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

Southern Housing Group Limited (202210835)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210835

Southern Housing Group Limited

27 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of roof leaks.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for damage to his flooring and missed appointments.
    3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

  1. The property is a one-bedroom, second-floor flat and the resident has an assured tenancy which began on 14 February 2005.
  2. The landlord has advised his Service that the resident has specific communication needs. However, there are no further details provided.
  3. The tenancy agreement states: “We [the landlord] are responsible for insuring the structure of the building and communal areas. You [the tenant] are strongly advised to take out a policy to protect yourself in the event of any loss or damage to the contents of your home”.

Summary of events

  1. The landlord raised an order on 17 February 2020 to repair the roof as the resident reported it was allowing rain to leak into his property.
  2. The resident phoned the landlord on 27 February 2020 to complain that a leak affecting his property had been ongoing since 2016. He explained that he was seeking compensation as there had been several missed appointments due to rain and his flooring had been damaged twice. He added that a contractor had attended but the repairs carried were, in his view, unsatisfactory.
  3. On 28 February 2020, the landlord sent its stage one reply in which it stated the following:
    1. The landlord’s surveyor had previously advised the resident that the roof leak, which had been reported in July 2019, had been resolved in December 2019.
    2. The landlord did not consider the recently reported leak to be a continuation of the previous leak.
    3. The contractor who had been assigned the current job had not previously been able to arrange an appointment with the resident but had now contacted him and agreed an appointment for 4 March 2020.
  4. The landlord’s contractor carried out repairs to the roof on 4 March 2020.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 15 April 2020 to say that he was unhappy with the outcome of his complaint as he had taken days off work for appointments that had not been kept by the landlord’s contractors and his flooring had been damaged twice. The landlord advised the resident that the complaint had been closed and that he would need to approach the Ombudsman if he was unhappy with the outcome. The landlord also advised the resident that its insurance would not cover his contents and that he was responsible for arranging contents insurance.
  6. The landlord’s records show that the resident contacted the landlord on 8 September 2020 to say that he was refusing to pay his water bill as he wanted the sum written off as compensation for his damaged flooring. The resident also phoned the landlord on 22 September 2020 to advise that he was refusing to pay the water bill.
  7. The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 September 2020 and explained that it was not prepared to write-off his water bill as compensation for the roof leak. The landlord stated that the bill was not connected with any water leak and added that it would expect any damage caused to the resident’s floor to be claimed on his contents insurance policy.
  8. The resident wrote to the landlord on 4 February 2022 and requested compensation for time he had lost from his work due to the reported roof leak. He stated that he had lost 14 days from his work because the landlord’s contractor had not kept appointments. He also stated that his hardwood floor had been damaged by the leak and therefore he had replaced it twice.
  9. In reply to a letter dated 4 February 2022 from the resident, the landlord sent its final complaint response letter on 17 February 2022. The landlord advised the resident that it was unable to consider his request for compensation as his complaint had not been upheld.
  10. The landlord raised an order on 22 September 2022 to repair the roof, which was reported to be allowing rain to leak into the resident’s property. The completion date for this order is unclear from the evidence seen. However, the landlord raised a further order on 7 October 2022 to repair the roof and this job is shown to have been completed on 1 February 2023.
  11. The resident wrote to this Service on 23 September 2023 and stated that the landlord had arranged repairs to the roof, however, about a week later water had again leaked from the roof into his property. He explained that his hardwood flooring had been damaged by the rainwater. He stated that he had advised the roofers to check his loft so they could see where the water was entering but they had not done so. The resident also stated that he had suffered two heart attacks due to stress.
  12. The landlord arranged for an inspection of the roof to take place on 14 May 2024. The resident had reported a roof leak that was affecting the communal area rather than impacting on his own property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident informed the landlord on 27 February 2020 that a leak had been affecting his property since 2016. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Therefore, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the repairs from 2020 onwards. Reference to the events that occurred prior to 2020 is made in this report to provide context.
  2. The Ombudsman is aware that the resident reported a further roof leak in September 2022. A key part of the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all of the information being investigated by the Ombudsman as part of its complaint response. It is therefore considered fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response on 17 February 2022. Information following the landlord’s final complaint response has, however, been included in this report for context.
  3. The resident advised this Service on 23 September 2023 that he had suffered 2 heart attacks due to stress. It is not clear whether the resident attributed his heart condition to the events regarding the roof, however, the Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if he wishes to pursue this option.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of roof leaks

  1. The landlord’s Repair Responsibilities Quick Guide states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the property, including the roof.
  2. The Quick Guide outlines 2 repairs categories – emergency repairs and non– emergencies. Emergencies are attended to within 24 hours and non-emergencies are completed “as quickly as possible” at a time that suits the resident.
  3. The landlord raised an order on 17 February 2020 to repair the roof and the landlord’s contractor carried out repairs on 4 March 2020, which was 12 working days after it had raised the order. As the repair was categorised as a non-emergency repair, the landlord’s contractor responded within a reasonable timescale.
  4. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the resident reported a further roof leak until the landlord raised an order on 22 September 2022 to repair the roof. Therefore, the Ombudsman’s view is that during the period covered by this investigation, the landlord had responded reasonably to the resident’s report of the roof leak in February 2020.
  5. This Service does not have the expertise to determine whether the leak that was reported in February 2020 was linked with previous leaks or with subsequent leaks. Similarly, the Ombudsman is unable to comment on the quality of the workmanship carried out. However, the roofing contractor had reported that the roof had been repaired and the landlord was entitled to rely on the expertise of its contractor. Furthermore, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the roof was leaking immediately after it was repaired on 4 March 2020.

 

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for damage to his flooring and missed appointments

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy states: “Requests for compensation are not covered by this policy where they concern… claims covered by home contents insurance (and we are not at fault)”.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 27 February 2020 and requested compensation because he said there had been several missed appointments and his flooring had been damaged twice. The landlord responded to the resident with its stage one complaint but did not address the question of compensation. This was unreasonable as the resident had specifically requested compensation and therefore the landlord should have provided a response. The landlord’s lack of response regarding the resident’s request for compensation meant that he had to spend further time and effort seeking a response. The resident therefore contacted the landlord again on 15 April 2020 and requested compensation. He stated that he had taken time off work for appointments that had not been kept and said that his flooring had been damaged twice by leaks through the roof.
  3. The landlord’s records show that it advised the resident on 15 April 2020 that its insurance would not cover his contents and that he was responsible for arranging his own contents insurance. Although the tenancy agreement encourages residents to take out their own insurance, the Ombudsman’s view is that this advice was unhelpful in these circumstances. The Financial Ombudsman Service’s website states: “Contents insurance covers your possessions, for example, your TV, jewellery, furniture or clothes. In other words, items you’d take with you if you moved house”. Therefore, it is unlikely that the resident’s contents insurance (if he had a policy) would have covered hardwood flooring and in any event would not have covered lost income due to missed appointments.
  4. It was therefore a shortcoming that the landlord had not signposted the resident to its public liability insurer. It was clear from the resident’s contact that he believed the landlord and the contractor to be at fault for the missed appointments and the damage to his flooring and therefore it would have been appropriate for the resident’s claim to be considered by the landlord’s insurers.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 8 and 22 September 2020 to ask the landlord to write off his water bill due to his damaged flooring. The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 September 2020 and informed him that it was not prepared to write off the water bill as it was not connected to a water leak (in the form of an escape of water). This was reasonable as the water bill is primarily a charge for the supply of water and therefore had no link with the roof leak. The landlord again advised the resident that it would expect any damage to his flooring to be claimed through his contents insurance.
  6. The landlord stated in its final complaint response dated 17 February 2022 that it was unable to offer compensation to the resident as his complaint had not been upheld. This was reasonable as the landlord did not consider itself to be at fault in relation to the roof leak. Furthermore, this assessment has found that during the period investigated, the landlord responded to the roof leak within a reasonable timescale. The landlord would only become responsible for damage caused by a leak if it had failed to carry out its repairing obligation within a reasonable time.
  7. Overall, the Ombudsman has found there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for damage to his flooring and missed appointments because the landlord did not address the resident’s request for compensation in its stage one reply.
  8. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £50 to put things right. This sum is within the range specified in the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for service failures.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. The landlord will reply to stage one complaints within 10 working days. At the time of the resident’s complaint, stage 2 complaints were reviewed by a complaint review panel, which would arrange a panel hearing attended by the resident either virtually or in person. The panel would then provide the resident with its decision within 10 working days of the hearing.
  2. The policy stated: “If the only reason for escalation to Stage 2 is a compensation claim or award then we will not escalate the case to Stage 2. A senior manager, who has not been involved in the case, will review the complaint, consider if the decision should be changed, and write to the customer to let them know the outcome”.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 27 February 2020 to complain about the roof leak. The landlord sent its stage one reply on 28 February 2020 and therefore responded within its advertised timescale. However, the stage one reply did not advise the resident of the next steps if he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. Although this Service considers this to have been poor practice, the Ombudsman has taken into account that it did not publish the Complaint Handling Code until July 2020, which stated that landlords should advise residents how to escalate their complaint if they were dissatisfied.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 15 April 2020 to say he was unhappy with the outcome of his complaint. He explained that he was seeking compensation for damaged flooring and missed appointments. The landlord advised the resident that the complaint had been closed and that he should approach the Ombudsman if he was dissatisfied with the response.
  5. As the resident was requesting compensation, the landlord acted in accordance with its policy by refusing to escalate the complaint to stage 2. However, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the matter was reviewed by a senior manager and that the manager wrote to the resident with a decision about whether it would change the stage one decision. This was contrary to the landlord’s complaints policy and was therefore inappropriate. It meant that the resident had not been given the opportunity of an ‘independent’ senior manager reviewing his complaint. The Ombudsman has taken into account that the resident delayed contacting the landlord about his complaint until 15 April 2020, which was well after the landlord had sent its stage one reply and closed the complaint.
  6. Although the landlord wrote to the resident on 30 September 2020, the letter related specifically to his request for his water bill to be written off as compensation for the damaged flooring. Therefore, it did not constitute a review of his complaint.
  7. The resident wrote to the landlord on 4 February 2022 and again requested compensation from the landlord for damage to his flooring and for missed appointments. The landlord sent its final complaint response letter on 17 February 2022. At this stage, the landlord had revised its complaints policy, which stated that a senior manager would respond to the stage 2 complaint within 20 working days. The landlord had therefore responded within the advertised timescale.
  8. In summary, the Ombudsman has found there was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling because it did not respond appropriately to the resident after he had expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage one reply. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £100 to put things right. This sum is within the range specified in the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for service failures.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of roof leaks.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for compensation for damage to his flooring and missed appointments.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Reasons

  1. During the period covered by this investigation, the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s report of the roof leak.
  2. The landlord did not address the resident’s request for compensation in its stage one reply.
  3. The landlord did not respond appropriately to the resident after he had expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage one reply.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to pay the resident a total of £150 made up as follows:
    1. £50 for its response to the resident’s request for compensation.
    2. £100 for its complaints handling.