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

Southern Housing Group Limited (202209926)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209926

Southern Housing Group Limited

20 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. handling of major works of the resident’s block.
    2. response to the residents reports of damp and mould.
  2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder. The property is a 3-bedroom third floor flat of a 9-storey building. The resident lives with her son who has autism. The resident suffers from insomnia and depression. The landlord was the head leaseholder of the property but not the freeholder of the building. The freeholder of the building employed a managing agent, who appointed a contractor to carry out cladding replacement on the building.
  2. On 16 February 2022, the freeholder notified all users of the building that it would begin cladding replacement works on 28 February 2022. It noted that tenants would have restricted access to the balconies and its contractor would have a liaison officer when works begin. On 19 July 2022, the contractor replaced netting around the building with plastic sheeting.
  3. On 02 August 2022, the resident complained to the landlord that it was unresponsive, failed to look after, and represent its residents. She said that the building was unliveable because of the lack of light and access to fresh air. She said that the building was like a greenhouse, and she was unhappy that the landlord had cancelled a scheduled visit to the building on 28 July 2022. She said that there was a strong chemical smell in the property, which the site manager had said was glue. She reported that her son has autism and suffered anxiety because of the unexpected change and that she suffered insomnia and depression and needed access to daylight.
  4. As a resolution to the complaint, she wanted the plastic sheeting replaced with netting and a copy of a Health and Safety Executive (HSE) certificate to show the building was safe. If this was not possible, she wanted the landlord to rehome her.
  5. On 12 October 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint. It advised that it was not responsible for the building works, however it worked closely with stakeholders to represent the interests of its residents. It ensured that the terms of the lease were complied with, and residents were kept informed.
  6. It advised that it had updated its website on 19 April 2022 with a timeline of works and informed that plastic sheeting would be added to complete the works. It said that while the works were disruptive, they were essential. It surveyed the temperature in early August 2022 and stated that works were due to be completed in December 2022. It provided a link to its website which provided updates on the works.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint the next day. She said that the landlord did not provide a reason for the delay in the complaint response and that it was delaying the complaint process until the works were complete. She said that the landlord did not consider the impact the works were having on her family especially given the vulnerabilities. She said that its website stated that the works should be complete in November. She sought compensation for all the damage the issues had caused her and her family, stating that she had to relocate for 5 weeks because of the heatwave.
  8. On 31 December 2022, the resident reported to the landlord, the freeholder, and the managing agent, that mould had appeared in the flat 2 weeks previously and said that it had to be because of the building works. On 3 January 2022, the contractor visited the property and concluded that the mould was because of the delay in completing the cladding repairs.
  9. On 13 March 2023, the landlord provided it stage 2 complaint response. It partially upheld the complaint. It accepted that updating information on its website could have been co-ordinated better with the stakeholders involved in the project, the landlord should have informed the resident when the netting was changed to plastic sheeting, it said that it could have given more consideration to signposting the resident for alternative assistance given the impact the works were having on her son. It acknowledged there were complaint handling delays and offered £100 compensation.
  10. When the resident brought her complaint to this Service, as a resolution to the complaint she wanted the landlord to compensate her for the impact that the major works had on her mental health, and she wanted the landlord to relocate her if the works extended beyond April 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident complained about how the major works were handled. In accordance with paragraph 41 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters which do not relate to the actions and omissions by a member of the Scheme. The landlord was not responsible for organising or managing the major works, this was the freeholder’s responsibility. This investigation has considered the landlord’s communication between all parties and how it handled the resident’s concerns about the impact caused to her.
  2. As a resolution to the complaint the resident wanted the landlord to provide compensation for the impact on her mental health caused by its failings. This Service cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. However, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s handling of major works of the resident’s block

  1. The resident’s contract is with the landlord. When the resident raised concerns about the building works it would be reasonable to expect pro-active engagement from the landlord with stakeholders responsible for the works and raise these concerns on behalf of the resident. It would be reasonable to expect effective communication with the resident while considering her individual circumstances.  
  2. The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 August 2022 setting out the freeholder’s obligations to carry out the works and that it was liaising with the freeholder and its contractors to provide information on the works. It signposted a dedicated website which was updated on 19 April 2022 advising that the plastic sheeting would be part of the works. The letter said that it had visited the site last week and took temperature readings. It said that it would continue to provide any updates it receives via its website. It would not be offering alternative accommodation as the works had not restricted access to the properties. It advised the residents to speak with environmental health if they believe works have impacted on their ability to live in the property.
  3. This Service was not provided with records of communication between the landlord and the relevant stakeholders, records from internal meetings, or site visits. While the letter to the resident is an indication that it took action to address the resident’s concerns, this Service cannot reasonably determine if the landlord represented the best interests of the resident.
  4. It is not clear if the landlord raised the resident’s individual concerns and circumstances about the HSE certificate, temperature, lack of daylight, fresh air, the chemical smell, and considered if there were any short-term solutions for the resident. While it may not have been possible to provide any solutions, due to the scale of the works, the landlord has not demonstrated that it communicated the resident’s concerns to the relevant stakeholders for consideration of solutions or measures to reduce the impact for the resident.  
  5. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged communication failings. It acknowledged that its communication with the stakeholders involved in the works should have been co-ordinated other than the website, and it should have informed the resident when the plastic sheeting was to be put in place. In its correspondence with the resident, it used the brand name for the plastic sheeting, so it is unclear if the resident was made aware of the actual impact the sheeting would have on her living conditions.
  6. It is evident that the plastic sheeting caused significant distress for the resident and her family and impacted their vulnerabilities. In her initial complaint she said that the lack of daylight affected her insomnia and depression and because her son had autism, the sudden change in his living conditions caused him anxiety. If the resident had been made aware in advance that plastic sheeting would be put in place, she could have raised her concerns earlier, known what the impact would be, and potentially taken steps to reduce the impact on her and her son’s vulnerabilities.
  7. This Service finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of major works to the block. This is because it has not demonstrated that it represented the best interests of the resident in its communications with the relevant stakeholders, and its communication with the resident about the major works was poor, and while it acknowledged some failings, it did not put things right in the circumstances. 
  8. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord stated that it would not consider compensation because the condition of the block had affected all residents. This was inappropriate. A landlord’s failing will not necessarily have the same impact to all residents and consideration should have been given to the individual circumstances of the complaint. An order has been made below in line with the Housing Ombudsman Service’s Remedies Guidance for distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  9. When assessing compensation, it is acknowledged that the landlord was not responsible for the works and the resident did have an option to liaise directly with the freeholder and contractor. Furthermore, while the landlord’s records are not clear, there is evidence that it took some action to address her concerns, and it signposted the resident to environmental health.

The landlord’s response to the residents reports of damp and mould.

  1. Under the terms of the lease the resident is responsible for keeping “the interior of the premises and… the interior faces of the walls ceilings and floors…. in good and substantial repair and condition.” The freeholder is responsible for maintaining the exterior of the property. As such, the landlord could not be responsible for damp and mould in the resident’s property, however, it would be expected to represent the resident’s interests.
  2. The resident reported damp and mould in the property to the landlord and the freeholder on 31 December 2022. On 3 January 2022, the site manager for the freeholder visited the property and confirmed that the damp and mould was because of the delay in carrying out the cladding works. The freeholder carried out a further inspection and obtained a quote for repairing the damp and mould. After this inspection there is evidence that the landlord liaised appropriately with the managing agent and provided advice to the leaseholders in the block about the use of trickle vents. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord advised that the mould was currently being investigated by the freeholder.  
  3. This Service finds that there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. This is because it appropriately liaised with the freeholder who was responsible for the exterior of the building and updated the resident appropriately.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy. At stage 1, the landlord will contact the resident within 5 working days to acknowledge the complaint, establish what happened and how the resident would like the complaint resolved. The landlord will investigate and respond to the resident within 10 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied the complaint can be escalated to stage 2. Within 5 working days it will contact the resident and acknowledge the escalation request. After this it will provide a formal written response within 20 working days. These timescales align with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code).
  2. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged its complaint handling delays and offered £100 compensation to reflect the delays. When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is the role of this Service to consider if redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this the Ombudsman considers 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.
  3. The resident initially complained on 2 August 2022 and the landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint on 4 August 2022. It provided a stage 1 complaint response on 12 October 2022. This was 40 working days outside its timescales. The resident requested a complaint escalation on 13 October 2022 and the landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 13 March 2023. This was 84 working days outside its timescale. There was a significant delay of 124 working days attributable to the landlord from the initial complaint until the final response.
  4. Furthermore, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord would not have progressed the complaint through its complaints process but for the intervention of this Service. The resident contacted this Service for assistance throughout the complaints process. This Service sent 2 chasers before the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response and a further chaser before it provided its stage 2 complaint response. This was unreasonable and caused time and trouble to the resident in progressing her complaint.
  5. It is evident that the complaint investigation was hampered by a breakdown in internal processes. Internal correspondence demonstrated a delay in identifying which department should deal with the complaint and a delay in receiving information from various internal departments. An internal email stated, “I am concerned this is with the HOS and still no ownership is being taken.” This highlights a breakdown with internal processes. There is no evidence that the landlord took any action to improve its processes after identifying the delays in its stage 2 complaint investigation.
  6. In this case the landlord could have used its complaints process as a tool to clearly define the landlord’s responsibilities with regards to the major works and improve how it consulted with all relevant stakeholders and communicated with the resident. The landlord accepted this failing in its stage 2 complaint response. If the landlord had appropriately managed the complaint and escalated it appropriately through the stages, it would have addressed the resident’s concerns at an earlier stage. The complaint handling failures contributed to the landlord’s poor communication around the major works.
  7. This Service finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. It is acknowledged that the landlord identified some failings and made an offer of redress which went some way to putting things right. However, it did not demonstrate any learning from the case and the offer of redress was not sufficient considering the detriment to the resident. An order of compensation has been made below to reflect the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused to the resident by its complaint handling failures.
  8. This finding is in line with complaint handling failures identified in a Special Report on the landlord by the Housing Ombudsman Service published in May 2024, (link below). This Service has not made any orders, as part of this report, specific to improving its complaint handling, because it overlapped with the Special Investigation. 

https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/2024/05/14/special-report-into-southern-housing/

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of major works on the resident’s block.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. It is ordered that the landlord apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
  2. It is ordered that the landlord pay the resident compensation of £350, compromising:
    1. £150 for distress and inconvenience caused by its failings identified in its handling of the major works.
    2. £200 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failings.
  3. If the landlord has already paid the £100 it offered in its stage 2 complaint response, it can be deducted from this amount.
  4. The landlord should provide evidence to this Service that it has complied with the above order within 4 weeks of the date of this report.