Southern Housing Group Limited (202213909)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213909

Southern Housing Group Limited

30 October 2023

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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak in his kitchen, repairs, and lack of cooking facilities, heating and hot water.
2. The resident’s reports of discrimination and prejudice in the way the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) and reports of repairs.
The Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied a one-bedroom ground floor flat in a three-storey block purpose-built block built in approximately 1999. The tenancy began on 9 April 2007. He lived alone. He had been diagnosed with enduring and serious physical and mental health conditions.

Legal and policy framework

The landlord did not provide the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement for the resident to this service, however statutory terms were implied into the tenancy agreement as follows:
1. Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”), the landlord must keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair and keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling house, including for gas.
2. Under Section 9a of the Act, the landlord has an obligation that the property is fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy in relation to freedom from damp.
In addition, the landlord is required to ensure that tenant’s homes meet the Home Standard set by the Regulator of Social Housing (Decent Homes 2006) Home Standard – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) including that it meets the current statutory minimum standard for housing and provides a reasonable degree of thermal comfort under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) introduced by the Housing Act 2004 which is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential hazards, including damp. While a resident has recourse under the Act if they wish to take legal action, the local authority is responsible for monitoring and enforcing the HHSRS standards. The existence of a category 1 hazard is in itself not compliant with a social landlord’s legal and regulatory obligations, if not repaired within a reasonable period.
Under the repairs policy, a repair will be treated as an emergency if there is an immediate risk to safety, security or health. It would repair or, if that is not possible, make safe as soon as possible and always within 24 hours of it being notified. Emergency repairs included burst pipes or other major plumbing repairs and no heating or hot water between 31 October and 1 May (unless the landlord assesses the repair is a priority due to the vulnerability of a resident). It aimed to complete all other repairs as quickly as possible and at a time that suited the tenant.
Under the landlord’s gas servicing policy, if the meter was capped (and the gas supply switched off) then the property would be added on to the ‘capped properties report’, which is monitored by the Heating Team on a weekly basis. The Home Services Manager will be required to carry out a welfare visit within a maximum of two days of the meter being capped (and supply being switched off).
Under the landlord’s complaints policy, the landlord operated a two-stage procedure. It should respond within 10 working days at Stage 1 and 20 working days within Stage 2. If, for any reason, it needed more than 10 working days to respond to a complaint, it would explain why and agree a response date with the resident.

Chronology

In 2018, social services made reports that the property had “mid-level” hoarding and requested a clean. Social services did not identify care and support needs at that time. The landlord replied that it had offered the resident support. There were several references in the landlord’s records to a deep clean having been carried out.
According to the repair records, a job was raised on 13 January 2020 to “investigate a leak coming into kitchen behind panels, flooding floor”.
On 26 February 2020, a support worker of the resident wrote to the landlord asking whether the landlord was taking action regarding hoarding in the property. The case required “a sensitive approach”. The landlord replied on 4 March 2020 that, about two years ago, it had started working with the resident and his support team and had got half of the property cleared. His support team left and then the hoarding built back up “again and again”. It had arranged a hoarding expert in the past but the case did not progress. It suggested a joint visit. It would consider tenancy enforcement on this case, although “they do prove difficult”. The support team chased the landlord again on 27 March 2020. There was a gap, presumably as there were no further relevant actions.
On 29 June 2020, the resident’s social worker reported to the landlord that there was no gas and electricity in the property.
On 6 July 2020 leak, the landlord raised, according to repair records, “another job” to repair the leak.
According to the landlord’s records of 28 August 2020, the landlord informed a support worker that the property was needed to be cleared out before the works were done, as contractors had refused to carry out the works due to health and safety issues. The support worker suggested it would organise a multi-disciplinary meeting.
On 6 October 2020, the Environmental Health Officer of the local authority (the “EHO”) wrote to the landlord. It had been contacted by the resident. It requested that the leaking pipe be repaired.
According to an internal note by the landlord of 2 December 2020, a multi-disciplinary meeting had taken place. The local authority was “supposed” to “set up further information” but the teams were going through changes. The team was “going through more changes”. It wrote to the local authority on 10 December 2020 suggesting that the agencies worked together.
On 7 December 2020, the local authority wrote to the landlord asking whether the leaking pipe had been repaired. The landlord subsequently contacted Adult Social Care
There is a gap in the evidence, again, presumably because no steps were taken in that period.
On 12 April 2021, the landlord reported to the EHO that it had tried to help with the hoarding, through a hoarding specialist, support groups, and had worked to clear an entire room. It had considered enforcement action which “would not help”, or work with the support team to reduce the items in the property.
On 6 June 2021, the landlord job raised another job to trace and repair the leak behind the kitchen cupboard.
On 11 June 2021, the EHO wrote again to the landlord regarding “the longstanding kitchen waste leak” “resulting in flies and maggots, and “the gas being unconnected and untested for five years”. No repairs had been carried out to resolve the longstanding wastewater leak in the kitchen and general maintenance of his premises. It asked the landlord to confirm what action it was intending to take.
The landlord reported that it had contacted the resident’s support workers, which team “seemed to change” every six weeks. The resident would stop working with the support team, the team would change and the cycle would start again. There had been hoarding experts, which also worked for a period, then the resident stopped engaging. It was not sure what the landlord could do until the property was cleared. It had threatened tenancy action, “hoping the support team would assist”.
The local authority wrote to the landlord on 25 June 2021 that it had visited the resident and it confirmed that the kitchen was clear. There were no obstructions to the location of the pipe. The resident was willing to cooperate with a declutter of the property but could not address this independently due to ill-health. It asked what support could be provided.
On 29 June 2021, the landlord’s contractor reported that its plumber had attended. The soil stack behind the kitchen units was cracked. The base units would need to be removed, and the kitchen disinfected. It was in a “foul state” and was a “biohazard”. It suggested moving the resident out while the clean and repairs were carried out.
There followed various exchanges between the landlord and social worker seeking to arrange an appointment and attempt to gain access. A new social worker was appointed in July 2021.
There was a further gap in the evidence.
In September 2021, there were further exchanges between the landlord and social worker. A potential date had been arranged for 30 September 2021 to carry out a professional clean and then the repair works. The resident emailed the landlord, expressing concerns about animal cruelty to the insects in the property, spread of infection, bacterial contaminants and harm to his neighbours. The social worker on 29 September 2021 reported to the landlord that the resident only wanted the repair to the pipe done and had not agreed to the preparatory clean.
The landlord replied to the resident’s social worker on 29 September 2021, emphasising the importance of the works to be carried out, the need for the clean, that it appreciated the resident’s discomfort, it had made adjustments including not using a biocide treatment or industrial cleaning products. It suggested an appointment for 12 October 2021. If access was not agreed, it would have to make an application to the County Court for an access injunction. It preferred not to do so as it wanted to develop a productive long-term relationship with the resident, based on trust.
On 25 October 2021, the landlord wrote having received photographs of the cleaning that the resident had carried out. There followed a discussion over the next few days about dates. The social worker suggested the afternoon of 5 November 2021.
On 2 November 2021, the social worker forwarded a resident’s complaint in his own words and also a complaint on his behalf. The resident’s complaint of 28 October 2021 was also set out by the social worker.
The social worker’s complaint dated 4 November 2021 stated as follows:
1. The resident had reported that he had suffered harassment by neighbours and failure to complete necessary repairs to his property. He had also “reported a belief” that he was being discriminated against.
2. The landlord had failed to protect him from continual harassment from other residents based on their discriminatory perception and beliefs about him. This has included allegations of damaging communal property in the building, selling drugs, and making false police reports. She described various incidents.
3. His health conditions had been made worse by the police attending his property, the neighbours’ behaviour and the landlord’s approach. The resident felt that his neighbours‘ behaviour had been caused by staff of the landlord.
4. He had a history of depression, PTSD, COPD, and also other disabilities.
5. He was unable to smell gas which has led to the landlord turning off his boiler, removing his stove, and him having had no heating for ten years.
6. The landlord was also inconsistent, including that workers were unavailable on the dates that had been convenient for him and sending a workman to his property without any warning.
7. Sewage had been leaking into his kitchen for the previous three years. He had provided access to multiple workmen who had not resolved the issue. The landlord had installed automatic sprayers to disguise smells from his property which resulted in him being stigmatised and blamed by his neighbours.
8. The landlord had insisted that the property have an industrial clean before a plumber repaired the sewage leak. The social worker felt that was unacceptable.
9. If he did not have his sensory disability, he would not have been left in his current situation for such a long period. The social worker was concerned that he had been left without any means to cook meals as his stove and oven had been removed, and that he had been without hot water for 10 years.
10. She suggested that an electric stove/oven and boiler would be safer and more appropriate for him.
11. The landlord had not taken his disabilities into account, including the landlord cancelling a repair because he had declined a deep clean and then instructed the cleaning services to carry out a visit that he had not consented to.
12. This resulted in him being so afraid to leave his property that he did not take medication for two weeks. The situation had impacted his health and mental well-being.
13. He had incurred costs, including six ultraviolet fly killers, carbon dioxide meters, and a gas mask due to concerns about fumes.
14. The fumes could be negatively impacting his health due to the lack of natural ventilation, and the pandemic, meaning he had had to spend long periods of time in these conditions.
15. The resident had completed an independent clean of his property. Photographs were provided on 12 October 2021 but a date for plumber to attend had not been set. She requested a timeframe for the appointment.
The landlord wrote to the social worker on 2 November 2021, explaining there was no available contractors on 5 November 2021, requesting alternative dates. On 4 November 2021, it acknowledged the complaint. It would carry out an investigation and respond within the next 10 working days.
On 8 November 2021, the social worker wrote that she had visited the resident. He had become unwell including developing a severe headache and light-headedness. The resident attributed this to the level of carbon dioxide caused by the sewer gases as this exceeded legal limits. She attached a photograph of a meter reading on the day of her visit.
The landlord wrote again to the social worker on 16 November 2021, chasing dates. It wrote two days later extending the time for a further 10 days to respond to the complaint as it was still gathering and reviewing information.
The social worker left a message on 22 November 2021 chasing an appointment. She wrote again on 24 November 2021 that she considered that, according to the landlord’s policies, the coordination of the repair should go through a different officer to the housing manager.
The landlord wrote to the social worker on 2 December 2021 suggesting a date between 6 and 10 December 2021. Its surveyor would carry out an inspection to assess what repairs were required to ensure that the property was habitable. It would also inspect the gas appliances. It would respond to the complaint after that inspection.
The social worker replied on 3 December 2021, suggesting that the inspection take place on 10 December 2021 in the afternoon. She had not replied previously as its complaints procedure stated that once a complaint was raised, communication had to be via the complaints office. She had made several attempts to contact the complaints officer. The resident asked that the inspection be limited to the works in the kitchen.
The social worker wrote on 6 December 2021 that the resident wanted to limit the number of attendees, due to the risk of COVID-19. She requested a reply by 9 December 2021. She wrote again on 9 December 2021 with a similar request about COVID-19 related precautions and requesting other reassurances. She then wrote at 5pm on the same day, cancelling the appointment as confirmation had not been received.
On 15 December 2021, the social worker asked for the complaint to be escalated and cited the words of the resident including: He had always been available for appointments, but two operatives attended without notice to inspect the meter. The landlord should have informed him of the risks of “leaky sewer gas emissions” from a soil pipe. The resident was unhappy about the landlord’s response to date as it had not addressed his complaints and it had threatened to evict him.
There was further correspondence from the landlord seeking to arrange an alternative date. On 22 December 2021, it suggested it should be on 29 December 2021. According to internal correspondence in January 2022, the landlord was waiting to hear from the social worker.
The housing manager wrote to the social worker on 25 January 2022 asking for available dates. The social worker replied on 26 January 2022 asking why the manager had written to the resident. She had not heard further following the communication in early December 2021. She had also not received a response to her request to escalate the complaint.
According to an internal email, the housing manager telephoned the social worker to arrange an appointment on 27 January 2022.
On 27 January 2022, the EHO wrote to the landlord as follows:
1. It had visited the property that day to undertake an inspection. It had identified the leaking soil and vent pipe. When neighbours in flats above used their toilet, wastewater was leaking from the pipe and running over the kitchen floor. There was approximately an inch depth of foul wastewater on the kitchen floor. There appear to be larvae swimming in the wastewater and there were numerous flies throughout the kitchen.
2. The leak needs to be prevented as soon as possible to prevent the occupier from becoming seriously ill. The resident could not safely prepare food in such “filthy” conditions either.
3. A competent contractor should undertake the emergency repair or replacement within three days. If the repairs were not undertaken within that timescale, the EHO could take formal action and/or emergency remedial action.
The following day, the EHO added that the occupier was vulnerable. It would do what it could to help facilitate access for the contractors and suggested that the landlord use its “powers” as a landlord to enter the premises in order to undertake repairs.
The EHO replied on 28 January 2022 that it “understood the landlord’s difficulties”, it appreciated that the contractors would not want to work in unhygienic conditions, though the principal issue was the leaking soil pipe. It suggested a plan of action. The rest of the flat could be dealt with after the repair. The EHO noted that the resident wanted only the pipe repaired. It offered to facilitate his full cooperation and would obtain available dates.
There followed an almost daily exchange between the EHO and landlord with the EHO acting as “broker” between the parties, in order to seek steps to reassure the resident, with a view to agreeing access, as follows:
1. The landlord set out its plan including its environmental clean contractors to attend “first thing” and to carry out repairs on the same day. The resident had agreed to this.
2. The EHO requested details on the resident’s behalf in order to reassure him, including regarding the use of chemicals, not harming insects, timescales for the reinstatement of the cupboards.
3. The landlord set out the use of materials and a detailed schedule of works.
4. The EHO suggested alternatives to a deep clean as “an in depth clean would not be agreeable to the resident”. Any reinstatement works would need to be arranged “when convenient for (the) landlord’s contractors” and the resident.
5. The landlord stated that it was seeking agreement with its contractor.
6. The EHO’s position was that if the repair was not carried out it would have to take formal action and/or the landlord should apply to the court for an access injunction. The landlord’s position was that it wished to avoid seeking an injunction against the resident, given his vulnerabilities.
7. On 4 February 2022, the landlord confirmed that the cleaning contractors would be flexible in its approach.
8. There were further requests from the resident including regarding COVID-19, the unnecessary use of chemicals, regard for his neighbours, not killing insects and a number of other suggestions regarding materials.
9. The landlord provided a number of reassurances.
10. The complaint was to be dealt with separately.
On 17 February 2022, the repairs were carried out on the soil and vent pipe in the kitchen.
On 25 February 2022, the EHO wrote to the landlord as follows:
1. The effects of the delays to the repairs will need to be addressed.
2. It requested that a dehumidifier be provided.
3. There was insufficient heating at the property and limited ventilation to the kitchen area, so the drying out process would take some time.
Following discussions about delivery dates, the dehumidifier was delivered on 25 March 2022.
In the meantime, the resident commented on complaint handling and its failure to address an apology, staff discipline issues, the contractors attending without materials, leaving “other jobs” outstanding, failure to address historical issues and to communicate with his social worker, compensation, failure to deliver a dehumidifier and the further works.
The EHO wrote on 8 March 2022 that it would not be mediating any further. The resident would have to liaise with the landlord on dates and times of access and, if it was not provided, the landlord would have to consider taking legal action. The most imminent risk had been removed. The EHO considered that did not think that the resident would agree to the kitchen inspection when the dehumidifier was delivered, as suggested by the landlord. The EHO would tell the resident that he must cooperate with the landlord so that works could be scheduled and progressed and suggested arrangements be made through the complaints officer.
The landlord escalated the complaint on 11 March 2022.
The EHO wrote formally on 18 March 2022 requiring the following steps to be taken by the landlord as follows:
1. Address the lack of hot water and adequate fixed space heating by repairing or replacing the inoperative gas boiler within one month, or alternatively, installing an electric boiler.
2. The damp would be addressed by the dehumidifier.
3. Bring the lighting circuit back into good working order within one month.
4. Supply and fit a freestanding electric cooker within two months.
5. Replace corroded and damaged pipework in the kitchen within one month.
6. Within two months, reinstatement and or replacement of storage cupboards and work surfaces, provide adequate kitchen facilities, provide lighting, and adequate means of ventilation, install a suitable electric shower within two months.
7. Investigate and tidy loose wiring, and investigate gas levels within one month.
The landlord wrote on 25 March 2022:
1. Its gas/heating team would attend and inspect the boiler and resolve any concerns around fumes.
2. An electrician would check the shower and light fittings (making immediate repairs where possible).
3. Its surveyor would attend to survey to agree the scope of works.
4. It was not obliged to provide a cooker under the terms of the resident’s tenancy and would signpost the resident for a grant or loan.
On 29 April 2022, the landlord wrote with its Stage 2 response as follows:
1. It accepted the following complaint handling failures:
  1. It had extended its timescale for response so that an inspection could take place first and in the circumstances the complaint response delay had exceeded its policy timescales.
  2. It had not addressed the resident’s complaints regarding the housing manager.
2. An appointment made on 2 December 2021 was cancelled due to the resident not having received assurances the COVID-19 safety of the visit. This was a service failure.
3. Progress was slowed by the difficulty in gaining access. It had made reasonable, “indeed robust”, efforts to gain access, both directly and in conjunction with Adult Social Care.
4. In terms of the other works, a date for inspection had not been agreed. It had therefore delayed its complaint response.
5. It denied there was any discrimination in accessing its services regarding repairs and ASB. It had found no evidence of false accusations being made.
6. The landlord’s Gas Safety Record certificates for the last five years confirmed that external checks of safety had been completed. Credit on the meter had not been maintained. He had informed successive engineers since 2020 that he did not use gas. It had not removed the gas supply. It needed access to assess the boiler.
7. The requests for alternative, non-gas heating, hot water and appliances were not the subject of this complaint investigation, but they had been received. They required access to the property to be assessed.
8. It offered £125 compensation consisting of £100 for its complaint handling service failure and £25 for the failed appointment on 2 December 2021.
The Ombudsman will consider events following the conclusion of the landlord’s complaints procedure, insofar as they are relevant to the original complaint and where it is fair and proportionate to do so.
The evidence indicated that an inspection took place on 6 June 2022 and on 7 June 2022, the landlord offered to assess the gas levels. The EHO issued a Notice of Entry and carried out an inspection, together with the landlord, on 14 July 2022. The EHO noted that only one item of work had taken place. The tenant was exposed to various hazards and, although it appreciated that the resident “may not have been forthcoming in allowing contractors access”, the landlord had a legal obligation to reduce or remove hazards that could affect the occupier’s health and well-being. The landlord had been “too slow”. It was “regrettable” that it had to consider formal action against “such a large registered provider of social housing”.
The landlord’s gas safety record of 14 July 2022 showed that works had been completed (but did not specify what works). A warning label stipulated “do not use” as the gas supply had been disconnected from the pipework in an outside cupboard and from the boiler in the kitchen, with, according to the label, the resident’s “permission”.
The EHO issued an improvement Notice on 22 September 2022 in relation to the outstanding works.
1. It included the works set out in its letter 22 March 2022.
2. It added provisions which would address the ventilation in the property to address damp and mould growth including alternatives to the patio doors and the resident’s reluctance to open them due to security concerns.
3. It added provisions regarding white goods in the kitchen.
4. It had been informed by the Gas Emergency Service that here had been two previous recorded incidences of potential gas escapes at the property in 2014 and 2017, hence the reason that the gas supply to the property had been switched off.
5. An HHSRS assessment has been undertaken. The hazard ‘Excess Cold’ received a scoring that equated to a Category 1 hazard. The remaining hazards were including damp and mould growth’, ‘electrical’, ‘fire’, ‘food safety’, ‘personal hygiene, sanitation and drainage’, ‘lighting’ and ‘entry by intruders’ received a scoring that equated to Category 2 hazards.
Following submissions by the landlord, including it would install restrictors, the EHO subsequently removed the provisions regarding the patio doors.
According to a letter from the landlord’s solicitors on 22 September 20222, the landlord had tried to seek access on 1, 4, 7 April 2022, 17 May 2022 and 11 July 2022. However, the resident had cancelled the visits or “hindered” the time the landlord’s contractors stayed on site. The landlord wished to decant the resident while the works took place but the resident had declined this suggestion. The landlord agreed to clear the gas debt on the meter and provide a cooker to facilitate works. The property had a hot water cylinder which it would check was in working order. The landlord would consider applying for an access injunction.
A mental health assessment of 5 October 2022 stated that the resident would require a shower not a bath and made various recommendations.
A survey was undertaken on 10 October 2022 with a report 1 November 2022. In addition to the same points as the EHO, it noted there was insufficient space in the kitchen for a dishwasher, washing machine, cooker and a freestanding fridge freezer. The property required a full electrical rewire, full kitchen installation, bathroom installation and full decorations. There needed to be a complete declutter of the flat. It recommended that the resident was decanted for the duration of the works.
Notes of a meeting on 1 November 2022 with a different social worker of the resident stated that:
1. The resident provided access on 28 October 2022, but did not allow the operatives to carry out a mould wash.
2. The resident did not agree the need for a decant.
3. A new gas boiler would be installed.
According to the landlord, on 13 November 2022, a contractor carried out the repair to the fan and bedroom light, unblocked the basin sink and fitted restrictors to back door and window. The resident refused the mould wash.
In December 2022 and January 2023, the landlord’s solicitors wrote to the resident as follows:
1. It set out the landlord’s intention to apply for an access injunction for access on 16 January 2023 to carry out an electrical inspection and sign off the kitchen upgrade and for 7 days to carry out a kitchen upgrade.
2. An explanation for delays regarding a gas card.
3. Works, including a kitchen inspection with contractors/designers, bedroom and bathroom light, bathroom fan, blocked wastepipe, and to a window took place on 28 October 2022.
4. The landlord tried to carry out a full electrical inspection on 24 and 30 November 2022 to ascertain if a full rewire was needed before the kitchen renewal but the resident refused access.
The kitchen works were completed by 24 January 2023, with snagging works booked for February 2023.
The EHO wrote on 15 May 2023 as follows.
1. The EHO had visited the property on 3 May 2023 and 11 May 2023.
2. A number of the works requested in that notice have been completed, including a complete refurbishment of the kitchen.
3. Some works were outstanding. It also listed further deficiencies. The boiler continued to be inoperable.
4. The internal window had not been overhauled.
5. The washing machine was still located within the bathroom.
6. It requested proposals for the works within 28 days.
7. It required an up-to-date Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) within 14 days.
8. The promised restrictors had not been fitted to the sliding patio doors.
On 20 June 2023, the EHO wrote to the landlord’s solicitors referring to its response of 5 June 2023:
1. The solicitors had stated that the boiler was tested and the boiler was fully functional and had enclosed a copy of the Landlord’s Gas Safety Record dated 15 May 2023.
2. According to the landlord, the resident had requested the operative testing the boiler to turn the gas supply off. The EHO stated that the landlord should have requested the resident’s request in writing. The boiler was to be decommissioned.
3. The immersion heater located to the hot water cylinder in the cupboard in the hallway was tested and brought back into use.
4. The landlord confirmed that the wooden casement window was overhauled on 19 May 2023. The EHO would reinspect. An appointment has been scheduled for 15 June 2023 for surveyor to attend and investigate the washing machine.
5. The electrical installation inspection was completed on 25 May 2023.
6. The restrictors were fitted on 19 May 2023.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s solicitor on 8 August 2023 that snagging works had been carried out.
The resident’s solicitors wrote to the landlord on 24 August 2023:
1. The resident was still without adequate heating and hot water in the property. The landlord had made a single immersion heater and hot water cylinder operational for a small amount of hot water to be accessed, this was not adequate and was a more expensive option.
2. The landlord had decommissioned the gas boiler instead of repairing it to an operational standard. There was still no heating in the property.
3. Some gas pipes were also corroded, which raised issues of a potential leak.
4. The landlord moved the washing machine into the kitchen but in the process of doing so created more damage to the kitchen. Their contractors forced the washing machine and the dishwasher into places that were too small and subsequently damaged the machines. They were both now unusable.
The EHO wrote on 31 August 2023.
1. It suggested getting dates from the resident and then making arrangements with the contractors. It appreciated that this was not usual protocol but given the significant issues surrounding this case, the amount of time it has taken to partially comply with the Notice and the relationship between the tenant and landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of this investigation

The Ombudsman has investigated events from January 2020. This is because as issues become historic, it is increasingly difficult for an independent body, such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the earlier actions taken by the landlord to address the issues. Furthermore, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that that the resident made a complaint prior to 2021. While the Ombudsman will exercise its discretion as to the time period, it investigates, paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. In the circumstances, while the Ombudsman will bear in mind the resident’s comments that the issues had been ongoing for years, the scope of this investigation will cover 2020 onwards. In any event, January 2020 was when a report of the leak was first made.
This investigation has considered events that occurred after the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints process. The resident’s complaint included repairs to the property including the sewage leak and the removal of gas appliances. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have kept the matters complained of under review, even after it provided its final complaint response. The Ombudsman considers it would be unfair and disproportionate for the resident to have to raise another complaint in relation to events after April 2022 in relation to events that are closely connected to the complaint. However, the Ombudsman has not investigated the standards of the work, including any damage to the white goods in the kitchen and the lino, which would have to be subject to a further complaint, if the resident so chooses.
Part of the resident’s complaint was that his health was affected by the landlord’s conduct. The Ombudsman cannot assess the extent to which a landlord’s service failure or maladministration has contributed to or exacerbated a complainant’s physical and /or mental health. It cannot assess medical evidence and does not make findings on matters such as negligence. However, the Ombudsman may set out a remedy that recognises the overall distress and inconvenience caused to a complaint by a particular service failure by a landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak in his kitchen, repairs and lack of cooking facilities and hot water.

The evidence showed as follows:
1. The first notification of the pipe leak was on 13 January 2020.
2. The landlord had had access to the property when carrying out a deep clean from time to time, but this was sporadic.
3. There had been difficulties in gaining access to the property to carry out inspections and repairs. This was reflected in the resident’s resistance referred to in the chronology.
4. There was also a pattern of engagement, loss of engagement and reengagement by the resident. There were changes of support teams and social workers which meant that there was a lack of continuity in support. This was also reflected during the period of the complaint where the resident had three/four different social workers and support workers in the three-year period 2020 to 2023.
5. The resident did not trust the landlord and was reluctant to allow access without the intermediary of a third party such as his social worker and the EHO. Not only did the EHO report this but there were occasions when the resident would only agree to access through an intermediary, and at best, through the complaints officer, although not best placed to understand the requirements for the repairs.
6. A clean was required prior to works taking place because the condition of the property caused by the leaking pipe, as well as because of the hoarding.
It was reasonable for the contractors to require an environmental clean prior to carrying out the repairs, and reasonable of the landlord not to challenge this, even if part of the issue was due to the leaking pipe. This is because employees were owed protection within their working conditions.
The Ombudsman appreciates the difficulties the landlord faced in agreeing access and working with support workers and/or social workers. The landlord made a number of efforts to repair the leak, including in January and July 2020 but it was unable to gain access. The landlord demonstrated a willingness to negotiate both through the social worker and the EHO, to seek to reassure the resident, and to give the resident the opportunity to undertake his own clean. It was reasonable of the landlord to negotiate through the EHO and with its contractors as to the level of the clean when arranging access in February 2022.
The landlord reasonably accepted its failure in its communication regarding the appointment of 10 December 2021. However, the landlord was not assisted when the social worker herself did not respond to the landlord in December and January 2021, or appreciate the need for a deep clean.
However, the landlord lacked proactivity. This was an emergency repair under the landlord’s policy. It did not demonstrate a sense of ownership of the issue. Despite a multi-disciplinary meeting in December 2020, it did not take a sufficient lead in seeking to work with other statutory agencies to gain access. It could have, for example, asked the EHO to exercise its powers to gain access to address a health and safety hazard and/or make a safeguarding referral to the local authority.
The landlord did not demonstrate an increased urgency after the EHO’s graphic report of June 2021 about the leak or the report the resident had not had gas in his property for five years. Its response was “it was not sure what it could do”. However, it did inspect. A further period of three months elapsed, before it arranged another appointment.
The EHO had made a number of requests to the landlord to repair the leak. It eventually had to resort to issuing an improvement notice and then threatening to enforce it. The seriousness of the situation was emphasised by the EHO stating that this would be rare to have to do so as against a large social landlord. The EHO gave the landlord ample opportunity to carry out the repair. While, in the end, the solution came about due to some firm and intense negotiation by the EHO, the evidence indicated that the only proactive available route for the landlord was to apply an injunction and, at least, seek to procure mediation for the purposes of organising access.
The Ombudsman understands the landlord’s hesitation due to the vulnerability of the resident and that such an application for an injunction would have been contrary to the resident’s own wishes. The landlord’s dilemma was summarised by the EHO’s position, who wanted the landlord to take account of the resident’s vulnerabilities, but its expectation was for the landlord to seek an access injunction. An access injunction involves seeking an order from the court to gain access regardless of the resident’s views, which can be enforced by committal to prison. The landlord did not want to make the landlord and tenant relationship worse.
However, given the seriousness of the disrepair, that sewage was entering into the kitchen so that there was an infestation of maggots and flies and it was described as a “biohazard”, and the lack of hot water and heating, the Ombudsman considers that it was unreasonable and inappropriate that the landlord failed to be robust, escalate this difficult and important case, consider external mediation and, if that failed, apply for an access injunction.
The Ombudsman would have found severe maladministration but for the fact that it is recognised that the landlord did try and repair the pipe and had difficulties gaining access. But, ultimately, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord, having been unable to agree access, should have prioritised its legal and regulatory obligations, as well as the risks to the resident’s health, over the other considerations.
There was no evidence that it was the landlord who had disconnected the gas because the resident could not smell gas. The evidence showed that it was disconnected due to concerns about a gas escape. The landlord did not provide evidence of the date the gas was originally disconnected. The resident’s account was that the gas had been disconnected five or even ten years earlier. It is reasonable to conclude that it was prior to the social worker’s report of June 2020. The landlord would have been aware that there was no heating or hot water in the property, except for a hot water cylinder. It would have been notified. Deep cleans had taken place. The landlord should have inspected in any event. It was inappropriate that the landlord never followed this up. There was no evidence that it monitored the property (apart from “external” safety checks) or tried to carry out a welfare visit in accordance with its policy. It is appreciated that there was an ongoing issue with access and the resident did not want a gas appliance in his property. However, the landlord did not address the issue. There was no evidence it ever made enquires, sought to address the resident’s concerns about gas safety and consider for itself alternatives to gas heating.
It was reasonable, given the guidance by the EHO and the resident’s own wishes, that as, at 2021, for the landlord to prioritise the repair of the leak over the remaining repairs. Again, the landlord showed it was ready and willing to undertake the repairs. While there was an initial resistance, it exercised its reasonable discretion in order to facilitate the works, by paying off the gas debt and replacing the cooker.
It is noted that the issues with access continued in April through to July 2022 and sporadically thereafter in 2022. Works were carried out in a piecemeal fashion and the kitchen was finally refurbished in January/February 2023, a year later. There remained omissions including restrictors on the patio doors (since rectified) despite those having been the landlord’s own suggestion. There was no explanation why the landlord did not deliver the dehumidifier on the last day of the repairs in February 2022. The delay was inappropriate.
Of particular note, the boiler was replaced and then decommissioned. The Ombudsman shares the EHO’s view that the resident’s request should have been obtained in writing. By disconnecting the gas, while it is understandable the landlord was seeking to work with the resident and maintain a good relationship, it was not complying with its legal obligations. Again, given the gravity of the issues, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the delays to the repairs to the property and addressing the inoperable boiler. Again, given the landlord’s genuine attempts to carry out the works, and the difficulties it had regarding access, the Ombudsman has not found severe maladministration.
However, the findings of maladministration as opposed to severe maladministration, made for the reasons given, should not mask the severity and impact of this case where a vulnerable resident was left in a property with leaking waste water in his kitchen and no working boiler for a significant period and which caused the EHO to issue an improvement notice on “such a large registered provider of social housing”. Given the landlord’s responsibilities under the regulatory standards, the Ombudsman will refer this case to the Regulator of Social Housing for its consideration.
The resident referred to his expenses that he incurred as a result of the delays. While they were referred to in the resident’s complaint, the landlord did not address these. The resident did not provide evidence of the costs. It is recognised that delays were caused by the lack of access. However, the Ombudsman will make a recommendation that the landlord consider these on presentation of evidence.
The resident’s representative has asked that, as an outcome, the resident be considered for a move by way of a solution. There had been an application to move in 2018. This was not raised in the complaint so the Ombudsman has not made a finding in this regard but this can be considered as part of a remedy. The Ombudsman will make an order that the landlord consider a management move but is conscious of the shortage of social housing and of suitable accommodation, especially given the resident’s needs.

Discrimination and prejudice in the way the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) and reports of repairs.

The resident reported issues with his neighbours that had clearly distressed him. However, the events appeared to be, though very present for the resident, historical. There was evidence of reports by the resident in 2017 but none since. There was no evidence of contemporaneous ASB reports in 2020 onwards.
The evidence in the chronology demonstrated that the landlord had regard for the resident’s disabilities in the way that the landlord sought to work with the resident, sought to reassure him, and to make what arrangements that were possible, such as avoiding certain materials that the resident objected to, and negotiating with its contractor as to the level of a clean. Indeed, the landlord has been criticised for being too accommodating in not pursuing an access injunction.
In the circumstances, the Ombudsman does not find service failure in relation to this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

It was unreasonable and inappropriate for the landlord to wait to resolve the issues before addressing the resident’s complaint. This meant that it delayed its response significantly, adding to the resident’s frustration and indeed resulting in the landlord not responding at Stage 1 at all. There was no reason why the landlord did not respond to the complaint, set out its proposed resolution and then keep the complaint under review. It was inappropriate to attribute lack of access to providing a response. There was also a delay to the landlord escalating the resident’s complaint. While it recognised the delay in its first response, it repeated the same failure at Stage 2.
The overall delay from the date of the complaint, 4 November 2021 to 29 April 2022, nearly five months, was significant. The response itself lacked proper reflection of its actions or lack of actions in particular as regards the provision of heating and hot water. It also failed to address the resident’s complaint about the housing manager despite it having identified a service failure in it not having done so. It did not investigate the history of the gas disconnection or consider the history in any detail. There was a lack of any meaningful review. While £100 would have been reasonable compensation for the delay to the Stage 1 response, the Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling, given its additional delays, its approach, and its lack of self-reflection.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak in his kitchen, repairs and lack of lack of cooking facilities, heating and hot water.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the resident’s reports of discrimination and prejudice in the way the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of ASB and repairs.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

While the landlord made efforts to carry out the repairs, it made such adjustment as were reasonable and sought to reassure the resident, its overall response was too slow, given the severity of the repairs required and the impact on, and actual risk to, the resident. The Ombudsman will refer this case to the Regulator of Social Housing for its consideration.
The evidence showed that the landlord had regard for the resident’s vulnerability, there was no evidence that is discriminated against him
There were significant and unreasonable delays to the landlord’s complaint response which itself was inadequate.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation in the amount of £2,425 within 4 weeks as follows:
  1. £2,000 in relation to the delay to the repairs, in addition to the £25 already offered:
  2. £300 in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling in addition to the £100 already offered.
2. Within 4 weeks of this report, the CEO of the landlord should write to the resident with an apology, including assurances about the landlord’s next steps.
3. Within 2 weeks of this report, the landlord should write to the Ombudsman, with a copy to the EHO and resident’s solicitor with a list of the outstanding works as proscribed by the EHO and referred to on 31 August 2023.
4. Within 3 weeks of this report, the landlord should write to the resident with a realistic and reasonable timescale for the outstanding works, including to resolve the heating and hot water, repairs to corroded gas pipes and agree an appropriate intermediary through whom to negotiate access.
5. Within 2 weeks of this report, the landlord should write to the resident stating it will make an offer to the resident of a management move, requesting the updated preferences of the resident and an approximate timescale when it might be in the position to make a reasonable offer.
6. The senior management of the landlord should review the issues highlighted in this case, including its approach to similar cases, so there is clear and specific policy and guidance, whether urgent repairs are required and the gas supply is disconnected. This such review should be provided to the Ombudsman within 6 weeks of this report.
The landlord should confirm and evidence compliance with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman within 4 and 6 weeks respectively of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should consider, on receipt of evidence within a reasonable period of approximately 4 weeks, the resident’s claim for expenses.
2. The landlord should ensure that:
  1. It complies with its policy timescales as regards its complaint handing
  2. It retains the case under review until the proposed steps resolving the complaints are carried out.
  3. It undertakes, in particular at the review stage, a full investigation of the matters subject to a complaint.
The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within four weeks of this report.