Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Southern Housing (202337318)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337318

Southern Housing Group Limited

28 August 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

  1. The complaint is about:
  2. The landlord’s response to:
    1. The resident’s reports about heating and hot water. 
    2. The resident’s reports about a patio door and windows.
  3. The landlord’s complaint handling

Background

  1. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord. The resident was assigned the tenancy on 11 October 2022. The property is a flat on the 7th floor of a block. The property has a balcony accessed by patio doors from the living room. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The resident lives at the property with her 2 year old child. The resident told this Service she has post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
  2. On 18 September 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that the balcony door was damaged, hanging by a hinge, and she was worried about it falling.
  3. On 28 September 2023, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord via an email. The resident said the following:
    1. 2 windows were hanging off the hinges and dangerous.
    2. The patio door had come off and was being propped up by her sofa. The resident said the landlord had not considered this an emergency.
    3. An appointment arranged for that day to fix the door and windows was cancelled at short notice, rescheduled and cancelled again.

On 3 October 2023, the resident’s MP made an enquiry to the landlord about the resident’s patio door and windows.

  1. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response on 15 January 2024. It said a complaint was made in October 2023, an MP was included in the complaint and an acknowledgement was sent on 13 October 2023. It said it was closing the resident’s complaint as a duplicate and would respond to the existing complaint.
  2. On 13 February 2024, the landlord told the resident there had been confusion about the complaint. It said the complaint had already been responded to. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on this date. On 18 March 2023, this Service asked the landlord to provide a stage 2 response by 25 March 2024.
  3. The landlord issued its final response on 10 May 2024. It said the following:
    1. The landlord contacted the resident on 11 October 2023 to advise it had forwarded her complaint to the correct department.
    2. An MP enquiry was received on 13 October 2023.
    3. It was apparent the stage 1 complaint was not raised. Confusion had arisen due to the incoming MP enquiry which was prioritised.
    4. Regrettably, it issued a stage 1 response on 15 January 2024. The complaint was reallocated on 25 March 2024. The landlord was able to see it had not addressed the resident’s concerns and it had closed the complaint as a duplicate in error.
    5. The resident reported the problem with the patio door on 18 September 2023.
    6. An appointment for 21 September 2023 was changed to 9 October 2023 due to operative availability.
    7. The landlord attended a call out on 28 September 2023.The notes from the visit stated the door was put back into a closed position but further work was required.
    8. An appointment on 10 October 2023, reported the sliding door needed to be overhauled as soon as possible and was left safe.
    9. On 20 October 2023, an emergency repair was made. The notes from an appointment on 23 October 2023 stated the door was reaffixed to make safe but was not taking any weight and required further works.
    10. Work to the patio doors remained outstanding and works orders had been closed.
    11. A new contractor was attending on 3 May 2024 to measure for the replacements, quote and progress the works.
    12. It raised a works order on 10 October 2023 for window frame sealant damage in the first bedroom. An appointment was arranged for 16 October 2023. There were no notes from this appointment and the works order was closed.
    13. The extensive delays to repair the patio door and windows were the result of issues with the units original manufacturing. Contractors were unable to source parts.
    14. It decided in February 2024 to replace the units as like for like was not possible. It would install new PVCU windows.
    15. On 8 August 2023, it attended an emergency call out for the reports of a loss of heating and hot water. A further call out was made on 19 October 2023, with a follow up appointment on 24 October 2023 to fit a time switch to the boiler.
    16. It attended to the heating and hot water repair within its expected service standards and completed the repair as soon as possible.
    17. It was sorry for the delays experienced regarding the repairs to the patio door and windows. It failed to follow its repair process and this had led to repeat visits.
    18. The stage 1 complaint was repeatedly overlooked and it proceeded with the MP enquiry process and failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint. The resident had clearly expressed on more than one occasion her desire to log a formal complaint. It failed to action these requests.
    19. There were further delays at stage 2 due to the miscommunication and poor record keeping. This resulted in a further complaint being open and closed as a duplication.
    20. It failed to follow its complaints process. This resulted in the resident having to make repeated contact to chase for updates and confirmation of the repairs.
    21. Further updates on the proposed works would be provided once the quote was reviewed and authorised.
    22. It had requested a member of staff was allocated to oversee the remaining works to completion and keep the resident updated.
    23. It apologised for the inconvenience time and trouble caused. It offered the resident compensation of £593.47. Broken down as follows:
      1. £60 for the delays to repair.
      2. £75 for service failures.
      3. £40 for missed appointments.
      4. £18.47 for the loss of hot water.
      5. £350 for inconvenience, time and trouble.
  4. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She said there was no confirmed date for the replacement of the windows and patio door. The resident said the situation had put a strain on her PTSD. She said her mental health had worsened due to the stress of having no air in the property. In August 2024, the resident confirmed to this Service the repairs to the windows and patio door remained outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

  1. In her submissions to the Ombudsman, the resident has referred to further issues which do not relate to the complaint under investigation. The Ombudsman cannot consider the complaints about damp and mould, a washing machine repair, and further faults with the hot water.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme and the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.
  3. In her complaint, the resident referred to the situation impacting upon her health. While this Service is able to assess the response the landlord provided, and any overall distress or inconvenience this may have caused, it is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on the resident’s health and wellbeing. However, the Ombudsman has considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  4. It is essential for landlords to break down any offers of compensation so that a resident can understand to what extent it has acknowledged the impact of each individual failure. The landlord offered the resident £593.47 of compensation in its final complaint response. The £40 for the missed appointments and £60 to the delays to repair related to the patio door and windows. The £18.47 was for the loss of hot water. However, it was not clear in the breakdown provided, exactly how much of the remainder of the compensation was attributed to each issue. Therefore, for the purpose of the investigation the remaining £475 of compensation has been attributed equally between the complaint about the patio door and windows, and the complaint handling.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about heating and hot water. 

  1. The tenancy agreement says the landlord will keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property. This includes the outside doors and windows. The agreement says the landlord will keep in good repair and working order any installations it provides for heating and water heating.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says that works to make emergency repairs safe will be completed within 6 hours. If a repair is not an emergency, it will arrange an appointment for as soon as possible at a time which suites the resident.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy says it may make discretionary compensation payments to recognise the inconvenience or loss caused by a service failure. When calculating an award of compensation, the landlord will consider the extent, severity, and impact of the failure. It will account for any vulnerabilities or individual circumstances when assessing the impact of the failure.
  4. The landlord’s compensation framework says for a loss of hot water, the landlord offers a payment of 10% of the daily net rent per day, paid after one day of the defect being reported. It says partial or intermittent loss of hot water will not be paid. The framework says a payment of £20 per missed appointment can be offered if its contractor fail to keep an appointment and does not notify the customer the day before the appointment is due to take place. Discretionary payments do not have a limit and are based on the Ombudsman remedies guidance.
  5. The resident did not raise her concerns about the loss of heating and hot water in her initial complaint. It was not clear the exact period the resident was referring to. The landlord’s records showed a report on 8 August 2023 of a loss of heating and hot water, and a repair noted as completed on the same day, and a further repair taking place on 10 August 2023. There were no further repair reports in the records between this date and 25 October 2023.
  6. The resident told the landlord on 25 October 2023 that she was without hot water for almost 2 weeks. The landlord’s repair records from the time are consistent with the landlord’s final response. The landlord’s repair records showed a report of no hot water was made on 19 October 2023. The records noted a repair to fit a time switch on 24 October 2023. There were no further repair records during this time that demonstrated a further period without hot water in October 2023.
  7. The landlord offered the resident £18.47 of compensation for the loss of hot water. This payment was in line with the landlord’s compensation framework which states 10% of the daily net rent will be paid, after one day of the defect being reported for a loss of hot water. The payment accounted for the 5 days the landlord stated the resident was without hot water.
  8. It was evident the resident raised further concerns about the hot water following this complaint. The resident has also told this Service in August 2024 that she has continued to experience problems with the hot water. Therefore, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to contact the resident about these concerns, to find out if a further repair is needed.
  9. In summary, the landlord demonstrated that it responded to the resident’s reports about heating and hot water in line with its repair policy. It attended an emergency call out on 19 October 2023 and returned within 5 working days to complete a further repair to restore the hot water. The landlord acknowledged the time the resident was without hot water and offered compensation in line with its compensation framework. Therefore, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about heating and hot water.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a patio door and windows.

  1. The landlord must ensure that the homes it provides meet the Decent Homes Standard. Landlords must also ensure that properties are free of hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) and the existence of such hazards should be a trigger for remedial action.
  2. The resident reported a problem with the patio door on 19 September 2023. The landlord’s repair records show it attended in September and October 2023 but further repairs were needed. The landlord raised a repair to windows in bedroom 1 and 2 on 10 October 2023. The repair notes from an appointment on 27 November 2023 stated the patio needed a specialist and the 2 windows in the bedrooms had faulty locking mechanisms.
  3. The repair to the patio door and windows remain outstanding at the time of this report. This was a timeframe of over 11 months for the repair to the patio door and 10 months for the repair to the 2 windows. This Service recognises that window–related repairs can be complex and will require different actions to different timescales then those set out in repair policies. However, this timescale was excessive. While it was evident the landlord had attended works to secure the windows and completed emergency repairs, it failed to fully resolve the issue for the resident. As a result, the resident has been unable to open or use the patio door or bedroom windows for an extended period of time. This impacted on the resident’s enjoyment of her home.
  4. From the landlord’s repair records, it was evident, that the landlord identified the windows required replacing following the repair visits to the property in November 2023 but had not followed up on this with its contractor in an acceptable timeframe. The landlord’s surveyor visited the property on 10 January 2024. The surveyor identified that both the bedroom windows, and the patio door were unsafe to use and needed to be repaired or replaced immediately. The internal emails following the visit stated the resident was aware not to use them due to safety, but this was now causing condensation and mould which the resident had been keeping on top of. This demonstrated the landlord was aware of the impact the outstanding repairs were having on the resident and the potential risk.
  5. The landlord’s complaint records noted quotes were received on 22 February 2024. On 22 April 2024, the landlord raised a repair for the patio door and 2-bedroom windows to be overhauled. A contractor attended the resident’s property on 3 May 2024. Following this, the contractor sent a quote to the landlord on 8 May 2024 for the renewal of 2 windows and the patio door. The landlord failed to complete the works to date, despite receiving quotes and raising works orders. It was evident that the landlord failed to retain an oversight of the repair and follow up with its contractors in an acceptable timeframe.
  6. The landlord’s repair records show it raised a job in July 2024 to replace the window and patio door as per the quote. It had a target date for completion of 15 August 2024. The resident confirmed to this Service on 19 August 2024 that the work had not taken place. It is not clear why the repair job has been further delayed following the quote.
  7. It was noted the landlord’s repair policy does not have timescales for non–emergency repairs. This Service published a special report on the landlord in May 2024, following an investigation carried out under paragraph 49 of the Scheme. The report made recommendations to the landlord which included to revise its repairs policy to include timescales for all types of repairs, not just emergency repairs. This recommendation continues to be monitored by this Service.
  8. Although the landlord’s repair policy does not include a timescale for the completion of nonemergency repairs, the timescale here was excessive. It was not reasonable for the resident to endure a period of over 10 months without the use of the bedroom windows and patio door. On 30 January 2024, the resident told the landlord she was unable to open the windows and patio door to get air into the property as they were secure.  The landlord did not demonstrate it took the impact on the resident into consideration in the timeliness of its response.
  9. It was evident the resident had to take the time and trouble to follow up with the landlord on the progress of the repair. The resident contacted the landlord on a number of occasions and advised the repairs remained outstanding. She also told the landlord on several occasions the impact this was having on her, the property, and the risk to her young child. The landlord failed to keep the resident updated and had not demonstrated a customer focused approach.
  10. The landlord also did not demonstrate it considered the vulnerabilities within the household and the impact of the outstanding repairs in its response. The resident has a young child and raised on several occasions her concerns about the safety of the windows and patio door remaining broken and the risk to her child.
  11. The landlord’s surveyor identified the windows and door as unusable and unsafe to use on 10 January 2024. The surveyor stated they needed to be repaired or replaced immediately. It was noted the landlord’s repair record noted the windows were left safe. In an internal email on 10 January 2024, the surveyor confirmed the resident had been advised not to try and use the patio door or window.
  12. The resident was told in an email on 11 January 2024 to “be careful” using the door and windows as advised during the surveyor visit. Despite being aware of the safety risk, and a potential hazard to the resident and her child, the landlord did not demonstrate it took this into consideration in the timeliness of its response. The paragraph 49 investigation report made recommendations for the landlord which are currently being monitored by this Service. This included to revise its repairs, void management, and any other relevant policies to include:
    1. How it will identify hazards present in each property.
    2. How it will proactively work to remove hazards and reduce risk to both the resident / future resident and the property arising from the hazards present in the property.
  13. In its final response, the landlord acknowledged the delays to the repair, its failure to follow its repairs process, and the resident having to continue to chase for updates. The landlord attempted to put things right for the resident through an offer of compensation. It also confirmed it requested a member of staff was allocated to oversee the remaining works and provide updates. This was an appropriate action to take. Although it was noted the final response did not provide the resident with any certainty on this, or the details of the staff member who would be overseeing this.
  14. The landlord attempted to put things right for the resident through an offer of compensation. This service was unable to determine exactly what proportion was attributed to each issue. As such, £337.50 of the compensation has been considered to have been for the repair to the patio door and windows. However, this amount does not reflect the full impact on the resident over a prolonged period of time. The resident being unable to use her patio door or both bedroom windows for a period of 11 months has caused significant distress and inconvenience. She has also endured safety concerns about the windows and doors for this time period. The resident told this Service the living conditions, due to being unable to open the door and windows, were impacting on her mental health. The resident has also taken the time and trouble to continually chase the landlord for updates.
  15. Furthermore, following the end of the complaints process, the landlord did not go on to complete the repairs within a reasonable timeframe. This Service acknowledges that replacement of windows and doors can take additional time to standard repairs, allowing for the manufacturing process. However, the timescale here was unreasonable, given the impact on the resident and the potential risk.
  16. Overall, the landlord failed to complete the repairs to the patio door and windows within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord had not retained an oversight of the repair following the initial repair visits. It had also not taken timely action following quotes for the work. The repairs remain outstanding with the resident currently being unable to open the 2 windows and patio door. The impact of this has been significant to the resident over the past 11 months. The resident continued to report her safety concerns about the windows and her young child, the lack of ventilation and also concerns about damp and mould due to the ventilation.
  17. The landlord acknowledged its failures and offered the resident compensation. However, the compensation offered did not go far enough. It did not fully reflect the landlord’s failures. The compensation also did not account for the repair remaining outstanding to date. As such, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a patio door and windows.
  18. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total amount of compensation of £1072. This has been calculated as 5% of the weekly rent of £259.34 for the 48 weeks from the resident’s report of the repair to the patio doors on 18 September 2024. This is to reflect the resident’s loss off the full use of the property. With an additional £450 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases where the landlord’s failures have adversely affected a resident, and the landlord’s offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified.The landlord has also been ordered to contact the resident and provide her with a date for the completion of the repairs to the windows and doors.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy says a complaint can be raised in a range of ways including via email. The landlord will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It aims to provide a response at stage 1 within 10 working days. If a resident remains unhappy with a stage 1 response, they can escalate their complaint to stage 2. The landlord will acknowledge the request to escalate within 5 working days. It will provide a response within 20 working days from its acknowledgement. At both stages, if for any reason, it needs more time to respond to a complaint, it will explain why and agree the response date with the resident.
  2. The Complaint Handling Code sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days from the request to escalate. This should not exceed a further ten working days without good reason. The Code also states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions.
  3. The Code says landlords must respond to a stage two complaint within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
  4. The resident first raised her complaint on 28 September 2023. This was sent to an individual staff member. The landlord acknowledged the email on 10 October 2023. The landlord explained it had not responded previously due to annual leave and advised it was sent to the correct department that day. This was reasonable, in consideration that the email was sent directly to a member of staff.
  5. The landlord’s internal emails showed a request to raise the resident’s complaint was made internally on 11 October 2023. The landlord issued a stage 1 response to the resident on 15 January 2024. This was 65 working days after the resident first raised her complaint. The landlord acknowledged in its final response that this stage 1 letter did not address the resident’s complaint and was closed as a duplicate in error.
  6. It was evident the landlord failed to appropriately log and raise the complaint it received on 10 October 2023 via email. The Ombudsman is aware that following recommendations from its paragraph 49 investigation, a recommendation for the landlord to roll out a complaint handling training programme to all staff and contractors to ensure that expressions of dissatisfaction, however made, are identified and appropriately logged as formal complaints, is in progress. Therefore, a further order in respect of this matter is not required.
  7. In its final response, the landlord acknowledged its failure to action the resident’s initial complaint. It also acknowledged the impact of this on the resident in having to make repeated contact to chase the landlord for updates. The resident contacted the landlord for updates on 25 October 2023, 1 November 2023, 20 November 2023, 27 November 2023, 21 December 2023, 9 February 2024, 20 February 2024, and 19 March 2024. It was evident the landlord had not taken a proactive approach in keeping the resident updated. The resident was clear with the landlord that she was following up on her complaint raised on 10 October 2023. The landlord missed opportunities here to identify it had failed to raise the complaint appropriately.
  8. The landlord’s responses to the resident throughout the complaint process caused confusion. It was not clear which stage the landlord considered the complaint to be at. On 3 January 2024, the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 acknowledgement, it sent a stage 1 response on 15 January 2024, and an email to request an extension to the stage 2 complaint on 30 January 2024. The landlord’s communication here was poor. As a result, the resident did not know which stage the complaint was at or an accurate date of when she could expect a response. The resident subsequently contacted this Service for assistance.
  9. It was evident the resident escalated her complaint on 13 February 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge the escalation until 25 March 2024. The landlord’s internal emails on 20 March 2024 showed the resident’s escalation request was not actioned until she contacted the landlord to chase it up. This demonstrated a poor oversight of the complaint.
  10. The stage 2 response was provided on 10 May 2024. This was a timeframe of 53 working days. The landlord contacted the resident on 24 April 2024 to extend the stage 2 response date until 29 April 2024. On 30 April 2024, it extended this again until 10 May 2024. The landlord’s complaints policy states it can extend the response if further time is needed. However, by this stage the complaint response was already significantly delayed. The landlord’s action here did not comply with the Code.
  11. The landlord’s delays in raising a complaint for the resident, the confusion caused by its responses, and the delay in responding at both stages resulted in a protracted complaints process for the resident. It also delayed her access to this Service.
  12. In its final response, the landlord acknowledged its failures in its complaint handing. The landlord demonstrated it investigated its complaint handling and identified the errors it made in overlooking the resident’s complaint. This demonstrated the landlord taking learning from the complaint. The landlord also acknowledged its miscommunication and poor record keeping. It was evident the landlord had delayed its response because it did not have updates on the repairs.
  13. A further recommendation from the Ombudsman’s paragraph 49 investigation was for the landlord to revise its record keeping practices to ensure that accurate and timely records of inspections and repairs are available to all relevant landlord staff, including complaint handlers. This recommendation is currently in progress. An improvement in the landlord’s record-keeping would result in significant benefits for both it and residents. It would enable accurate information to be shared across teams and with residents which would improve the landlord’s response.
  14. The landlord attempted to put things right for the resident through an offer of compensation. It was not clear from the landlord’s complaint response how much of the £593.47 of compensation offered was in relation to its complaint handling failures. As set out in the scoping section, for the purpose of this investigation £237.50 has been considered to be for complaint handling. While this offer of compensation shows good practice in the landlord attempting to put things right for the resident and learn from outcomes, it was not enough to account for its full failures here. It did not fully account for the time and trouble taken by the resident over an extended period to receive a response to her complaint.
  15. Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling took too long and did not follow the complaints policy. The stage 1 response provided did not address the resident’s concerns, nor did the landlord proceed to allocate the complaint as stated. The resident had to continue to contact the landlord in order to receive a response. Once the landlord made the decision to review the complaint at stage 2 of its process, it then further delayed in sending its response. This resulted in a protracted complaints process for the resident, both delaying the resolution and her access to an investigation by the Service.
  16. The landlord acknowledged its failures here. However, the compensation offered by the landlord did not go far enough to put things right for the resident. The resident experienced distress and inconvenience over a prolonged period, and also time and trouble following up to understand what stage the complaint was at and then chasing a response over a period of 7 months. Therefore, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. A total amount of £350 compensation has been ordered in addition to the compensation already paid to the resident during the complaints process. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where a failure as adversely affected a resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about heating and hot water. 
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about a patio door and windows.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders.

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
  2. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £1440.47. This amount includes the £593.47 offered during the complaints process. Compensation not already paid, should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
    1. £1072 for the distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a patio door and windows.
    2. £18.47 as previously offered by the landlord for the loss of hot water for 5 days.
    3. £350 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
  3. The landlord is to contact the resident and arrange a date for the completion of the works to the resident’s patio door and bedroom windows.
  4. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation.

  1. The landlord should contact the resident to discuss her concerns about the hot water, to find out if a further repair is needed.