Southern Housing (202401558)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202401558
Southern Housing
15 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:
- Repairs to a leak which caused a foul smell, damp, and mould.
- The formal complaint.
Background
- The resident is the assured tenant of the property, which is a 2-bedroom flat. The landlord is a housing association. The resident has young children and was pregnant at the time of the complaint.
- On 23 October 2023 the resident reported a leak from her kitchen, and the landlord attended on 30 October 2023 but there was a no access. It attended again on 30 November 2023 following a further leak report on 24 November 2023 and resealed around the kitchen sink. The resident emailed the landlord on 13 December 2023 and said she had reported a leak several times, which was affecting her hallway, children’s bedroom, and the flooring. It raised a repair and attended on 28 December 2023, however it did not find a leak. It raised a new repair for its heating contractor to check for a leak from heating pipework behind the wall. The heating contractor attended on 10 January 2024 but said it needed the landlord to open up the wall so it could inspect.
- The resident emailed the landlord on 16 January 2024 to make a stage 1 complaint, which was about:
- Unsafe living conditions due to a leak, bad smell, and mould growth for around one and a half years, affecting the children’s bedroom, and kitchen.
- The condition of the property was affecting her children’s health.
- The landlord had sent 3 contractors to inspect but they did not solve the issue.
- Wanting the property inspected, leak repaired, mould removed, and compensation. She also asked to be ‘decanted’, or temporarily moved, until the repairs were completed.
- On 18 January 2024 the resident emailed the landlord and said it was not acting quickly to repair the issues. It acknowledged her email the same day. It attended on 22 January 2024 to open up the wall for inspection but there was a no access, and it left a calling card. It attended again the following day to carry out a surveyor’s inspection and said it had not found any leaks, damp, or mould. The resident emailed the landlord the same day and said she was not happy with the inspection, as the surveyor had only been there “for a total of 5 minutes”.
- The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 29 January 2024. It said it would respond by 6 February 2024. However, on 8 February 2024 it emailed her again and asked for an extension of time to respond until 22 February 2024, as it needed additional information. The following day the landlord’s external surveyor sent it their report following an inspection they had carried out on an unknown date. The landlord has not provided a copy of this report to this Service. It completed its own second inspection on 12 February 2024 and noted it had not found a leak, any damp, or foul smell. It confirmed it had used a damp meter as part of the survey.
- On 22 February 2024 the landlord provided its stage 1 response, in which it:
- Set out the repairs history but explained it had not been able to find evidence of any leaks. It had also sent 2 separate surveyors, who had not found any evidence of a leak, damp, or a foul smell. Therefore, it had not scheduled any repairs.
- Apologised for providing incorrect information in its acknowledgment and offered £15 compensation for this.
- The resident called the landlord on 23 February 2024 and asked about the external surveyor’s report. She emailed it on 26 February 2024 and asked to escalate her complaint. She said it had failed to consider the external surveyor’s report, after they had told her there was a leak in the property behind the wall. She said it had failed to include this within its stage 1 response. The landlord acknowledged escalation on 7 March 2024 and requested an extension of time on 22 March 2024. It requested a further extension on 26 April 2024, and the resident chased it for a response 4 times during this period.
- On 7 May 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2 response, in which it:
- Apologised for the “potential leak…mould and strong smells” but it had not been able to resolve these issues, as it had not found evidence of them during inspections. It acknowledged the external surveyor had recommended further duct works but it had not deemed them necessary.
- Said it would organise a further inspection and monitor the situation.
- Apologised for its delay in providing the response and offered increased compensation of £155 for its delay and the inconvenience caused.
Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process
- The landlord’s records say it attended on 22 May 2024, opened up the wall, and found a leak from the main sewage pipework. The resident called the landlord on 24 May 2024 and said she wanted it to complete repairs quickly, as she was due to give birth soon. She emailed it and the council’s environmental health department on 30 May 2024 and said the hole in the wall had left a health and safety hazard, with a sewage leak and rats. She also called the landlord and asked for a decant.
- On 4 June 2024 the landlord organised a decant to a hotel for the resident from that date until 12 June 2024, during which it would complete the repairs. It post inspected the works on 11 June 2024 and confirmed it had completed the repairs and had arranged pest control.
Assessment and findings
Scope of investigation
- The resident has raised through her complaint and contact with this Service that she believes damp, mould, and the foul smell have caused her children to be unwell. The Ombudsman is unable to investigate matters of personal injury as we cannot determine liability or causation, or award damages as a court can. Under paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts.
- While the Ombudsman can consider distress and inconvenience more generally, if the resident does wish to pursue a personal injury claim, she may wish to seek independent legal advice.
The landlord’s handling of repairs to a leak, which caused a foul smell, damp, and mould
- Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure of the property and the installations for the supply of services including water and sanitation. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It classes repairs as either emergency or non-emergency under its repairs policy. It will attend to emergency repairs within 6 hours, and all other repairs “as soon as possible” under the policy, and within a reasonable time under the tenancy agreement.
- When the resident reported a leak in October and November 2023, the landlord attended promptly within 7 and 6 calendar days, respectively, gaining access the second time. It searched for a leak but could not find one. When she raised the issue again in December 2023, the landlord again attended within a reasonable time of 15 calendar days but found no leak. As it thought there could be a hidden heating leak behind a wall, it correctly raised a repair with its heating contractor. Although the heating contractor also attended within a reasonable time of 14 calendar days in January 2024, the landlord did not arrange for its own contractor to open up the wall, which was a failing.
- Following the resident’s stage 1 complaint and further email, the landlord attended again within 6 calendar days in January 2024 to open up the wall but there was a no access. Under its repairs policy, if there is a no access it will try to call the resident, and will then leave a calling card, asking the resident to call it to reschedule. If the landlord does not hear back within 7 days, it will cancel the repair. The landlord did leave a card, but it would have been helpful if it had proactively booked a new appointment.
- The landlord did complete 2 surveyor’s inspections and instructed an external surveyor’s inspection. It failed to produce a report for the first inspection and has not provided a copy of the external surveyor’s inspection report, both of which were failings. There appears to have been a difference of opinions between the landlord’s surveyors and the external surveyor. However, it was entitled to rely on its own surveyors’ professional opinions, in the absence of conclusive evidence to the contrary, and it did complete a report following the second inspection, with evidence and reasoned conclusions. It had not found evidence of the leak or any damp or mould to treat.
- After the stage 2 response, and further reports and chasing by the resident, the landlord opened up the wall after 15 calendar days in May 2024 and discovered the sewage pipe leak. If it had followed up on the previous no access, it could have discovered the leak sooner. Although opening up a wall is an intrusive measure, it had previously agreed to do this, and so it should have done so within a reasonable time. Positively, albeit again after further contact from the resident, it did decant her family and complete the repairs within a reasonable timeframe of 20 calendar days in June 2024.
- Overall, there was maladministration. The landlord had suspected a leak behind the wall in December 2023 but only discovered it after almost 5 months in May 2024. Although it would have opened up the wall much sooner had there not been a no access, it should have been proactive in rebooking the appointment. In addition, its communication with the resident was poor and she had to chase it repeatedly for it to take various steps and, on several occasions, she did not receive a reply, or the call backs requested. To reflect the inconvenience, distress, time and trouble caused, an order has been made that the landlord pay £500 compensation to the resident. This is in line with our guidance on remedies’ recommended range for failures that adversely affected the resident.
The landlord’s handling of the formal complaint
- When the resident made her stage 1 complaint in January 2024, the landlord did not formally acknowledge it until 9 working days later, in breach of its complaints policy’s requirement to acknowledge within 5 working days. It said it would respond within 15 working days, which it later corrected to 17 working days and then requested an extension of time. This was contrary to its policy timeframe of 10 working days from the date of acknowledgement. It did positively respond within its 10-working day extension in February 2024. Within its stage 1 response, it apologised for the incorrect date within its acknowledgement and offered £15 compensation. However, it failed to acknowledge its policy timeframe breaches.
- The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s February 2024 escalation request within its 5 working days policy timeframe. Its first extension of response time request after 19 working days in March 2024 was late, and it then requested a second extension without exceptional circumstances or good reason, and there is no evidence the resident agreed to this, which was a failing. It provided its May 2024 stage 2 response after 48 working days, in breach of its policy’s and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code’s 20-working day timeframes. Within its stage 2 response, it accepted its failings, apologised, and offered £155 compensation.
- In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
- The landlord accepted its complaint handling failings within its stage 2 response, apologised, and offered compensation which is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies’ recommended range for such failures that had no permanent impact. There was reasonable redress.
Determination
- In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to a leak which caused a foul smell, damp, and mould.
- In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.
Orders
- Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
- Provide a written apology to the resident for the maladministration detailed in this report.
- Pay directly to the resident £500 compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling of repairs to a leak which caused a foul smell, damp, and mould.
Recommendations
- It is recommended that the landlord pay the £155 compensation it offered within its stage 2 response directly to the resident if it has not already done so.
Paragraph 49 investigation
- The Ombudsman completed a special investigation report in May 2024 into the landlord using its systemic powers under paragraph 49 of the Scheme. It found the landlord responsible for a series of significant systemic failings impacting residents. These included in complaint handling, repair response delays, and poor knowledge and information management.
- The Ombudsman required the landlord to make changes including improvements to its repair timescales and monitoring and complaint handling. As the events of the current complaint took place before and during the time of that investigation, no orders or recommendations have been made in addition to those made within the special report.