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

Southern Housing (202400649)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202400649

Southern Housing Group Limited

30 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 the landlord’s handling of reports about leaks into the property and the subsequent repairs.

Background

  1. The resident is the leaseholder, along with his partner, of a 2 bedroom, second-floor flat. The flat is located on the top floor of the block. The landlord is the freeholder of the block.
  2. On 21 September 2023, the resident raised a repair request for the landlord to replace the mastic on the outside of the living room window as there was a leak causing water ingress and damage to the inside of the property. On 18 October 2023, the resident also informed the landlord that a similar repair needed to take place to the window in the second bedroom of the property.
  3. On 19 December 2023, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord about its handling of the repairs. He stated:
    1. the leaks had been ongoing since September 2023 and previous repairs had not resolved the issues
    2. he wanted the landlord to investigate the cause of the delays in resolving the leaks and a date for the item to be repaired
    3. that as the landlord has responsibility for the upkeep of the external parts of the property, he considered it was not fulfilling its obligations and the ongoing leaks were causing him stress.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 1 February 2024. In this it:
    1. accepted that there were delays in completing the necessary repairs and it requested its contractor provide the resident with a written apology for this
    2. offered the resident £165 as compensation to remedy the complaint consisting of:
      1. £15 for the landlord having to make repeat visits to resolve the issue
      2. £15 for the resident repeatedly having to chase for updates
      3. £60 for 3 missed appointments by its contractor
      4. £75 for the resident’s inconvenience, time and trouble
  5. On 6 February 2024 the resident escalated his complaint. In this, he stated:
    1. the landlord had still not resolved the leaks (including a third leak he had reported above the balcony doors in the living room) despite further work being carried out
    2. the landlord had not provided him with details of when the work would be completed
    3. the continuing leaks were causing him and his partner stress and anxiety and the landlord’s offer of compensation is not sufficient to address this.  
  6. The landlord said in its stage 2 response on 14 March 2024 that:
    1. it accepted that there had been further delays in completing the repair work following its stage 1 response and apologised for this
    2. it would remain in contact with the resident until the repair works were complete
    3. it had requested an updated action plan be sent to him
    4. there had been a delay in issuing its stage 1 response and this gave inaccurate information about when the resident had first reported the repair
    5. the landlord said its compensation policy does not include a process for repairs to the inside of a leaseholder’s home but stated the resident can submit a claim with its insurer about this
    6. in terms of a remedy the landlord stated it would not ordinarily compensate for delays to repairs of communal areas but has done so in this case due to the impact this had on the resident. It offered the resident £575 as compensation consisting of:
      1. £375 for the impact on the resident in terms of time, trouble and inconvenience
      2. £60 for not carrying out the repairs promptly
      3. £75 for the complaint handling issues
      4. £15 for the landlord having to make repeat visits to resolve the issue
      5. £15 for the resident repeatedly having to chase for updates
      6. £60 for 3 missed appointments by its contractor.
  7. The resident told us that he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response as he did not consider its offer of compensation reflected the impact that its actions had on him and his partner. The resident told us that the landlord has since carried out further repairs since the stage 2 response. However, as of the date of this report, he states the leaks are still ongoing and the landlord has not provided him with a clear timescale of any further work.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s record keeping

  1. The Ombudsman expects landlords to create and maintain a robust record of contacts, repairs, and services provided. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
  2. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, which has impacted this service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.

The landlord’s handling of reports about leaks into the property and subsequent repairs

  1. Under the terms of the lease the landlord is required to maintain and repair the main structure of the building which includes the roof, external walls and windows on the outside of the flats (excluding the glass in them). As part of the terms of the lease, the landlord is entitled to include the expenditure it has reasonably incurred in connection with the management of its repair obligations as part of the Service Provision it charges to leaseholders.
  2. Under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, a landlord must consult with leaseholders before it undertakes any work which will cost any leaseholder more than £250. This includes repairs, maintenance and improvements to the building, and the estate the property is situated in. Under certain circumstances, a landlord can apply to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) for dispensation from the need to consult leaseholders.
  3. The landlord’s responsive repair policy says that for non-emergency repairs it will arrange an appointment as soon as possible and at a time that suits the resident. Though the policy does not specify a timescale for completing a non-emergency repair, the landlord states it aims to complete all repairs in one visit and in as little time as possible.
  4. Following the resident’s initial repair request on 21 September 2023, the landlord logged this on 27 September 2023 as a non-urgent routine repair. From the available records, the landlord initially requested a roofing contractor to attend but it did not proceed with this. Due to a lack of adequate records, it is not clear why this happened or what action the landlord took to progress the repair promptly, this was a failure by the landlord.
  5. The landlord recorded its contractor attended on 23 October 2023 to carry out ‘temporary work to make the window watertight’. It was reasonable for the landlord to carry out a temporary repair to limit the impact on the resident until a full and effective repair could be completed. However, it took the landlord 22 working days from the resident’s repair request to do this which was not appropriate. Furthermore, due to a lack of adequate records, it is not known what work was carried out during the temporary repair and what information the resident was given about any further planned repairs. This was a failure by the landlord.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord on 24 October 2023 about the poor quality of the work completed on the previous day. He stated that damp patches had formed following rain overnight and he wanted the landlord to inspect the roof for a possible leak from there. On 7 November 2023, the landlord created a new repair order for its contractor to carry out roof and window repairs.
  7. From the available records the resident contacted the landlord for an update on planned works on several occasions from 24 October 2023 to 10 November 2023. The landlord recorded that it told the resident on 14 November 2023 that its contractor would attend on 28 November 2023. This was 43 working days after the resident raised the original repair request. This was inappropriate as it was not consistent with the landlord’s responsive repairs policy.
  8. On 14 November 2023, the resident replied to the landlord to ask about the scope of the works which would be completed on 28 November 2023. The resident outlined his understanding of the planned work and the landlord confirmed (the same day) the scope of works consisted of:
    1. the removal of previous mastic work and resealing of the affected windows
    2. assessing if the damage to the roof was causing the leaks around the windows
    3. relevelling uneven windowsills at the property so the water could drain away.
  9. The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 28 November 2023. Its report from the repair stated:
    1. the membrane of the roof above the property showed no visible sign of damage
    2. the sealant around the three of the windows for the property was in poor condition and the contractor removed and replaced this. The contractor said ‘due to time constraints’ it could only undertake work on the sealant around the windows.
    3. it recommended the pointing around the windows should be renewed
    4. the windowsills of the property were not level, due to poor installation, causing water to be trapped. The contractor advised if the problem persists a ‘water test’ should be arranged to establish where the leaks were coming from. 
  10. The resident contacted the landlord on 29 November 2023 stating that the leak in the living room had not been resolved and he believed that the contractor had not carried out all of the scope of works agreed such as relevelling the windowsills. The resident told us that after attempting to call the landlord for an update several times, he was told on 18 December 2023 that the repair request had been closed as the leak had been repaired. He formally complained to the landlord the following day.
  11. Due to a lack of adequate records, we have not seen what action the landlord took in response to the contractor’s report or why it did not arrange the repairs which it had previously agreed with the resident to be in the scope of works. The landlord outlined in its account of events that it raised a new repair order with its contractor on 19 December 2023, but we have not seen a copy of this. As such, it is not known what further work the landlord agreed on 19 December 2023 or what information it gave the resident about this. This was a failure by the landlord.
  12. After a new repair was raised on 19 December 2023, the following delays occurred:
    1. the landlord’s contractor was scheduled to attend on 9 and 10 January 2024 but work was postponed due to poor weather conditions
    2. the repair was rescheduled for 29 January 2024, but the contractor did not attend
    3. the appointment was rescheduled for 31 January 2024 but was postponed until the following day due to a broken-down vehicle.
  13. As such, the repairs did not take place until 1 February 2024, 43 working days after the resident first informed the landlord that the leaks were ongoing and nearly 5 months after the initial report. This was not appropriate as it was not consistent with the landlord’s repair policy. Whilst we acknowledge that not all the delays above were within the landlord’s control, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have reassessed the priority of the planned repairs considering the leaks had been ongoing for over three months. There is no evidence that the landlord did this which was a failure.
  14. The landlord’s contractor carried out repairs on 1 and 2 February 2024 for the two previous leaks identified as well as a third leak from above the balcony window in the living room, which the resident reported on 29 January 2024. The contractor reported:
    1. it identified two holes in the roof membrane and sealed these, one above the living room leak and one above the bedroom window
    2. it found the pointing around the windows to be in good condition
    3. it found the joints of the fibreglass covers on the roof to be in poor condition and it resealed these
    4. it inspected the weep beds for the three windows. Two of these were blocked and were cleared by the contractor
    5. it found the sealant around the windows to be in good condition
    6. it could not relevel the windowsills as this would require removing the window frame completely. The contractor records it fitted a cover to the windowsill and sealed this, as an alternative solution to allow the water to drain off 
    7. it recommended that, if the leaks persisted, the fibreglass covers on the roof should be removed and the area should be sealed in full.
  15. The resident confirmed the contractors attended on 1 and 2 February 2024 and the work above took place. However, the resident said the contractor told him it would adjust all the windowsills and it would apply brick sealant since no work was necessary on the pointing. The resident said the contractor only adjusted one of the windowsills and there was no evidence it had applied brick sealant. The resident contacted the landlord to say that not all of the work had been completed. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to show how the landlord responded to this. Due to a lack of adequate records, it is not known what information the resident was given about this. This was a failure by the landlord.
  16. On 8 February 2024, the resident reported the leaks were continuing and that there was evidence of a leak in the main bedroom that the landlord had previously repaired. The landlord raised another repair order to apply waterproof paint to the roof which its contractor completed on 27 February 2024. Though this timeframe would have been suitable for a routine repair in line with its policy, there is no evidence that the landlord assessed whether the repair should have been reprioritised considering the leaks were ongoing. There is no requirement in the landlord’s repair policy for it to inspect all repairs following completion. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would also have been reasonable for the landlord to have carried out a post-inspection following the repair work completed on 2 February 2024 considering the complexity of the work and the resident’s continued reports of leaks occurring in the property.
  17. The resident reported that the leaks were continuing to the landlord on 4 March 2024. The landlord met with the resident and a roofing contractor on 14 March 2024 to discuss further work. On 20 March 2024, the landlord recorded that to inspect the roof fully it would need to erect scaffolding. It stated the proposed costs of this would be over the threshold where it would have to consult leaseholders in line with section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The landlord decided to look into the possibility of applying for dispensation from the need to consult due to the previous unsuccessful repairs and the urgency in addressing the ongoing leaks. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s decision was appropriate.
  18. The landlord wrote to leaseholders on 30 April 2024 to inform them about the planned work to the roof, that it was applying for dispensation due to the urgency of the work and that it would recover £1202.89 from each flat for the costs of the quote it agreed. From the available records, the time taken for the landlord to begin the application for dispensation was due to it having been advised to obtain two different quotes to increase the likelihood of the application being successful. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord ought to have reasonably known to have obtained more than 1 quote to consider a variance in cost. Additionally, dispensation could be applied for at any time, including after the works had been completed.
  19. The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 May 2024 to inform him the contractor would erect the scaffolding on the week commencing 13 May 2024, with the work on the roof scheduled to begin the following week. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was a reasonable timescale, following the application for dispensation, due to the complexity of the planned repair. However, we have not seen any indication that the landlord assessed whether it could carry out temporary repairs or if other action could be taken to mitigate the impact of the leaks whilst the section 20 process was ongoing. This was not reasonable in all the circumstances as the landlord acknowledged that, even with applying for dispensation from consultation, the section 20 process could take a considerable time.
  20. From the available records and the resident’s account of the events, the repairs to the roof were completed on 24 May 2024. The contractor wrote to the resident on 24 May 2024 and stated:
    1. though it was satisfied with the work carried out it considered there were ‘still some factors within the brickwork that may be causing water ingress’ despite the repairs
    2. it believed the damp proof course may have been positioned incorrectly allowing water ingress and further investigations were needed to address this
    3. it would send its report to the landlord to consider, and it would update the resident about this.
  21. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 June 2024. He complained that he had received no further updates and was unhappy with the lack of progress on the further investigation considering scaffolding access was still available. The landlord informed him on 11 June 2024 it had agreed to carry out a further survey and inspection.
  22. From the available records the landlord raised a non-urgent responsive repair for a surveyor to inspect the property on 3 July 2024, 27 working days after the roofing contractor raised the need for further inspection. Though this would be a reasonable timescale for a non-urgent repair in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord should have reassessed the priority of further work considering the delays the resident had previously experienced. There is no evidence the landlord did this which was unreasonable. It would have been appropriate to have conducted a full and proper survey much sooner, and indeed before the landlord commenced the major works for which it was charging residents. That would have ensured that all possible works would have been identified and completed at the same time, which may well have reduced the overall cost to the leaseholders.
  23. The resident told us that the surveyor attended on 3 July 2024 and told him the damp proof membrane was missing around one of the bedroom windows and that there was something loose on the roof of the property which the landlord ideally needed to resolve within the next 48 hours. We have not received a copy of the surveyor’s report from 3 July 2024 or any correspondence the landlord had with the resident about this. Due to a lack of adequate records, it is not known what the findings of the inspection were or what information the resident was given about this. This was a failure by the landlord.
  24. The resident told us that, as of the date of this report, further work has not been carried out on the roof and the leaks are still unresolved. He also said the landlord has not carried out the work to relevel the windowsills since he raised his concern that the contractor did not complete this from the work carried out on 2 February 2024. From the available records, we cannot see that the landlord has provided the resident with an explanation of when it will complete this further work or, in the case of the windowsills, why it considers further work is not required. This is a failure by the landlord.
  25. Furthermore, the available records show the landlord has treated the resident’s reports of leaks in line with its responsive repair policy throughout the events complained about. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it is not clear if this was the relevant process for it to have followed. The landlord has a ‘damp and mould framework’. The landlord’s framework includes ‘penetrating damp’ where water penetrates the external structure of the building causing damp and damage to internal surfaces. The landlord’s framework suggests this can be the result of defective design of the external structure or defective external components. As the resident had been repeatedly reporting leaks from the external structure into the property since September 2023 in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord should have arranged an inspection of the property to assess if the reported issue was due to penetrative damp and, if so, handled the ongoing repairs in line with this process. There is no evidence that this assessment took place at any point in its handling of the repairs, which is a failing.
  26. In summary the Ombudsman’s opinion is that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of leaks into the property and the subsequent repairs, in that it:
    1. did not keep adequate records of the actions taken to resolve the repair request
    2. did not carry out the initial repairs until 43 working days after the leaks were first reported and did not arrange its temporary repairs within a reasonable timescale
    3. did not carry out further repairs within a reasonable timescale after the repairs on 28 November 2023 failed to resolve the leaks, taking a further 43 working days to attend
    4. did not carry out a full survey promptly, given the resident reported recurring water ingression
    5. did not carry out a post-inspection of the repair work completed on 2 February 2024 after the resident had reported the leaks were still occurring. The landlord also did not reassess the priority of the further repairs agreed
    6. did not assess whether any temporary repairs or other action could be taken to mitigate the impact of the leaks and damp to the resident whilst the section 20 process was ongoing
    7. did not arrange the survey and inspection recommended following the repairs on 24 May 2024 in an appropriate timescale
    8. did not provide details to the resident about planned further work to resolve the leaks following the surveyor’s inspection, or any work planned to relevel the windowsills
    9. did not assess whether the reported leaks and damp should be responded to in line with its damp and mould framework throughout its handling of the repairs.
  27. In terms of the impact on the resident, he described that he and his partner have experienced leaks across three rooms of their flat for around 10 months, as of the date of this report. He states that this has caused them distress and loss of enjoyment of their home as water would pool inside the affected windows of the property every time there was significant rain. He also described that the multiple contractor attendances and the landlord’s communication with him about how it would resolve the ongoing leaks added to his distress.
  28. As set out previously in its stage 2 response the landlord offered the resident £500 for its handling of the repairs, setting aside the £75 offered for its handling of the complaint. The question for the Ombudsman is whether the landlord’s redress is enough to fairly recognise the impact on the resident.
  29. In reaching this decision we have taken into account the £500 and that, following the stage 2 response, the landlord decided not to charge the resident (and other leaseholders) the £1202.89 for the costs of the work completed on 24 May 2024. As set out previously, the terms of the lease entitled the landlord to charge the leaseholders the of carrying out its repair obligations. We recognise the landlord’s decision to waive this provides a financial benefit to the resident.
  30. In addition, we note that in terms of reimbursement of any damage caused to the inside of the property, the landlord advised the resident to submit a claim to its buildings insurer. In the Ombudsman’s opinion whilst this was not an unreasonable approach to take – there is no evidence the landlord considered the claim may not be covered by insurers due to it being caused by defective design or materials in the building. If it is covered, the resident may also be responsible for an excess payment. The resident has told us he has not made a claim yet as he considers this would be premature whilst the leaks are still ongoing. The Ombudsman’s understanding is that this option remains open to the resident once the repairs are completed. 
  31. Taken together the Ombudsman considers the remedy offered at stage 2 did not fully address the impact on the resident. The landlord’s failures likely caused the resident some distress and inconvenience.
  32. Our Remedies Guidance states that an award of up to £1,000 would be appropriate where there was a significant impact on the resident. In this case, the impact would be significant given the length of time the resident has reported the matter to the landlord and, for the resident, the matter is still not fully resolved. This is likely to have caused some significant distress and inconvenience. For this reason, an award of £950 is appropriate to recognise the distress caused by the landlord’s failures. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of leaks into the property and subsequent repairs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must within 28 days of this determination:
    1. issue the resident with a written apology. The landlord must recognise its failings identified in this report and the impact these had on the resident.
    2. pay the resident a total of £950 in compensation (inclusive of the £500 it previously offered) for the resident’s distress, anxiety and inconvenience over its handling of the repairs to the roof and windows over the 10-month period since the resident reported the leaks.
    3. complete the further repairs to the roof and external structure identified following the surveyor’s inspection of 3 July 2024. If it cannot, it must set out a timescale to complete these with the resident. It must then use its best endeavours to ensure those repairs are completed within those timescales.
    4. complete the repairs to relevel, or fit covers to, the windowsills of the property. If the landlord considers that no repairs to the windowsills are necessary to prevent further leaks it must write to the resident to explain the reasons for this. If the landlord cannot complete these repairs within 28 days, it must set out to the resident (within 28 days of the date of this determination) when the works will be completed. It must then use its best endeavours to ensure the works are completed within that deadline.
  2. Within 28 days of the completion of the repairs to the roof and external structure the landlord must complete a post-works survey to confirm that all the works have been completed and the leaks have been resolved. A copy should be provided to the resident and this service within 10 working days of the date of the property inspection.
  3. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence of how it has complied with all the above orders within 56 days of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord conduct a review of this case to identify learning and improve working practices: this should include consideration of:
    1. how the delays in responding to the repair request (within its control) occurred and how it will make improvements to reduce the likelihood of similar failings happening again
    2. a self-assessment against the recommendations from the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.
  2. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord pay the resident the £75 it previously offered for its handling of the resident’s complaint if it has not already done so.
  3. If the works are chargeable to the residents under the lease, the landlord should consider that it could have fully inspected and completed the works sooner when calculating the service charges for the residents. The residents should not be prejudiced by the landlord’s delays in arranging all the work to be completed promptly.