy states the landlord will arrange an appointment as soon as possible.
Where a landlord’s policy does not specify a time scale for a repair, this Service would expect the repair to be completed in a reasonable amount of time. The landlord appears to have conducted 3 separate inspections of the door. It is not clear from the documentation provided why 3 inspections were needed, or why the final inspection conclusions differed to the earlier inspections. However, the issues had not been rectified 15 weeks after the repair had been reported by the resident. Given the nature of the problem and it was reported in the winter months by a vulnerable resident, the delay was unreasonable.
Landlord records indicate that following the final inspection when the resident was not at home, it raised a further inspection but did not allocate the job. The landlord’s failure to complete the inspection was unreasonable and caused a delay to the issue being resolved.
On 4 November 2022 the landlord amended the resident’s record to state that all future visits to the property should take place with a female staff member, due to vulnerabilities disclosed by the resident.
The resident reported to the landlord that the gaps to the front door had not been addressed on 7 December 2022. Landlord notes of the call state the resident felt as though she was not being listened to, she was upset and felt insecure and vulnerable. The landlord raised a job the same day for a surveyor to attend in the company of another female member of staff.
On 2 February 2023 the resident informed the landlord that she had received a letter advising her of a date for the inspection of her front door. She stated the door had been inspected several times previously and she needed a new door to be fitted. The landlord confirmed it would cancel the inspection, and it would update the resident the following week.
The landlord raised a job with its contractor to replace the door 2 weeks later. On 1 August 2023 the landlord chased its contractor for a date to replace the door as it needed to have a female member of staff available to attend. The landlord’s contractor confirmed the door was being made and it expected the installation would take place in 4 weeks. While it was appropriate for the landlord to chase the contractor, this was over 5 months after the job had been raised. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to follow up with the contractor much earlier to enable it to manage the resident’s expectations.
The resident formally complained to the landlord on 5 October 2023 that the door had still not been replaced. She said the door posed a significant “fire hazard”. It is unclear from the documentation provided what the resident meant by this as all previous communication disclosed to this Service referred to gaps around the door. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord attempted to seek any clarity from the resident.
The landlord fitted a new front door to the property on 19 October 2023. The landlord contacted the resident on 23 October 2023 and acknowledged she was not satisfied with the work. Landlord notes of a conversation with the resident on 2 November 2023, state that the door had been replaced but she did not feel safe as there was no “chubb lock”, spyhole or chain.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 10 November 2023. It said the delays to fitting the new door were due to a lack of female operatives and it would return to the property that day to fit a spy hole, door number, chain, and deadlock as she had requested.
This Service accepts the landlord needed to provide a female member of staff to attend the resident’s property and the landlord’s response times would be dependent on the availability of female staff to some extent. However, the delay to replace the door was also impacted by other factors. The landlord failed to raise the job until 13 months after the resident had first reported the issue. Furthermore, the landlord failed to chase the contractor for a further 5 months after the job was raised. This was a significant delay that could not be attributed to the availability of staff and there is no evidence that the landlord communicated any of these delays to the resident throughout. It was unreasonable of the landlord not to acknowledge these failings.
The landlord did not attend the property on 10 November 2023, causing the resident to escalate her complaint 4 days later. In an email dated 15 November 2023, the resident again described the door as a fire hazard with no safety lock, no doorbell, and no way to hear the door. The resident also expressed concern that her house number was no longer visible and stated this would cause problems if someone was trying to locate her in an emergency.
On 5 December 2023 the resident sent 5 emails to the landlord, repeatedly asking for a safety lock, doorbell, and house numbers to be fitted to the door. In her emails, the resident explained that she was unable to leave the keys in the door when it was locked as she did not have the dexterity to use the keys to unlock it in an emergency. The resident explained the situation was upsetting her and impacting her everyday life. The resident’s emails evidence the high levels of distress she was experiencing and how a front door that she was able to operate was fundamental to her mental well-being.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 13 December 2023. The landlord stated it had fitted a new front door that met the current standard and regulations. It also said it had arranged to install a new lock, doorbell, and house number in the coming days. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for delays to fitting the new doorbell and house number. While the doorbell was fitted on 13 February 2024, the lock was not changed. It is not clear from the documentation provided why the new lock was not fitted.
The resident has explained to this Service that she considers the front door remains a fire hazard. She states the front door must be locked from the inside with a key and due to the positioning of the letter box it is not safe to leave the keys in the door. The resident said that her medical conditions make it extremely difficult to use a key in normal circumstances and this is exacerbated in times of stress. For these reasons the resident was seeking a way of locking the door from the inside, without the use of a key, so she could easily unlock the door in the case of an emergency.
The Equality Act 2010 provides a discrimination law to protect individuals from unfair treatment and promotes a fair and more equal society. The Act provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under the Act, the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where a physical feature puts a person with a disability at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with people who are not disabled.
The Act requires any person or organisation which carries out public functions to have ‘due regard’ to how they can eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations in doing so. Ultimately, it is for the courts to determine whether any adjustments (requested or provided) are reasonable. However, we can investigate whether a landlord has properly considered whether the adjustments are practicable and if they would overcome the disadvantages experienced by disabled people. We may find service failure or maladministration if a landlord cannot demonstrate it properly considered whether adjustments were reasonable or should be made.
The landlord’s reasonable adjustment and vulnerable needs policy defines a resident with vulnerable needs as someone with any condition or circumstance that either:
1. Places them at risk in their home.
2. Affects their ability to access its services.
The policy also states that reasonable adjustments can be requested by the resident and where the landlord is unable to make a reasonable adjustment due to cost or resources, it will work with the resident to find the best alternative solution for them.
The landlord identified the resident as vulnerable from an early stage and did implement reasonable adjustments, such as the attendance of a female member of staff to all appointments. This was appropriate. However, the resident made the landlord aware of further vulnerabilities, such as difficulties in locking the front door with a key. Although her initial complaint did not contain an explanation as to why she thought the door was a fire hazard, her emails dated 5 December 2023 clarified the matter.
While the landlord gave the resident reassurances that it would fit a new lock in both complaint responses, it failed to do so. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord considered the request under its reasonable adjustment policy or evidence of its decision making as to why a new lock would not be provided. The landlord’s failure to apply its reasonable adjustments policy was significant as it has caused the resident further distress and left her in vulnerable position.
This failing, in addition to the 18-month delay in fitting the new front door, and its failure to demonstrate empathy or meaningfully put things right leads to a finding of severe maladministration. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident £1,500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This is in line with Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for severe maladministration where the failures have accumulated over a significant period of time and have had a severe impact on the resident’s well-being.

Reports of staff conduct issues

On or around 14 November 2022, the landlord became aware that the resident had autism and had a history of being a survivor of abuse. As such, the resident found it difficult to be around male staff members. The landlord updated the resident’s record with a marker that stated there “should” be a joint visit with a female in attendance for all future appointments, including contractors.
The resident contacted the landlord by phone on 7 December 2022 regarding outstanding repairs. The resident explained that she had difficulty communicating over the phone and she had a number of complex needs. The landlord acknowledged this and confirmed it had placed a marker on her record to ensure a female member of staff attended all future appointments at her property. The landlord was already aware that the resident was vulnerable, prior to this conversation.
Landlord records recorded that while discussing the repair to her front door, the resident stated that she did not want the “Mario brothers” to attended as one was “aggressive”, and the other was “sexually inappropriate”. From the documentation provided, the landlord did not probe the matter further.
The landlord has a code of conduct that applies to all staff members, including subcontractors and agents. The code sets out the behaviour expected all staff, which includes:
1. Treating others with respect and consideration.
2. Being professional, fair, and courteous in all dealings with tenants.

The code also states the landlord will deal with breaches of the code under its disciplinary policy.

The behaviour described by the resident, if proven, was likely to have breached the landlord’s code of conduct. The landlord does not appear to have acted upon this information to identify the staff members involved or to seek further clarification from the resident, who it knew was vulnerable. This was a significant failing and a missed opportunity to intervene at an earlier stage.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 31 January 2023, regarding an unrelated matter. Landlord records of the conversation describe the resident as “distraught”. During this call, the resident disclosed further instances of staff behaviour that concerned her, including:
1. Contractor A (who she knew only by first name), who she described as a “convict”, had managed to obtain her phone number, and would attend her property out of working hours.
2. One male operative described her house as “smelling sexy”.
3. A housing officer had told her she did not look autistic.
4. She had spoken with housing officers about the issue, who had “gas lit” her into believing it would not be an issue if she let the male operatives into the property to get on with their work.
During a further call with resident on 2 February 2023, landlord notes of the call recorded the resident “mentioned issues with previous contractors”. The notes did not expand on what these issues were. However, it is likely that the resident raised similar issues to those raised during the call 2 days earlier. The landlord did not seek clarification on the information obtained from the resident or take any action.
On 5 October 2023 the resident raised a formal compliant with the landlord. She said the landlord had exposed her to “a series of neglectful and harmful situations, which have left me in a state of fear and insecurity.” The resident said that Contractor A was allowed to attend her home despite having a criminal record and this decision put her safety at risk. The resident again stated Contractor A had contacted her outside of working hours.
In a further email to the landlord dated 16 October 2023, the resident set out further details of her complaint. She said:
1. The landlord had failed to take care of her safety and wellbeing and the landlord’s failure to acknowledge her concerns had compounded the anxiety she felt.
2. The inappropriate behaviour she had experienced extended beyond a single incident with Contractor A.
3. At least 5 operatives and a supervisor had displayed similar behaviour and further members of staff had engaged in “unprofessional conduct”.
The landlord contacted the resident on 18 October and 2 November 2023 and asked for the names of the operatives concerned and when the incidents took place. The landlord was unable to obtain this information.
In its stage 1 complaint response, dated 10 November 2023, the landlord said it was still unclear as what inappropriate behaviours needed to be investigated and who the staff members where. The landlord said it would investigate any examples of poor behaviour when it had further details. The response did not refer to Contractor A.
The landlord had little detail of the incidents the resident wished to be investigated despite asking her for this information. It would not have been proportionate to interview every member of staff and contractor who had been in contact with the resident during her tenancy. In these circumstances, it was reasonable that the landlord had not carried out an investigation.
However, the landlord had been provided with a name for Contractor A. Furthermore, the resident had stated she had been contacted by Contractor A outside of working hours. It would have reasonable on the basis that there was sufficient evidence available, for the landlord to make enquiries into the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s failure to address the behaviour of Contractor A in its response was unreasonable and left the resident feeling further ignored on an issue that was causing her some distress.
It is unclear from the documentation provided, what the resident said when she escalated her complaint on 14 November 2023. However, in its stage 2 response dated 13 December 2023, the landlord revisited the allegations of staff conduct and said:
1. It was a challenge to investigate the inappropriate comments that had been alleged without the names of the individuals responsible. The landlord again asked for details of names and dates to assist with the investigation.
2. It had been unable to identify any operative or contractor with the name of the operative referred to in this assessment as Contractor A. The landlord asked for dates when Contractor A had attended her property to investigate the matter further.
This Service acknowledges the difficulties faced by the landlord in investigating allegations of staff misconduct when significant details were missing, such as the individuals involved and the dates of the occurrences. In these circumstances, the landlord’s response was reasonable.
However, the landlord was made aware of allegations in December 2022 and took no action, despite knowing that the resident was vulnerable. The resident’s disclosure of “sexually inappropriate” behaviour should have prompted to landlord to take further action to establish the exact nature of the behaviour. The landlord’s failure to act at this point has delayed any subsequent investigation taking place and was a missed opportunity to capture relevant details form the resident while the event was fresher in her mind. Furthermore, the failure represents a significant deficiency in the landlord’s processes to effectively safeguard vulnerable residents.
The landlord also failed to address the allegation against in Contractor A until the resident made a formal complaint and further failed to address the allegation in its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord’s approach placed the onus on the resident to provide more information. However, the landlord did not demonstrate that it investigated the issues where it did have information, despite the seriousness of the allegations and the known vulnerabilities of the resident. This caused the resident a great deal of distress as the landlord failed to provide her with the reassurance she needed and could have reasonably expected to have received.
This leads to a determination of severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of staff conduct issues. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £600 compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused. This in line with Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration where there has been a significant impact on the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a replacement front door and missing security features.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of staff conduct issues.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology from the Chief Executive for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident £2,100 compensation, made up of:
  1. £1,500 for its failures in handling the replacement front door and missing security features.
  2. £600 for its failures in handling the resident’s reports of staff conduct issues.
3. Ensure the resident’s record is updated to accurately reflect her all her vulnerabilities.
4. Liaise with the resident to establish an appropriate means of communication and attendance and ensure is recorded in a way which visible for any staff member who may need to be made aware of it.
5. Review the resident’s request for a suitable internal lock, which will accommodate her complex needs, under its reasonable adjustments policy, and provide the resident and this Service with its proposed plan of action.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must conduct a review of the key failures highlighted in this report. The landlord should present this review to its senior leadership team and provide the Ombudsman with a report summarising its identified improvements. The review should focus on:
1. Understanding why the landlord was unable to demonstrate what action it had taken following the resident’s initial reports of the issue. Its review must examine why its repair policy target times were not met and any changes it needs to make to ensure repairs are conducted in a timely and cost-effective manner for its residents.
2. Understanding why the landlord was unable to demonstrate what action it had taken following allegations of potentially serious staff misconduct. Its review must examine why the allegations were not acted upon until the resident made a formal complaint and any changes it needs to make to ensure allegations can be recorded and acted upon quickly to provide reassurance to its residents. The review should ensure the landlord is able to have processes which satisfy its safeguarding obligations to vulnerable residents.