Southern Housing Group Limited (202205571)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205571

Southern Housing Group Limited

23 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about his Mechanical Ventilation with Heat Recovery (MVHR) system.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 19 October 2015. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a 2 bedroom, ground floor flat. The resident lives with his partner.
The resident made a formal complaint on 21 December 2021. The key points were as follows:
1. The MVHR unit had not been serviced since 2015. The resident had done research and found a service should be done regularly and the filters should be replaced.
2. The property had a mouldy smell. There was damp and mould on the windows. He had used anti-mould paint, but it had not worked.
3. He had bought a dehumidifier which he felt had worked.
4. He asked for a refund of £2,000, made up of the following:
  1. His electricity energy usage for the previous 5 years, calculated at a 40% refund. The resident worked this out as £3,908. He asked for a 3% increase for each year to account for inflation.
  2. 5 years’ worth of filters which he said cost between £18 and £30.
  3. Anti-mould paint at a cost of £60.
  4. £2 per month from October until April for 5 years for mould removers.
The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 22 January 2022. It summarised the resident’s complaint and said the following:
1. It had spoken to its contractor about the lack of service undertaken on the unit. It confirmed they were due to attend on 4 February 2022.
2. It apologised for the lack of service and said feedback had been provided to its contractor.
3. It confirmed that no issues with damp and mould had been raised with the landlord. It encouraged the resident to report the issues so they could be dealt with.
4. It apologised for the delays which the resident had been subject to. It said for it to consider compensation, the resident would need to send in evidence to support the request.
Following a service undertaken on the MVHR unit on 8 March 2022, a replacement was ordered and fitted into the resident’s property in June 2022.
On 25 July 2022, the resident contacted the landlord as he did not think the unit was working properly; no water could be heard in the pipework. He had contacted the manufacturer who had said the unit should have been installed with a 3 degree tilt.
On 26 August 2022, a contractor attended and confirmed that the unit had not been installed correctly. The contractor explained how the unit worked. They highlighted its difference from a dehumidifier and air conditioning unit. The contractor found that the resident had removed the discharge pipe from the unit. The reason for the dry pipe was, according to the contractor, due to the dry summer, resulting in reduced moisture in the atmosphere.
On 22 September 2022, the contractor attended again, corrected the installation, and confirmed that the unit was working correctly.
On 14 October 2022, the landlord gave its stage 2 response. It gave a timeline of the issues with the MVHR unit. It explained the findings of the contractor’s visit on 26 August 2022. The key points were as follows:
1. It accepted it had delayed in diagnosing the issue and completing repairs to the unit which were elongated due to multiple visits.
2. It accepted there had been delays in its complaint handling as the case was given to a member of staff who had then left the business.
3. The landlord accepted that the MVHR unit should have been serviced regularly. It said the resident did not fully benefit from its installation by not doing so. However, it clarified that no health and safety had been compromised.
4. As the damp and mould had not been report, it did not uphold the complaint in relation to that issue. It said a full inspection of the resident’s home would be done.
The resident was offered compensation of £1,426.04, made up of the following:
1. £976.04 for 25% of the resident’s electric and gas consumption from 2017-2021.
2. £200 for the running cost of the MVHR unit at £40 x 5 years.
3. £100 for service failures.
4. £50 for complaint handling delays.
5. £50 for poor communication.
6. £100 good will gesture.
The landlord agreed to offer a further £207.19 compensation for electric and gas consumption from December 2021 until the unit was fixed in July 2022 after referral to this Service. This makes a total of £1633.22 in compensation offered by the landlord.

Assessment and Findings

Policies and procedures

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles require landlords to:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is right and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure found.

The landlords’ responsive repairs policy states that routine repairs will be done as quickly as possible at a time that suits the resident. It says it will aim to finish the work first time around where possible.

MVHR Unit

The resident’s raised in his complaint that his MVHR unit had never been serviced or had its filters changed. The instructions for the unit say that filters should be replaced annually or after a maximum of 3 cleaning cycles. The landlord would have been aware that the resident had this unit in his property. Therefore, it should have either performed a regular service of the system or explained why it did not consider this to be necessary. However, it did not do either of these things. This action was not in line with its policy, which says that it would keep in good repair and working order any installations provided for space heating.
Moreover, it is concerning that the issue became known only after the resident reported it to the landlord. Internal communications show that the landlord had filed to service the unit because it was not visible on the property. This oversight emphasises the need for landlords to set up robust and effective systems for monitoring the service requirements of property installations. In this instance the resident lived with an un-serviced unit for five years and spent time pursuing a resolution. The resident said he incurred significant operating costs of the unit over an extended period.
Following the resident’s complaint on 21 December 2021, the landlord delayed inspecting the unit until 8 March 2022. Although the landlord’s responsive repairs policy does not specify a timeline for routine repairs, it was inappropriate that it took 3 months to respond. The landlord, unaware of the severity of the mould raised by the resident at the time, should have satisfied itself that the report was not urgent. Although, in its stage 1 response it invited the resident to report any damp and mould, it should have taken the initiative and raised it itself.
Further to this, the landlord has provided no evidence to show that it communicated with the resident during that time to manage his expectations about a visit. Landlords need to ensure they have effective communication with residents to manage their expectations.
It is also important to note that the inspection appointment was originally booked for 4 February 2022; however, following contact from the resident, it became known that the contractor believed that appointment was for a radiator replacement. Landlords need to ensure their communications with contractors are clear and concise to avoid wasted appointments. Not doing so in this instance caused a further delay in completing the repair.
The landlord decided that a new MVHR unit was necessary after the appointment on 8 March 2022. However, the evidence shows that a quote for this replacement was not requested and then approved until 26 April 2022. The new unit was installed on 20 June 2022; 3 months after the replacement was found. The resident continued to live with a defective unit during this extended period. This situation was unacceptable. Landlords must set up effective systems to track and monitor repairs, ensuring prompt ordering and replacement of items. Not doing so, as in this case, can cause frustration for the resident.
The resident said he thought the unit was not working properly and said it had been installed incorrectly after its installation. The landlord appropriately arranged for a contractor to attend to inspect the unit. This would have assured the resident that it was taking his concerns seriously.
On 26 August 2022, the evidence shows, the contractor confirmed the unit needed adjusting to accommodate the 3 degree tilt. The installation instructions explicitly say that the unit should be installed with the tilt. While this was an error on the part of the contractor, the landlord took reasonable steps to put things right and ensure the unit was installed correctly.
On 5 September 2022, the landlord arranged an appointment; 6 working days after the fault was confirmed. The was unable to be confirmed with the resident. Therefore, the repair was completed on 22 September 2022. This was right and in line with its policy which says it will complete repairs will at a time to suit the resident. It is important to note that the landlord later accepted and apologised for the delays in diagnosing and correcting the fault.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged, in its stage 2 response, that the resident had a defective unit for five years. The resident requested a 40% refund of his electric and gas consumption during this period. The landlord asked for evidence of the resident’s energy usage. It was therefore, fitting for the landlord to offer a 25% rebate to the resident, considering that the MVHR unit was unlikely to have caused a 40% increase in the resident’s consumption given the evidence did not support a 40% increase in usage. This offer showed the landlord’s commitment to rectifying the situation.
The landlord, however, did not take into account the period from the first complaint through to when the new unit was installed in July 2022. After intervention from this Service, the landlord offered further compensation to cover this period. However, it did not then consider the extra 2 months it took for the landlord to correct the error in the new unit’s installation. This situation highlights a lack of regard for the inconvenience and extra expense caused to the resident.
Overall, the landlord did not fulfil its obligation to service the unit for five years. It further compounded the issue by delaying the inspection and later replacement of the unit. The situation was worsened by the incorrect installation of a new unit. However, the landlord acknowledged, in its stage 2 response, the failings. It offered compensation to address the issues and the added utility usage incurred by the resident. While it was right for the landlord to make this offer, its failure to accurately calculate the correct amount needed intervention from this Service to mediate a suitable resolution. Therefore, a finding of reasonable redress cannot be made in this case.
Taking into account all the circumstances of the case, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report that his MVHR unit was faulty.
A compensation order is made for £1,873.23, made up of the following:
1. £1,183.23 for 25% of the resident’s electric and gas consumption from 2017 until July 2022.
2. £240 for the running cost of the MVHR unit at £40 per year for 6 years.
3. £150 for the lack of service to the MVHR unit.
4. £100 for the delays in completing the inspection.
5. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Complaint

The resident raised a formal complaint on 21 December 2021 and the landlord, in line with its policy, acknowledged this on 22 December 2021. It said it would provide its response by 13 January 2022. While this was slightly outside of the required 10 working day response time, the landlord appropriately told the resident it would respond by the 13 January 2022 due to the Christmas break. In doing so, it managed the expectations of the resident.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 January 2022 and requested a further extension of 10 working days. This was in line with its policy and the Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which sets out that extensions should not exceed 10 working days, and these should be communicated to a resident.
The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 22 January 2022. This was in line with its 10 working day extension request and therefore reasonable.
The resident contacted this Service on 20 June 2022 and said he had not received a response from the landlord since 18 December 2021. While the landlord and resident had been in contact during that time, it was right that following contact from this Service, the landlord logged and acknowledged the request as a stage 2 escalation.
A response at stage 2 was due by 21 July 2022. Where this deadline cannot be met, the landlord must, in line with the Code, communicate that to the resident and provide a response within a further 10 working days. No evidence has been provided to show that the landlord communicated any delay to the resident. This is unsatisfactory and not in line with dispute resolution principles.
While the landlord initially spoke to the resident on 25 July 2022, there is no evidence to show that a delay in complaint handling was communicated to the resident. The landlord later tried to contact the resident on 28 September 2022, as well as on 3 and 5 October 2022, when it emailed the resident to discuss the complaint. While it is right for the landlord to engage in communication with the resident about the complaint, a delayed response due to lack of contact is unacceptable. It would have also been proper for the landlord to have considered alternative contact methods given that email contact was not proving successful. Furthermore, the attempted contact occurred two months after the stage 2 response was due. This was unsatisfactory and likely frustrated the resident.
The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 14 October 2022; 60 working days after it was due. The landlord said the delay was due to its complaint handler leaving the business with no notice. While the Ombudsman understands the pressures on landlords, the landlord needs to ensure its systems in place monitor complaints effectively to ensure where there are delays these are communicated to residents to manage their expectations.
While the landlord did apologise for the delays in its response and offered compensation of £50 to reflect this, the amount offered does not reflect the failings shown in this case.
Overall, the landlord followed its policy at stage 1 in managing the expectations of the resident and communicating its delays. However, it did not do this at stage 2 and the resident was left waiting for a resolution to his issue. Not only was the delay outside of the required timescale, but the delay was also never communicated to the resident.
Therefore, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
Considering the circumstances of the case, a compensation order has been made for £100, made up of the following:
1. £50 for the delay in responding at stage 2.
2. £50 for the lack of communication at stage 2.

Determination

In accordance with section 52 of the scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about his MVHR unit.
In accordance with section 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must:
1. Pay compensation to the resident of £1,973.23. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £1,426.04. This amount (less any amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offer) must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.
2. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings found in this report. This must be from a senior member of staff and follow the guidance on apologies as set out in the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the orders within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.