Southern Housing (202326160)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326160

Southern Housing

31 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 the resident’s:
1. Reports of issues with the heating and hot water.
2. Reports of a draught from her bedroom window.
3. Concerns about staff conduct.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy which began in 2008. The property is a 1-bedroom upper floor flat. The landlord is aware that the resident has sickle cell disease.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 February 2023 to make a complaint about its failure to repair her radiators, as well as the conduct of its heating contractor who she said was rude to her over a number of years. She said the heating contractor also repeatedly capped her meter which impacted her health.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 24 February 2023. It noted the resident’s complaint to be about her request for a new radiator for her bedroom and about her gas meter being capped. The landlord provided some background to the issues being raised relating to previous years. It said:
1. A heat loss calculation concluded that all the radiators in the property were sized correctly, but it agreed as a gesture of goodwill to increase the size of the radiator in the resident’s bedroom. It added that when its heating contractor came to replace the radiator, which was during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021, there was an altercation with the resident which resulted in the contractor leaving.
2. It had attempted to contact the resident to book appointments since 2021, including for the annual gas safety check, but the resident did not grant the heating contractor access and wanted a different heating engineer to attend.
3. It had sent the resident letters prior to the appointments, including informing her on more than one occasion that it would be capping the meter if it could not arrange the annual gas safety check.
4. The resident had previously arranged to get the meter uncapped after the landlord’s heating contractor capped it. The heating contractor had reattended the property to cap the meter until it could carry out the annual gas safety check.
5. An appointment was arranged on 1 March 2023 to fix the radiator in the resident’s bedroom, as well as recommissioning the boiler and the other gas appliances needed for the annual gas safety check. It asked the resident to allow access so that it could complete the works.
The resident emailed the landlord on 1 March 2023 to escalate the matter. She said that “not all [her] concerns were raised” in the stage 1 response. In a further letter dated the same day, she questioned why the individual who she considered was “the architect of the problems” (‘Officer A’) was the one investigating the matter at stage 1. She added that there was a draught coming from the window in the bedroom and this had been the case since she moved into the property, as with the issues with her heating. She said there were other repairs due but did not provide any further details of these.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 4 April 2023. It noted the resident had raised a number of additional items via email on 17 March 2023 primarily concerning the conduct of Officer A. In particular, she had said:
1. Officer A did not allow another heating engineer who previously identified a blockage in her heating pipes in March 2022 to attend again. Instead, Officer A insisted the landlord’s heating contractor was the only party to carry out repairs.
2. Officer A insisted the issues with the resident’s heating were due to the radiators. However, she was informed by a different specialist that the matter was nothing to do with the radiators. Despite this, the repairs were still ongoing.
3. She was prepared for the coming year when she expected Officer A to be sending the heating contractor out again to cap her meter. She questioned the reasons behind this.
4. She had observed the heating contractor working on her balcony hiding a listening device to the wall of her flat during an appointment.
The landlord’s stage 2 response set out:
1. It understood there had been a disagreement between the resident and its heating contractor when the contractor came to fit the radiator in the resident’s bedroom. It also understood that access was denied by the resident on follow–up appointments between June 2022 and March 2023.
2. The heating contractor was also denied access to complete the annual gas safety inspection. As a result, the contractor capped the gas supply to the property following the expiry of the previous annual certificate. It said compensation would not be payable for the loss of heating and hot water. This was because the supply would need to be reinstated once access was provided to allow the completion of the gas inspection.
3. The landlord had an approved heating contractor for the area, and only it would be the one to undertake the necessary repairs and the gas safety check. It noted the resident’s poor previous experience with the service. It had investigated those concerns and the engineer who attended no longer worked for the heating contractor.
4. In terms of the resident’s concerns about a listening device installed in the resident’s wall, it believed this was a gas analyser which was “used to check the combustion of the boiler”. It provided the resident with a picture of the analyser.
5. While it was not upholding the complaint, and had yet to gain access to install the radiator or complete the annual gas check, it offered the resident the option for one of its representatives to attend future appointments with the heating contractor. It offered her an appointment on 17 April 2023 for the radiator and gas check. It asked the resident to confirm this or choose an alternative date.

Events since the end of the landlord’s complaints process

The landlord attended the resident’s property together with its heating contractor on 25 May 2023 to fit the replacement radiator in her bedroom as well as flushing out the remaining radiators. It noted there were issues with the circulation of the boiler and so it was unable to replace the radiator.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 June 2023 as it had still not been able to gain access to carry out the annual gas safety check. It explained that it was a condition of the tenancy agreement for it to carry this out.
The heating contractor attended the property on a number of occasions in June and July 2023 in relation to the resident’s boiler. On the first occasion on 7 June 2023, it capped the meter as it identified a number of gas leaks. Replacement parts were ordered. When it returned to the property later in the month to check all the radiators were working, the resident stated that the heating pipe was hot, but the radiator was not heating up. Following the new radiator being fitted on 14 July 2023 the contractor found the new radiator was not heating up due to a blockage. It proposed new pipes needed to be run off the pipework in the next room. However, the resident informed the heating contractor that she did not want it to attend again and would not allow it access as the matter had been ongoing for 4 years.
The resident emailed the landlord on 8 August 2023 to make a further complaint. The related to the heating and hot water as well as some new issues.
The landlord replied to the resident on 25 October 2023. It said the heating, hot water and window draught issues had already been considered by it as a complaint and so it was unable to investigate the matter again. It said it would need to inspect the property in relation to some of the new issues, and it could also inspect the draughty window at the same time.
The resident subsequently referred the complaint to this Service. She said the property had become unsafe due to the issues. She felt the matter had impacted on her health. She said that she wanted to be moved from the property by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has continued to communicate and raise issues with the landlord since the end of the complaints process. This was in relation to repairs to the bathroom, the draught from her window, and alleged racial discrimination due to her not being rehoused. The Ombudsman is unable to investigate matters that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable time of the resident being aware of it, or that have yet to complete the landlord’s internal complaints process. Therefore, this investigation has been limited to the issues set out at the beginning of this report. The Ombudsman has, however, made a recommendation at the end of this report to address the current situation.
The resident informed this Service that she attempted to raise her concerns with the landlord in 2022 and 2023 with the assistance of a number of different groups. This included her MP as well as a member of the local council. She said that despite this, the landlord ignored her complaints. The landlord has provided this Service with correspondence between the resident, itself and her MP in June 2021 and May 2022. In June 2021 the MP did not raise a complaint, and the landlord’s reply to the MP in June 2022 informed the resident of its complaints process. Based on the information provided to this Service, the resident’s initial complaint to the landlord was not raised until February 2023. Therefore, our investigation will focus on events from May 2022 until shortly after the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process in April 2023. While this investigation has referred to events prior to this date, this is for the purpose of providing context to the complaint.
The resident has mentioned that her health has been impacted by the state of the property. While the Ombudsman does not doubt or underestimate the resident’s concerns, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim.

The landlord’s obligations

The landlord has a duty a duty under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the property.
Yearly gas safety checks are a legal requirement under the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998, and the landlord has a responsibility to complete them.
The landlord has provided a generic tenancy agreement as it was not able to locate the specific agreement which the resident signed in 2008. This tenancy agreement states that the landlord has duty to check any gas fitting and the flue serving at least once a year, and that it will always give reasonable notice in writing of any inspection. The agreement says that the resident is obliged to provide access for the inspections, and that if they fail to do this for the gas safety inspection, the landlord has the right to gain entry to the property.
The landlord’s gas safety policy, which was formally introduced in February 2024, states:
1. “It’s a condition of individual tenancy agreements that residents must, given reasonable notice, provide access for us to carry out works in their home.”
2. “We’re obliged to make reasonable attempts to gain access to carry out the gas service and safety check. Our contractors will make and attend a minimum of two notified appointments before referring a property back to us if access isn’t gained.”
3. “We will take appropriate action to ensure we meet our legal and regulatory obligation to complete an annual gas service and safety check. If we’re unable to gain access, we’ll consider switching off the gas supply by capping the gas meter or taking legal action to gain access. We will take reasonable steps to track all properties where we know there is a capped gas supply.”
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out that the landlord will maintain any installations it has provided for supplying water, gas, or electricity, and for heating, hot water and sanitation. It also says it will keep the structure of the property – including the roof, outside walls, doors, windows and windowsills – in a reasonable state of repair. The policy states that a repair will be treated as an emergency if there is an immediate risk to a person’s safety or of damage to the property. It notes that emergency repairs include heating loss for elderly or vulnerable residents at all times.
In the event of an emergency repair, the landlord will carry out works to make safe within 6 hours of the repair being reported. If further repairs are needed to complete the job it will arrange appointments with the resident as soon as possible.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with her heating and hot water

The resident informed this Service that over the last few years, on a yearly basis during the winter, the landlord turned off her heating leaving her with no hot water.
The resident’s concerns about her heating and hot water related primarily to the landlord capping the gas supply, meaning she was left with no heating and hot water. In addition, she raised the issue of her radiator in her bedroom not warming up sufficiently and needing to be replaced with a larger one.
The landlord provided this Service with a number of letters. These letters informed the resident of the annual gas safety check which was due. The landlord issued 2 letters, on 2 and 16 December 2022, informing the resident of appointments which it had scheduled. In each case the appointment was for several days after the letter was dated (on 13 and 23 December 2022), so the resident had some warning of them. The landlord then issued 2 further letters on 26 and 28 December 2022 asking the resident to contact it within 3 days about the annual check. Following this it issued one further letter on 20 January 2023, advising the resident of a further scheduled appointment on 26 January 2023. This letter set out that if it was unable to gain access it would be turning off the supply to the property. The landlord also attempted to call the resident on 20 January 2023 about the appointment and sent her a number of text messages.
The landlord’s approach was appropriate. It provided the resident with a number of opportunities for the annual check to take place before it capped the meter. It also gave her the opportunity to arrange a different date if those scheduled appointments were not convenient. The resident did not provide the landlord with any request for her communication with it to be via an alternative means. While the Ombudsman cannot say with certainty that the letters were received by the resident, they were correctly addressed to the resident, containing her full address including the postcode, and there was no indication they were returned to the landlord as being undelivered. The resident lived at the property for a number of years and so would have been aware of the annual gas check which needed to take place.
It is not disputed that a disagreement took place between the resident and the heating contractor during the COVID–19 pandemic when it attended the property. The exact nature of what occurred is unclear. However, what is not in question is that, following this incident, the resident did not want the heating contractor to attend the property. As a result, access was not provided by her. The landlord explained that the heating contractor was the appointed provider for heating issues for the resident’s area. Therefore, it was the party that attended for heating and hot water concerns and there was no alternative. The landlord provided this Service with evidence that it made the resident (and her MP in its letter in June 2022) aware of the need for the heating contractor to be allowed to attend, and that it offered for someone else to accompany the heating contractor during appointments with the resident. This was an appropriate step for it to take to try and reassure the resident that it was taking on board her concerns, while fulfilling its repair and legal obligations.
The landlord said that after capping the gas supply on 30 January 2023, the heating contractor returned to the property when the landlord was made aware that the resident got the supply reconnected via an unknown third party. The supply was capped again on 24 February 2023 as the heating contractor was still unable at that time to check the resident’s gas appliances. This was appropriate, as the landlord was not able to carry out the annual gas check on the resident’s gas appliances.
Following the end of the landlord’s complaints process, it was able to agree with the resident for its heating contractor to attend to replace the radiator in the bedroom. While it did attend several times between May and July 2023, the resident informed it on 18 July 2023 that she would not be allowing the heating contractor to attend again due to it not being able to repair the heating. The landlord’s repair records show that following the heating contractor’s last attendance on 14 July 2023 it proposed to resolve the heating issues by means of rerouting some pipe work and capping the redundant pipes. This, however, required it to gain access to the resident’s property, which she was not willing to allow it to do.
In summary, while it is clear that the resident was left without heating and hot water for some time, this was due to the landlord not being able to gain access to the property. It informed the resident of the reasons it needed to access and inspect the boiler and of the consequences if she did not allow it access. The landlord was under no obligation to find an alternative heating contractor to attend the property, and it offered the resident an alternative option by having the heating contractor accompanied by a member of its staff. This was an appropriate step for it to take, and the resident’s concerns about staff conduct are addressed separately below. Following the resident allowing the heating contractor to attend in May 2023 she again stopped providing it access in July 2023. Overall, there was no maladministration by the landlord, as we find it acted reasonably and in accordance with its obligations in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a draught from her bedroom window

The landlord’s internal correspondence shows that the MP’s contact with it on 11 May 2022 raised a number of disrepair issues in the resident’s property. The landlord replied to the MP on 7 June 2022 saying it would be arranging for its surveyor to carry out an inspection of the property and address the issues the resident raised. This was an appropriate step for it to take, to enable it to understand the degree of any repairs which were needed. Although the landlord has not provided this Service with evidence that it had progressed the issue and updated the resident, the scheduling of the survey shows that it did contact the resident about the matter.
The inspection report from 14 June 2022 noted, in relation to the draught coming from the bedroom window, that the resident had double taped around the window and applied Blu Tack to the gap around it. The report confirmed that the window needed “overhauling to seal the gaps”. A number of other repairs were also noted in the report. The landlord has not provided any evidence to this Service that it informed the resident that it had logged the repairs and provided some timescale for when it planned to complete then, in line with its repairs policy.
The landlord has also not provided this Service with any details of when it attended to carry out the repairs to the bedroom window following the inspection in June 2022. While the landlord said the resident was not prepared to allow the heating contractor access, there was no indication that she was similarly not allowing a non-heating contractor access to carry out repairs.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy confirms that it is responsible for the structure of the property, which includes windows. While the repair to the window was not an emergency repair, the landlord’s repairs policy does not provide any timescales for non-emergency repairs, merely that it will “arrange an appointment for as soon as possible”. The policy notes that if it is unable to reach a resident when it attends it would leave them a card asking them to contract it or the contractor. The landlord has not provided any evidence to this Service that it did this in the resident’s case. This was a failing by it.
The resident raised the issue of the draught in the window after receiving the landlord’s stage 1 response. Despite the landlord noting it as being part of the resident’s complaint in its stage 2 response, it did not address the matter in its response. Instead, the response centred on the issue of the access for the heating contractor. This was a further failing. The prolonged impact of the draught, together with issues with the resident’s heating, would have caused her a degree of distress and inconvenience.
In summary, there were a number of failings on the part of the landlord. It initially acknowledged that the bedroom window needed to be overhauled. It was also aware of the resident’s health concerns. Despite this, it failed to undertake the repair, and when the resident made a complaint about the issue, it failed to look into the matter at that time. The landlord’s failings amount to maladministration. The Ombudsman has made a compensation award of £250 for the landlord’s failings. This amount is in keeping with this Service’s remedies guidance for circumstances where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident, but there was no permanent impact. The landlord’s compensation framework sets out that it will pay a maximum of £50 for delays or failure to complete a repair, but this is not considered proportionate to its failings.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the staff conduct

The resident told the landlord when she initially phoned it on 13 February 2023 that the heating contractor was “rude, threatening, insulting”. She said she had complained about this for years, yet nothing had been done. She also raised concerns about Officer A investigating the complaint at stage 1, which she felt was a conflict of interest, and about a listening device which she believed was placed into the walls of her property by the heating contractor.
In order to investigate the matter, the landlord would reasonably have been expected to contact the resident further to fully understand the nature of her specific concerns about the heating contractor, including details of any incidents with the heating contractor and when they occurred. It could also have detailed the steps it took to conduct a thorough investigation, such as interviewing the contractor and/or relevant members of internal staff and consulting any contemporaneous records. The landlord did not do this, which was a missed opportunity by it.
The landlord also failed to address the matter of staff conduct in its stage 1 response, although it did mention some of it in the stage 2 response. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had a poor experience with the heating contractor’s service. It said Officer A investigated the resident’s concerns about the individual who attended the property in 2021 and advised that the individual was no longer on its contract. The landlord also provided some further information on the initial issue in its correspondence to the resident’s MP in June 2022. It said that this occurred during the COVID–19 pandemic and related to a lack of social distancing and the resident not wearing a mask during an appointment. The landlord said the resident informed the heating contractor that she was exempt from wearing a mask. It explained that the heating contractor did not feel safe to continue and had left.
The landlord also addressed the resident’s concerns about the listening device in its stage 2 response. It provided an explanation of what instrument the heating contractor was likely to have used and the purposes of it. The landlord also included a picture of the gas analyser in its response. However, the landlord did not address the concerns the resident expressed about Officer A investigating the complaint at stage 1. While this Service has seen no evidence that Officer A acted inappropriately, with bias, or contrary to the complaints policy, this was a missed opportunity by the landlord to explain this to the resident. To demonstrate transparency, it could have explained that Officer A’s change of job role had meant they performed different functions in relation to her case. It could also have given assurance regarding the independence of its stage 2 response.
In summary, while the Ombudsman understands that the landlord found no evidence of any misconduct, a finding of service failure has been made due to its omission to fully address the staff conduct issues at stage 1 and insufficient evidence of a thorough and conclusive investigation at stage 2. The landlord also should have done more to acknowledge the resident’s feelings about the matter and the impact on her mental health. The Ombudsman has made an award of £50 in relation to the landlord’s failing. This award is in keeping with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance for instances of service failure.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the heating and hot water.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a draught from her bedroom window.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of the heating contractor.

Orders

Within the next 4 weeks, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £300. This is made up of the following:
  1. £250 for its failures in its handling of the draught from the resident’s window.
  2. £50 for its failures in its handling of concerns about the conduct of the heating contractor.
3. Contact the resident in relation to the issue with the bedroom window and schedule an appointment with her to undertake the repair.
4. Consider whether it is possible to arrange an alternative heating contractor to attend the resident’s property in relation to her heating and hot water. The landlord should confirm the outcome of this in writing to both the resident and this Service.

Recommendations

The landlord should contact the resident to determine if she has any further concerns following the end of its internal complaints process in April 2023. If she raises any concerns, it should respond to these in accordance with its policies and procedures.
The landlord should contact the resident in relation to the complaint which she made in August 2023. It should confirm whether she still wants to pursue the matter as a complaint. The landlord should formally respond to any complaint which the resident may now wish to make or pursue, in line with its complaints process.
The landlord should contact the resident to inform her of her options for moving from the property, if she wishes to pursue this.