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

Southern Housing (202402586)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202402586

Southern Housing Group Limited

4 November 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 repairs to the resident’s immersion heater.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. Her tenancy started on 6 June 2022. The property is a one-bedroom apartment situated in a 3-story block. Hot water is provided by an immersion heater (referred to by different parties as ‘the boiler’ or ‘hot water cylinder’). For this report, it will be referred to solely as the immersion heater. It is to be noted the property has an electric shower, which does not require water to be heated by the immersion heater for a hot shower.
  2. The resident had a previous complaint determined by this service in January 2024. This was in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs identified during the void inspection. The void inspection did not note a repair was required for the immersion heater. Following the determination, the resident mentioned the ongoing issue with her immersion heater in a call with this service on 25 January 2024. She said:
    1. She had reported issues with the immersion heater to the landlord from June 2022.
    2. She was unhappy that the landlord repaired, rather than replaced, the immersion heater.
    3. She raised a formal complaint on 25 September 2023 that the immersion heater regularly broke down and she wanted a permanent fix.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 23 February 2024. It said its contractor had completed multiple repairs, and each time the immersion heater was left in working order. It also said it: had raised a follow-on work order for its contractor to investigate the repeated issues; offered £70 compensation to acknowledge its failure to respond within its timescales and poor complaint handling.
  4. The resident escalated the complaint and said she had started a legal disrepair claim on 2 March 2024. She said she was unhappy with the response as the immersion heater was still faulty and constantly broke down. The contractor said the resident had requested the inspection scheduled for 18 March 2024 be postponed. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 20 March 2024, in which it said:
    1. It had booked an inspection for its contractor to attend on 10 April 2024 to find the underlying cause of the issue.
    2. It offered £100 compensation made up of: £50 for inconvenience, time, and trouble; and £50 for poor complaint handling.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. Due to the legal disrepair claim, the landlord’s disrepair surveyor attended on 10 April 2024. It is to be noted the contractor tried to attend the same day, but did not complete their inspection. The disrepair surveyor’s report concluded there was an issue with the immersion heater. She recommended further assessment be completed to ensure there were no faults, and a further repair be completed. She noted the contractor’s appointment scheduled for the same day had been rearranged to 29 May 2024. The original contractor inspection for 18 March 2024 was rescheduled by the landlord, at the resident’s request, on at least 5 occasions before it attended on 29 July 2024.
  2. In a call with this service on 3 September 2024, the resident said:
    1. She continued to suffer from immersion heater outages/lack of hot water.
    2. An inspection had shown the immersion heater to be faulty and needed replacing.
    3. She used other facilities for hot water such as the gym.
    4. She believed her energy costs had increased by having to use the boost button on the immersion heater.
  3. The resident said the landlord completed further repairs to the immersion heater on 9 September 2024. She said she was waiting for the landlord to respond in relation to the ongoing disrepair claim, and did not say whether the completed repairs resolved her complaint. 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said she had reported issues with the immersion heater to the landlord since June 2022. There is no evidence of a formal complaint being made in relation to the immersion heater until 25 September 2023. This service encourages residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, normally within 12 months of the issues arising, so that the landlord can consider them whilst they are still ‘live’ and whilst the evidence is available to properly investigate (reflected at paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme). Therefore, we would reasonably consider events from September 2022 onwards, 12 months prior to the formal complaint.
  2. In July 2023, the Ombudsman carried out an investigation into the landlord under paragraph 49 of the Scheme, which allows us to conduct investigations beyond individual complaints to establish whether there is evidence of a systemic failing within a landlord. It reviewed findings of complaints made to the landlord between June and October 2023 and identified common points of failure such as repairs and complaints handling. We also considered complaints brought to the Ombudsman’s attention since June 2023 to give an indication of current issues raised by residents. The report made recommendations for improvements to be made and was published in May 2024 and can be viewed here Southern Housing P49 Report (the P49 report).
  3. The events in this case took place around the period covered by the report, and some of the findings are relevant to this case and are referred to herein. We have not made any orders or recommendations which would duplicate those already made to the landlord in the Ombudsman’s report.
  4. The resident has initiated the pre-action protocol for disrepair claims (unclear exactly when) and is in contact with the landlord in that regard, although the Ombudsman understands no legal proceedings have yet been issued.

Landlord’s handling of repairs to the immersion heater.

  1. The resident’s occupancy agreement says the landlord is responsible to keep in good repair and working order any installation provided for space and water heating. It says the resident must: report any repairs to the landlord, for which it is responsible, as soon as they are aware; allow the landlord’s staff and contractors access to the property at all reasonable hours of the day to complete any repairs.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy says:
    1. An emergency repair is anything which could cause immediate risk to health, safety, and security of the resident. Emergency repairs could include heating loss between 31 October and 30 April and should be completed within 6 hours of the emergency repair report.
    2. If a repair is not an emergency, it will arrange an appointment for ‘as soon as possible’ at a time that suits the resident. The policy does not set out a timeframe how long non-emergency repairs should take, but says it aims to complete the repair in one visit.
    3. If there is no access, it leaves a card which asks the resident to make contact. If no contact is received in 7 days, the repair is cancelled.
  3. In relation to repairs, the P49 report identified that there was a lack of proactive management of the repairs process by the landlord. It highlighted there were common issues of delays, missed appointments and poor communication.
  4. It is good practice for a landlord to maintain accurate, contemporaneous records on reports it receives, and its actions in response. This enables it to effectively manage any issues raised by its residents as well as fulfilling its obligations as a landlord. Neither the landlord nor the Ombudsman can properly investigate and respond to complaints without accurate and comprehensive records and this could result in unfairness to the resident. Whilst the record keeping in this case was overall of a good standard, there were a number of appointments (October 2022, July 2023 when the resident said the immersion heater was fixed, 30 October 2023, 5 December 2023 and 29 January 2024) where there was no record of what happened. It has therefore not been possible to fully understand what action was taken at every stage of the handling of the repair, which has impacted our ability to carry out a thorough investigation.
  5. The landlord raised a repair on 27 September 2022 to repair the immersion heater controller. It attended on 12 October 2022 and completed the repair. The following day the resident reported the immersion heater did not heat water automatically during the night in off peak hours. The landlord’s repair log showed it raised a follow-on repair, but the repair was cancelled on 24 October 2022. It is not clear whether the landlord attended, however there was no evidence the resident followed up the repair or raised it again. This suggests the repair was cancelled in line with its policy.
  6. It is not clear exactly when, but the evidence suggests the resident started a disrepair claim in relation to the immersion heater condition (and with the property windows). There was no evidence she had raised further repairs (in line with the tenancy agreement obligations) or followed up the cancelled repair from October 2022. The landlord’s disrepair surveyor attended and completed his report on 7 February 2023. The surveyor concluded the hot water issue was caused by user error, rather than a defect with the immersion heater. It is reasonable for the landlord to action the expert advice of suitably qualified surveyors. In the absence of expert evidence to contradict the surveyor’s opinion, we cannot conclude he was incorrect. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to not raise any further repairs based on the expert opinion it received. 
  7. There was no evidence of any further issues until 22 March 2023 when the resident reported no hot water. The repair records showed the contractor promptly attended the following day. However it did not complete the repair in 1 visit as its policy aims to do, instead a follow-on work order was raised to repair a faulty timer. The landlord’s policy does not set out a timeframe for how long non-emergency repairs should take. It is not clear if the landlord had offered to complete the repair any sooner. However, the landlord’s records show that a repair was completed on 26 April 2023. This was 25 working days after the issue was raised. This was reasonable, and in line with what this service would expect for a routine repair.
  8. The resident reported no hot water from the immersion heater and the timer not working on 19 June 2023. The landlord’s repair records showed its contractor tried to attend on 28 June 2023 and 18 July 2023. It could not access the property so left no access cards. It is not clear if the resident chased the repair, however the evidence suggests this repair was then cancelled in line with its policy.
  9. Another repair for the same issue was raised shortly afterwards on 24 July 2023. There was no record of the repair, but resident told this service the immersion heater was fixed in July, but believed it was due to solicitor involvement. The contractor did attend on 14 August 2023 but noted the resident refused access as she wanted the appointment cancelled. This was possibly because the repair had already been competed.
  10. The resident raised a complaint on 25 September 2023 after she reported she had no hot water again. The contractor attended on 5 October 2023, which was a reasonable timeframe to attend. It found no electrical issues but raised follow-on work for a part replacement. This again meant the repair was not completed in 1 visit as per its policy. The contractor tried to attend on 20 October 2023 but could not access the property.
  11. The resident said the landlord sent a surveyor out in October 2023 (unclear when). She said the surveyor agreed the immersion heater was faulty. No documentation has been provided to support this position, but further repairs were raised on 30 October 2023 to change the heating element for the hot water. In the absence of any evidence, it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange further repairs. The contractor emailed the resident on 15 November 2023 and confirmed it had rearranged the repair appointment for 5 December 2023 following her contact. It subsequently attended and replaced a faulty thermostat control panel.
  12. However, 2 days later the resident emailed the landlord and said the contractors had replaced the thermostat control panel, instead of the thermostat coil as advised by the surveyor. She said once heated up, the water would go cold after a few hours whereas previously it lasted 2 days. The contractor attended on 22 January 2024, 29 working days later, and completed repairs. There was no evidence to confirm if the heating element that was identified as needing to be replaced in October 2023 was changed in the appointments of December 2023 or January 2024. Had the communication been better between the surveyor and contractor, this repair could have been avoided which was a failing.
  13. On 28 January 2024, the resident emailed the landlord again and said the immersion heater had broken and had not been repaired properly. She said the reset button tripped the immersion heater. The landlord’s electrician attended promptly the next day which was reasonable. The resident said he said the whole cylinder for the immersion heater “needed to be replaced and was probably faulty.” However, there was also no evidence of this repair appointment, and no documentation provided to support this position. It is unclear whether the electrician completed the repair first time in line with policy. 
  14. The evidence showed the landlord acted in line with its responsibilities detailed in the tenancy agreement and gave 48 hours’ notice in writing that access was required. The Ombudsman acknowledges internal emails where the resident cancelled appointments due to work commitments. However, she was responsible to allow access for repairs as per her tenancy agreement. The evidence showed a repeat pattern of cancelled or rescheduled appointments at her request which contributed to the delays. Landlords are expected to respond to repair requests and complaints in a timely manner, but residents are also expected to use reasonable efforts to pursue such matters and maintain ownership where they consider there to be undue delays. There was little evidence she chased the repairs on a daily or weekly basis with a high degree of urgency. It is not possible to say with any certainty why this was. The resident said she used the gym for hot water. It is not clear when or how often she did so. The evidence suggests she was able to have hot showers that did not require hot water from the immersion heater, so therefore may not have considered the lack of hot water from the immersion heater to be a pressing issue.  
  15. The landlord has a limited budget and a responsibility to manage its resources effectively, so it is common practice for heating to be repaired rather than replaced wherever possible. The evidence showed repairs were not completed on the first visit in March and October 2023 in line with policy. There was also communication issues between parties. The contractor attended on 14 August 2023 when a repair appeared to have already been completed, and there was a further communication issue between the surveyor and contractors with what needed to be done for the repair as the wrong part was replaced. 
  16. There were delays between 7 December 2023 and 22 January 2024, and a further delay between 29 January 2024 and when the landlord raised an inspection on 22 February 2024 (when it used its complaints process to resolve the issue). Given the resident had raised a complaint (which had not been responded to), and the history of repairs, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to prioritise the issue at this point, which was a failing.
  17. However, overall, the landlord was responsive in its handling of the resident’s reports. The issues repaired in March and July 2023 with the timer, and in December 2023 and January 2024 with the thermostat, did not appear to be linked. Whilst there was not a total loss of hot water to the property, the resident still incurred inconvenience by the frequent issues.
  18. It was identified in October 2023 the heating element needed to be replaced, but there was no evidence the landlord did so. The surveyor’s report from April 2024 recommended the heating element be replaced which suggests it was not done. Given the frequency of reports, it would have been reasonable for a thorough investigation of the immersion heater to be completed prior to the complaints process. Further, there were communication issues between parties and incomplete record keeping which appeared to have added to the confusion. There was no evidence it explained how to use the immersion heater to the resident and could have done more to arrange appointments at a convenient time.
  19. 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.
  20. There were delays in completing repairs, although not all due to the landlord. There was also poor record keeping and communication between parties. There was therefore service failure in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the immersion heater. The landlord failed to address the detriment to the resident and its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. An order for £100 compensation has been made to replace the landlord’s previous offer of £50 (if the £50 has already been paid, the landlord should pay the resident a further £50).

Complaint Handling

  1. In relation to complaint handling, the P49 report identified that the landlord did not appropriately recognise complaints and had an informal approach to handling complaints. It also found there were delays in responding to or progressing complaints. The evidence showed this was the same in this case. The resident received a complaint acknowledgement on 2 October 2023. She requested the complaint escalation on 30 January 2024, but she had still not received a stage 1 response at this point. The landlord’s complaints policy says it aims to give a full stage 1 response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement date. However, the stage 1 response was not sent until 101 working days later. It is not clear what the reason for the delay was, however, the delay was a failing. This meant the landlord unreasonably delayed in using its complaints process to resolve the issue at the earliest opportunity for the resident.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy says a stage 2 response will be sent within 20 working days of the acknowledgement of the escalation. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate the complaint on 7 March 2024 and sent its response 9 working days later which was a significant improvement.
  3. The £70 compensation offer in the stage 1 response was not broken down. It was therefore unclear how much of the compensation awarded was for failure to respond in timescales and unsatisfactory complaint handling.  It was also unclear whether this was accepted, or whether the landlord then increased the compensation offer to £100 in the stage 2 response, but did not specify whether to inconvenience, time and trouble was just in relation to the complaint handling, or whether it was for the overall inconvenience.
  4. In any case, while the landlord acknowledged some failings and made some attempt to put things right (in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles), it failed to fully address the detriment to the resident and neither offer it made was not proportionate to the failings identified. As a result, there was maladministration and further action is needed to resolve this complaint satisfactorily. An order has been made the landlord pay £250 compensation to replace the £50 awarded in the landlord’s stage 2 response. (If the £50 has already been paid, the landlord should pay the resident £200) to acknowledge any distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the immersion heater.
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £350 (less any compensation already paid). 
    2. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this service.

Recommendation

  1. Should the immersion heater continue to require repairs, the landlord should consider its position as to whether it may benefit both parties to upgrade the immersion heater/heating in the property.
  2. The landlord should continue to implement the recommendations made as part of this service’s P49 Report published in May 2024.