Southern Housing Group Limited (202206678)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206678

Southern Housing Group Limited

21 June 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 reports of a leak by the front door, damp and mould, and damage caused to the resident’s door as a result.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property which is a flat.
On 17 February 2022 the resident wrote to her MP to raise the following issues:
1. She had contacted the landlord several times about a leak from the downpipe outside her front door. She said the leak had caused her front door to become swollen and she struggled to open and close it. She stated it was a health and safety issue. She said the landlord had cut the door which led to a strong draught in the property during the winter and an increase in heating bills.
2. The damp in the property had become worse and she now had fungus inside her front door. The resident said she lived with her 2 children aged 1 and 9 and she was worried about them getting asthma and slipping due to the water ingress.
3. The landlord had not responded to her, she said it had been 3 months since her last report and the problems were getting worse every day.
4. She said she had health conditions, that the smell was unexplainable, and her living conditions were not habitable.
The resident attached images of the problem and asked if the MP could look into the problems on her behalf.
The MP raised the concerns with the landlord and the landlord responded to the MP on 5 March 2022. It stated that a job was first raised on 19 May 2021 in which a CCTV survey was requested and following this there were no further leaks. It said a job was raised again on 14 January 2022 for another CCTV survey and an appointment had been made for 14 March 2022. On 17 March 2022 it wrote to the MP again to state that the survey had taken place, the problem was identified, and the works had been completed.
The resident disputed that the works were completed and asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 6 June 2022. She said she had started wheezing and her doctor thought it could be linked to the damp and mould. She described the mould as “like a fungus on the wall”, and said the surveyor was surprised at the extent of the damage. The resident reported a constant pool of water on her floor. She said the water entered under the door causing it to swell and she still had difficulties opening and closing it, which was a fire hazard. She asked the landlord to arrange for works to be done.
On 27 June 2022, the landlord wrote to the MP and stated that following a survey at the resident’s property, it attended on 20 April 2022, and this then led to follow on works. It said a quote was provided for the repairs; however, it concluded that further investigation was required to ensure the repairs resolved the issue. It said a displaced joint caused water to escape the system and the resident would be contacted in relation to that.
The resident continued to raise and chase the issues with the landlord throughout 2022 and the landlord provided a stage 2 response on 27 February 2023. It stated the following:
1. It apologised for the delays incurred in resolving the leak and damage to the resident’s property. It provided an overview of the repairs history. It said the leak was reported and assessed on various occasions but was not fully resolved due to the complex nature of the leak from the underground pipe.
2. It fully upheld the complaint as the resident had experienced damp, mould and ongoing leaks for over 2 years. It said there may also be a leak from the balcony in the flat above causing water ingress into the resident’s home and an appointment to inspect had been scheduled for 7 March 2023.
3. It was awaiting a damp report from the surveyor so it could proceed with the damp and mould treatment to the affected areas in the home. It would fully investigate the leak from the flat above to ensure the resident’s home was not affected by water damage prior to any damp and mould treatment.
4. A letter provided by the resident’s GP did not affirm any current medical issues affecting the resident as a result of the home.
5. It assured the resident that it was taking a rapidly reactive approach towards treating any properties affected by damp and mould.
6. The complaint response was delayed due to the complexities with the leaks.
7. It offered a total of £755 in compensation, broken down as follows:
  1. £600 for the delays in resolving the leaks.
  2. £30 for the repeat visits and the resident having to repeatedly contact the landlord.
  3. £50 for the repair delays.
  4. £50 for the complaint handling delays.
  5. £25 for its failure to respond within timescales.
8. It provided an action plan which was for all outstanding work to be completed by the end of March 2023. The outstanding work identified was to resolve the leak from the balcony above, replace the front door, and carry out decoration works to the internal parts affected.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said the leak was ongoing and she would like the issue to be resolved once and for all. The resident also referred to work she had paid for to address some of the issues herself and said she would like to be reimbursed for that.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman notes that records for the leak, damp and mould date back to 2020. Paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of normally 12 months of the matter arising. As the resident made a formal complaint on 6 June 2022, the investigation will not consider the events prior to 6 June 2021 as they did not occur within 12 months of the complaint.
While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident has experienced. The report will also consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the condition of the property was affecting her health and whether its response was reasonable in view of all the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak by the front door, damp and mould, and damage caused to the resident’s door as a result.

Social landlords are expected to provide housing to residents which meet the definition of a decent home. The standard of a decent home from 2006, is that:
1. It is in a reasonable state of repair.
2. It has reasonably modern facilities and services.
3. It provides a reasonable degree of thermal comfort.
4. It meets the current statutory minimum for housing. Dwellings which do not are those containing one or more hazards assessed as serious (Category 1) under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
The HHSRS sets the minimum standard for housing safety. It lists 29 common hazards, the impacts these hazards can have, and the possible causes. There is advice for landlords on how to categorise the hazards as category 1 (requiring urgent repair) or category 2 (repair if needed). Relevant to this complaint, it provides advice on damp and mould, excess cold, and unsafe doors.
The landlord’s repairs policy categorises repairs as follows: emergency (within 24 hours), routine (as quickly as possible) and communal (as quickly as possible). It confirms that the landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior of the property.
As there are several issues relating to this complaint point the Ombudsman has decided for ease of reading, to address each element under separate subheadings.

Leak by the front door

The landlord’s records show a job was raised on 18 January 2022 for a CCTV survey of the leaking pipe. It is unclear why this was not actioned until 16 March 2022, 3 months after it was reported. The resident said she had reported the leak several times, that it was causing her front door to swell, and it resulted in damp and mould in the property. The delays in investigating the leak were not appropriate, especially given the water ingress was ongoing during the colder, wetter winter months.
The landlord confirmed on 17 March 2022 that the problem had been identified and the works were completed. The resident disputed this, she said the landlord checked the pipe and confirmed it was damaged but no work was carried out. In the absence of detailed notes on the repair records it is unclear what action took place on 17 March 2022. However, the resident said she had contacted the landlord since then and the landlord should have confirmed its position on the matter. In an internal email on 6 June 2022 the landlord stated that the resident had requested an update a few times, but no one had gotten back to her. This was a failing and caused unnecessary time and trouble in the resident seeking a response.
From the formal complaint in June 2022 to the landlord’s stage 2 response in February 2023, the evidence showed the landlord took the following action in relation to the leak:
1. The landlord confirmed on 27 June 2022 that it had raised a job for the displaced joint causing water to escape.
2. The landlord’s job repair notes stated that excavation works to rectify the damaged pipework would take place on 24 August 2022. It is unclear whether work was carried out on 24 August 2022 and internal emails showed the landlord querying this with little response.
3. On 4 November 2022, an internal email stated that a drainage job was completed on 13 September 2022. This is not included in the landlord’s repair record and it is unclear whether this assisted with the leak.
4. On 16 November 2022, a job was raised for a “collar to external soil stack by the front door dripping please carry out visual inspection and advise”. The records do not confirm if or when this took place.
In its stage 2 response the landlord fully upheld the complaint but said delays could be attributed to the specialist works required. Keeping accurate records would have allowed the landlord to evidence its actions in this case and whether the repair was indeed so complex that it was taking years to resolve. From the information provided, the Ombudsman is not able to conclude that this was the case. The Ombudsman expects the landlord to keep a robust record of contacts, decisions, actions and repairs, to allow it to use information and knowledge in an appropriate and effective way. It is a concern that more detailed records were not provided and it remains unclear where the leak was coming from.
The landlord’s failure to provide the resident with reassurances that the repair was being managed resulted in the resident involving her MP and submitting a formal complaint. The landlord acknowledged that it should have handled its contact with the resident more efficiently. It is positive that the landlord recognised its failings, however, it did not outline what action would be taken moving forward. The handling of the resident’s complaint is addressed in a separate section of this report, however the lack of information regarding the status of the leak at the time was not appropriate and would have caused further frustration to the resident.
In its stage 2 response the landlord stated that there may be a leak from the balcony above causing water ingress into the resident’s home and an appointment had been scheduled for 7 March 2023. It is unclear how the landlord reached this conclusion as the Ombudsman has not seen any other records or reports in relation to this other leak. The landlord has not provided an update to the Ombudsman in relation to the potential leak, however, the resident has stated that no repair work was carried out. An order will be made for the landlord to investigate all current leaks impacting the resident’s property.
It should be noted that it can take more than 1 attempt to resolve issues such as leaks as it can be difficult to identify the cause of an issue. However, in this case, the delays were extensive and unreasonable. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. While replacing the front door has stopped the water ingress for now, if the leaks are left unresolved, the resident’s property and other properties may become impacted again. As stated, an order will be made for the landlord to investigate all current leaks impacting the resident’s property and create an action plan for how it intends to resolve the issue.

Damp and mould

The landlord’s repair records show the landlord raised a job for an inspection of the damp on 2 March 2022. While it is positive that a job was raised, it was unclear what action had been taken by the landlord, if any. In her formal complaint, the resident said she had started wheezing, she said the mould was like a fungus on the wall and the surveyor was surprised at the extent of the damage. While the resident referred to the surveyor’s surprise, there are no records from the landlord to show that it responded to or took any action in relation to the damp and mould at the time, which is a failing.
Aside from the leaks, the landlord had a responsibility to resolve the damp and mould in the property. Following the reports made, the landlord should have attended the property to assess the risks to the household. When doing so, the landlord should have considered the vulnerabilities in the household, the draught created by the door, the water ingress, and the extent of the mould. By carrying out these actions, the landlord would have evidenced that it considered whether the property was of a decent standard, and it is not appropriate that this was not done.
While it is acknowledged that it would be difficult to fully address the damp and mould without resolving the leaks, it is a failing that the landlord did not consider any attempts to mitigate the issue such as the use of dehumidifiers or a mould wash. An internal email on 2 November 2022 stated that a mould wash was required to the internal window frame and hallways, however, the landlord’s records do not indicate whether it took place.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said it was awaiting a damp and mould report. It also stated that it was taking a rapidly reactive approach towards treating any properties affected by damp and mould. The Housing Ombudsman Spotlight report on damp and mould highlights the importance of moving from a reactive to proactive approach to damp and mould. In this case, the resident had been reporting the issue for years and there is little evidence of the landlord showing any sufficient urgency or proactive approach to address it, which is not acceptable.
The resident has informed the Ombudsman that following the door replacement, there is no longer water ingress into the property, and therefore the damp and mould has improved. However, she recently arranged her own repair for the damaged plaster in the hallway. She said this was due to the landlord’s lack of action in relation to the damp and mould and her concerns for the health and safety of the household. The landlord’s internal correspondence and survey report from March 2023 showed that it identified the mould and damaged plaster in the hallway as an issue. The Ombudsman therefore finds it reasonable, upon the provision of receipts, to order the landlord to reimburse the resident for the costs incurred to her, as it did not address the issue within a reasonable timeframe.
Overall, the landlord failed to adequately investigate and respond to the resident’s reports of the damp and mould in the property. The failures of the landlord caused detriment to the resident who was understandably concerned about the effect the issue would have on her own and her children’s health.

Damage caused to the door

The resident reported that her front door was affected by the leak and said it was a health and safety issue as she struggled to open and close it. She said the landlord had also cut the door which led to a draught into the property and an increase in her heating bills. The MP raised these concerns with the landlord on 5 March 2022. While the landlord provided a response regarding the leaks, it did not provide a response to the door, which is a failing.
It is unclear when the door was first cut by the landlord and whether the landlord considered that to be a long term solution to the problem. However, throughout 2022, the resident referred to the health and safety risks linked to the door and it was not until 16 November 2022 when a job was raised to “ease and adjust front door”. It is unclear what action was taken at that point and whether it remedied the issue. A further job was raised on 27 February 2023 to replace the existing door and the door was not replaced until after the stage 2 response. As such, the delays in carrying out this repair were not appropriate.
In line with its obligations under the HHSRS, the landlord should have assessed the door following the resident’s reports and taken action to remove any hazard posed. The landlord should have also considered the vulnerabilities in the household and any interim measures it could take to ensure the property was warm enough and the door was accessible and weatherproofed. There is no evidence that the landlord carried out these actions. This would have caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident, particularly in the winter months. The landlord also had the opportunity to consider the increase in the resident’s heating bills and it failed to do so.
Overall, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak by the front door, damp and mould, and damage caused to the resident’s door as a result. It was not disputed that there were delays in the landlord’s handling of the leak and damp and mould and the landlord upheld the complaint. It awarded compensation which went some way to put right the inconvenience caused to the resident. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge all its failings, and the distress caused to the resident as a result.
The leak remains unresolved and the landlord has not outlined a clear plan for how it will be remedied. Orders and further compensation will be made to address the additional failings identified.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered

The landlord’s complaint policy provides for a 2 stage complaints procedure. It will respond to a complaint at stage 1 within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2.
The landlord’s compensation procedure states that it will compensate for delays or failure to complete a repair. It also states that it will compensate for service failures in which it failed to deliver a service in line with its standards and/or policy and procedures.
The resident requested that her complaint was escalated to stage 2 on 6 June 2022. The resident had not previously been issued with a stage 1 response; however, it was reasonable that she may have wished to escalate her complaint due to the time taken to fully resolve the issue. It was the landlord’s responsibility to explain to the resident that it must first issue a stage 1 response to which the resident could escalate to stage 2, if she remained unhappy. This would have been in line with the Complaint Handling Code which requires landlords to offer a 2-stage complaint process to ensure it has had sufficient opportunity to put things right before the Ombudsman investigates the matter. The landlord did not issue a stage 1 response to the resident, which was not appropriate.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 27 February 2023, almost 9 months after the resident submitted a complaint. This was a significant delay and the landlord’s explanation for the delay was not acceptable or in line with its policy. It is clear from the landlord’s internal correspondence that there were issues in obtaining updates in relation to the repairs but this should not have resulted in the resident waiting so long for a response. The landlord not only failed to manage the resident’s expectations through the delays, but it also prevented her from being able to approach the Ombudsman sooner. The landlord offered £50 for the delays but its explanation did not imply that it would do anything differently in future.
The stage 2 response was an opportunity for the landlord to put right its failure and resolve the issue for the resident. While it was positive that it outlined an action plan for the outstanding work, the landlord did not confirm whether further action would be taken in relation to the leak. It also could not provide a timescale for resolving the damp and mould which would not have reassured the resident. None of the works identified in the action plan were completed by the target date, which indicates that the landlord failed to learn from its outcome. This was not appropriate.
In line with its compensation policy the landlord offered compensation for its multiple service failures which took place over a protracted period causing distress and inconvenience. While the £755 went some way to acknowledge the failures, further compensation will be awarded for the additional failures identified in this report. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an additional £850 should be awarded in recognition of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident, which is broken down as follows:
1. £200 for the lack of risk assessment throughout the case.
2. £200 for the delays in repairing the door.
3. £200 for the delays in addressing the damp and mould.
4. £100 for the landlord’s failure to consider the resident’s increase in heating bills.
5. £150 for the landlord’s failure to provide a stage 1 response.
Overall, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered.

Special report on Southern Housing

In May 2024, the Ombudsman issued a special report about the landlord, highlighting concerns about its complaint handling, risk management, repair timescales, and knowledge and information management. The report made several recommendations and the landlord was given 3 months to publish and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of how it intends to meet the recommendations. As such, the Ombudsman will not make any further orders in relation to those areas. However, the landlord should ensure it considers the findings highlighted in this investigation against the recommendations made in the special report.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of a leak by the front door, damp and mould, and damage caused to the resident’s door as a result.
2. The complaint and level of compensation offered.

Orders

A senior member of the landlord staff must apologise to the resident for the failings identified.
The landlord must pay a total of £1,605 to the resident. This includes the compensation of £755 already offered.
The landlord must investigate all potential leaks which could impact the resident’s property. Once completed it must inform the resident of its findings and provide an action plan for carrying out any repairs. The action plan should include an estimated timeframe for any works to be completed.
On provision of receipts, the landlord should reimburse the resident for the plastering work carried out in her hallway. It should also confirm its position on the decoration works it said it would carry out in its stage 2 response.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.