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

Southern Housing Group Limited (202218536)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218536

Southern Housing Group Limited

30 April 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 response to the leaseholder’s reports of a leaking roof, and level of compensation offered.

Background and summary of events

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. At stage 1 the landlord should respond within 10 days.  If this is not possible it will advise the complainant and provide a response within a further 10 days.  At stage 2 the landlord should respond within 20 working days. If this is not possible it should advise the complainant and provide the response within a further 10 days unless there is good reason and by agreement.
  2. The landlord’s Compensation Framework states in recognition that every case is different and to take into account the severity of the issue and any vulnerabilities of the people affected, a discretionary payment can be awarded. There is no limit in terms of the amount that can be paid, except for those set out in delegated authority limits, but the payment must be agreed by a Regional Director or equivalent role.
  3. The landlord’s Repairs Policy highlights its statutory responsibilities. It states “the Group is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in good repair. This includes: Drains, gutters, external pipes and the roof.”  With regards to the responsibilities of leaseholders and flat owners, the policy states “usually, flat owners are responsible for the repairs and maintenance to the inside of their home only, excluding structural items. Although in very exceptional circumstances we may carry out repairs and maintenance which are the residents’ responsibility because it is affecting other residents. In this case, we would always recharge the resident.”  The Repairs Policy states that it will make safe emergency repairs within 24 hours of notification, and that it will complete routine repairs as quickly as possible, by appointment.
  4. The landlord’s website confirms it has a Planned Investment team which is responsible for “renewing and replacing different parts of [the resident’s] home, including [the] roof …”.  The renewal cycle for roofs is 10-60 year and in 2024-25, it intends to carry out 243 roof replacements.
  5. The landlord’s procedure for dealing with leaks states “the buildings insurance will usually cover a leaks tracing service and claims for damage done by a leak to any part of the building insured, including the inside of the leaseholder’s flat, but will not cover the cost of repairing the leak.” The procedure details the action that should be taken in respect of leaks from a leaseholder’s flat into another flat but not leaks into a leaseholder’s flat from the roof.

Summary of events

  1. The leaseholder purchased the property from the landlord on 31 March 2016. The property is a two-bedroom, top floor flat. The leaseholder rents the property to tenants. Above the property is a flat asphalt roof. The landlord’s internal records note that a stock condition survey was carried out in 2019 which confirmed the renewal year for the roof as 2027.
  2. On 4 February 2022 the leaseholder reported a roof leak affecting the kitchen ceiling.  On 17 February 2022 the landlord raised another repair as the leak was deteriorating then on 22 February 2022 a roofing subcontractor inspected the roof. It found holes around the skylight in the kitchen which it filled in with mastic and painted over. It also replaced broken rivets.  The roofing subcontractor recommended a full survey.
  3. On 22 March 2022 the landlord raised an order to repair the ceiling after damage from the leaks. The remedial works to make good the damage to the ceiling were completed on 6 May 2023. On 9 May 2022 the landlord raised a follow–on order to fill in the ceiling and sand / paint it.
  4. On 6 June 2022 the landlord raised a repair order noting that “the roof is leaking into the property”. On 17 June 2022 the roofing subcontractor attended and carried out repairs to damaged asphalt around the window hatch. 
  5. Further works to make good the ceiling were completed on 7 July 2022.  On 17 July 2022 the landlord raised a further order for follow–on works involving the sanding and painting of the ceiling.
  6. On 30 September 2022, the leaseholder reported that the roof was still leaking, for the third time that year. She said it was now leaking into the bedroom and living room, not just the kitchen, and the electrics were affected which was causing danger to her tenants.  Electricians made the lounge ceiling light safe on 1 October 2022.
  7. Following further phone calls from the leaseholder on 3, 10 and 11 October 2022 the landlord raised a complaint.  The landlord noted that she was still experiencing a leak from the communal roof. It recorded that the roofing subcontractor “attempted to fix this leak twice but the last time it rained water came through the ceiling and has affected their electrics. We have raised two tasks … but we have not had a reply or response. The [leaseholder] is very concerned for her tenant’s safety as she feels there is a risk to life as the water is running down the ceiling lights. The outcome of her complaint is for the roof to be repaired once and for all.”
  8. On 13 October 2022 the roofing subcontractor inspected and discovered a “massive crack” along the property’s roof, due to subsidence. It carried out repairs but noted that this was a temporary solution as additional issues were noted. On 18 October 2022 the leaseholder contacted the landlord advising she had sent a video showing that a bulge in the ceiling had burst and water was streaming down the in the kitchen, living room and bedroom.
  9. On 2 November 2022 the landlord advised it needed further information before it could respond to the leaseholder’s complaint and would now respond within the next 10 working days.
  10. On 22 November 2022 the landlord phoned the leaseholder who advised that she wanted details of all previous visits by the contractor and a survey done on the roof, in order to identify the problem and a permanent solution.
  11. On 23 November 2022 the landlord raised an order for a roof survey. On 26 November 2022, the landlord raised an emergency repair raised as a burst pipe had caused an uncontrollable leak that was affecting the communal area and 3 flats. On 29 November 2022, the landlord’s surveyor attended; however, the leaseholder reported the following day that he only inspected internally.
  12. As the leaseholder had not received a response to the complaint, she contacted the Service which wrote to the landlord on 2 December 2022. We advised the landlord to provide a response at stage 1 by 12 December 2022.
  13. On 13 January 2023 the landlord sent the stage 1 response.  It stated:
    1. There was service failure because the repairs were not completed “within the timeframe”, and due to the related delays in resolving the complaint.
    2. Works to repair the roof were completed on 22 February 2022. Works to make good the damage to the ceiling were completed on 6 May 2022 and 7 July 2022.
    3. The leaseholder could claim the cost of internal repairs against its building insurance. Because the damage was caused by delays in rectifying a communal repair, it offered £250.00 for the excess amount payable.
    4. Its surveyor did not assess the roof on 29 November 2022; however, he was proceeding to procure a roofing specialist, in order to get the works costed so that a business case could be presented to its Asset Management Team, requesting the reinvestment to be brought forward. The works would have to be programmed in as planned works.
    5. It would contact the leaseholders again once the roof renewal had been approved then would confirm the dates it would carry out section 20 consultation with all leaseholders and the works commencement date.
    6. The landlord offered a further:
      1. £50.00 for delays in resolving the complaint.
      2. £60 for service failure.
      3. £15 repeat visits to resolve issues raised.
      4. £50 for the inconvenience caused.
  14. On 16 January 2023, the leaseholder escalated the complaint stating that:
    1. The landlord delayed in sending the complaint response, neither sending the response by the revised date or the date set by the Service.
    2. The landlord did not provide a date for the roof to be fixed or any reasonable milestones for the permanent fixing of the roof.
    3. The landlord did not cite any particular restriction preventing it from providing details of all visits to the roof, as requested. It had not clarified whether the report of 22 February 2022 was the only report.
    4. It had refused to redecorate the damage caused by the leak in September 2022 even though it had done so after the leaks in February 2022 and June 2022.
    5. The compensation offered did not reflect the inconvenience experienced by failing to repair the roof in a timely manner based on the report of 22 February 2022.  
  15. On 1 February 2023, the landlord acknowledged the leaseholder’s stage 2 complaint and advised that it would be responding by 1 March 2023.
  16. On 8 March 2023 the Service asked the landlord to send the stage 2 response by 15 March 2023.   On 13 and 14 March 2023 the landlord made an introductory call to the leaseholder to discuss the complaint further. It advised that it respond in the following 10 days. It first needed consult with different service areas in order to be able to provide a more definite action plan for the future works to the communal roof. It was also still trying to obtain the reports the leaseholder had asked to see.
  17. On 9 March 2023 the landlord raised a repair order noting that water was leaking from 2 places from the roof in the area of the skylight window.  Water was gathering on the communal stairs.  The roofing subcontractor found that the roof felt was peeling off and carried out repairs by filling in cracks then applying tapes and sealants. It recommended that the entire roof be inspected as it observed several cracks on the membrane and the leadwork was not well positioned.
  18. On 23 March 2023 the landlord sent the Stage 2 response.
    1. It had brought forward the roof works from 2027 to 2024–25 but it would inspect the roof the following month by 14 April 2023. It would obtain a quote to replace the roof by 30 April 2023 then decide whether the works could be brought further forward.
    2. It was not able to explain why it had carried out repair works after previous leaks. It would increase its contribution towards the excess to pay the correct amount for water related damage, £350, if the leaseholder made a buildings insurance claim.
    3. It offered a further £50 for the unsatisfactory handling of the Stage 2 complaint.
  19. On 2 May 2023 then on 25 June 2023 the leaseholder emailed the landlord asking for an update on the action points contained in the stage 2 response. The landlord did not respond.
  20. Following a further leak to a neighbour’s property on 9 May 2023, the roofing subcontractor noted cracks throughout the surface of the roof. Its report of the visit stated, “based on the extensive damages observed all over the roof, it is strongly recommended to undertake a full roof refurbishment.”
  21. The leaseholder sent another email on 19 September 2023 asking the landlord for an update on the action proposed to resolve her complaint. There is no evidence that the landlord responded. The landlord’s internal notes state as its complaint investigation had finished and the complaint was with the Service, the leaseholder should contact the Service. However, its repair records indicate that it raised another request for roof survey on 23 November 2023
  22. The roofing subcontractor carried out a roof inspection on 14 March 2024.  Its report stated “During the inspection, it was discovered faulty repairs around the hatch area, which resulted in air and water being trapped under the felt sheets covering the hatch and its surroundings. Upon investigation, cracks were discovered in the asphalt roof below the faulty felt, exacerbating the water leakage issue. The contractor recommended the removal of “all felt sheets in the vicinity of the hatch to assess the extent of damage to the underlying roofing materials. Comprehensive asphalt repair work should be undertaken to address the cracks identified in the roof. Proper sealing techniques should be employed to ensure that the hatch and its surrounding area are adequately protected from water infiltration.”
  23. The leaseholder has advised the Service that on 27 November 2023 a neighbour reported another leak.  Around this time, a stain appeared in her property although it has not worsened. The leaseholder also sent a further email to the landlord on 2 April 2024 requesting an update on its intended action regarding the roof but has not received a response.

Assessment and findings

  1. As reflected in the landlord’s Repairs Policy, Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in good repair. The leaseholder was reporting roof leaks causing damage to the interior of her flat. Therefore, the landlord had on obligation to investigate and trace the leak, in order to ensure that the repair condition of roof was such that the leak would stop. Moreover, the landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Leaks as well as causing damage to property can result in damp and mould growth which is a potential hazard.  The landlord was therefore required to act on the leaseholder’s reports for this reason too.
  2. In this case, the leaseholder reported roof leaks on 3 occasions, in February 2022, June 2022 and September 2022.  On each occasion the landlord’s roofing subcontractor attended by appointment and carried out works to repair the leak, in line with the landlord’s repair obligation. It was also in line with the Repairs Policy that after the leaseholder reported a leak into a light fitting on 30 September 2022, an electrical contractor attended within a day to make safe the light.
  3. However, after the initial report of a roof leak in February 2022, the subcontractor recommended a full survey.  This indicated that the patch repairs carried out may not be sufficient and/or effective in the longer-term and that the landlord should fully establish the repair condition of the roof to decide what further action to take.  The landlord did not do so. The visit of 13 October 2022 reiterated the need for a full survey of the roof as the subcontractor felt its repairs were a temporary solution.  The landlord did not raise an order for a roof survey until November 2022 which was an unreasonable delay given that the need was identified 9 months earlier. 
  4. In fact, while a full roof inspection remained outstanding another roof leak was reported on 9 March 2023, although not to the leaseholder’s flat. The landlord, as stated in its Stage 2 response of March 2023 decided to bring forward roof replacement works from 2027-28 to the financial year 2024-25. It was in line with the landlord’s planned investment programme that it decided that the roof renewal of the leaseholder’s building should be carried out under a planned programme of works. Moreover, it acted pragmatically, to the leaseholder’s benefit, that it brought forward the works without an inspection to specify and prioritise the works. Nonetheless, the response confirmed that an inspection was still required as it needed a quote and to consider bringing the works further forward, which would be within the 2023-24 financial year.
  5. The landlord raised the leaseholder’s expectations by providing dates by which it would inspect and obtain the quote. However, there is no evidence that the landlord obtained a quote for roof replacement works.  The landlord has provided no good reason for this which suggests that it has difficulty procuring reliable roofing contractors that can carry out required roofing renewal works across its stock. As such, it did not follow the Service’s Complaint Handling Code which states, “A landlord must carefully manage the expectations of leaseholders and not promise anything that cannot be delivered” and “Any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion.”
  6. The landlord raised the leaseholder’s expectation that roof replacement works may be completed before April 2024.  However, the landlord did not subsequently provide any update to the leaseholder and April 2024 has now arrived.  Therefore, the landlord did not effectively manage the leaseholder’s expectations and she remains uncertain whether there will be another leak.  The lack of response to her emails has further exacerbated her distress and inconvenience and diminished her confidence that the landlord will prevent further roof leaks from occurring.
  7. After the landlord registered a formal complaint on 11 October 2022, it did not respond within the maximum timeframe of 20 working days.  While it may have wanted to investigate the substantive repair issues further it did not consistently send holding responses to manage the leaseholder’s expectations as to when it would respond.  The Service contacted the landlord about the delayed response. Even then, the landlord did not respond by the deadline of 12 December 2022 set by this Service or provide a holding response.
  8. The landlord’s Stage 2 response was also significantly delayed. After the leaseholder escalated her complaint on 16 January 2023, the landlord took 2 weeks to acknowledge the complaint then did not respond by the date it advised it would, 1 March 2023. Again, the leaseholder asked the Service to help her pursue her complaint and the landlord again did not respond by the deadline set. The landlord offered £50 compensation for each stage of the complaints procedure. Given the length of the delays and the time and trouble spent by the leaseholder in pursuing responses, this award was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case.
  9. In its complaint responses the landlord accepted that there had been service failure in its handling of roofing repairs. However, the Service’s Complaint Handling Code in effect at the time states that at stage 1 landlords should make clear the reasons for any decisions made.  The landlord did not make clear why it had found service failure, as required by the code, as it simply referred to the “timeframe” without specifying what this was.
  10. The landlord offered a total of £115 compensation for its handling of roof repairs.  However, the importance of carrying out a full roof survey was identified at the first repair visit, on 22 February 2022.  The landlord did not carry out a full roof survey until March 2024. Even then it has not obtained a quote for roof replacement works despite committing to do so a in the Stage 2 response. This was needed to fully prioritise the roof replacement works. There have been further leaks since the stage 1 response. Given the further delays and inconvenience to the leaseholder it was unreasonable that the landlord did not increase this aspect of its compensation award after the stage 1 response. 
  11. As noted, there were communication failures after its Stage 2 response. In particular the landlord did not update the leaseholder after committing to obtain a quote and consider whether to bring roofing replacement works forward. It was particularly unreasonable that it cited the Service’s pending investigation as a reason for not responding to the leaseholder. This is because the landlord’s responsibility to deal with the substantive complaint issues remained. 
  12. The Service’s Remedies Guidance suggests compensation of between £100 and £600 in cases where “The LL has acknowledged failings and/or made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the leaseholder and/or the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation”.  Taken altogether the landlord’s offer of £115 for its handling of roofing repairs is not proportionate to the circumstances of the case.
  13. The leaseholder reported internal damage to her property.  In the stage 2 response the landlord offered £350 towards the excess of a claim against the building insurance. It was reasonable that the landlord directed the leaseholder to make a claim. This is because leaseholders are usually responsible for repairs in their flats; however, as confirmed by the procedure for dealing with leaks, the building insurers can consider a claim for damage “inside of the leaseholder’s flat”.  In agreeing to cover the excess the landlord ensured the leaseholder would not be out of pocket should she make a claim. Therefore, this aspect of the landlord’s compensation offer was reasonable.
  14. It is noted that the landlord had raised the leaseholder’s expectations in respect of internal damage by previously carrying our repairs to the ceiling itself, between May and July 2022. This indicates that some staff may be unsure of the repair responsibilities of the parties and/or they are unable to accurately interrogate the repair system to ascertain the repair responsibilities.  A recommendation has therefore been made to address this.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in response to the leaseholder’s reports of a leaking roof, and level of compensation offered.

Reasons

  1. While the landlord has responded to the leaseholder’s reports of leaks, it has failed to carry out a full survey of the roof.  The landlord raised the leaseholder’s expectations by advising it would consider bringing roof replacement works forward by inspecting the roof and obtaining a quote. However, it has failed to take this action and update the leaseholder. Compounding the leaseholder’s distress and inconvenience, it has not responded to her requests for an update.
  2. The landlord did not offer proportionate compensation for the failings in its handling of roof repairs and the leaseholder’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The Service orders the landlord, within the next 4 weeks, to:
    1. send a written apology to the leaseholder for the failings in services identified in this report.  The landlord should take into account the Service’s guidance on providing apologies which is contained within our Remedies guidance.
    2. Pay the leaseholder £900 compensation comprising:
      1. £200 for the leaseholder’s time and trouble, and distress and inconvenience arising from its handling of her complaint.
      2. £350 towards the excess for a claim against the building insurance as offered in the complaints procedure.
      3. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its response to reports of a leaking roof.

The landlord may deduct the amount of any compensation that was awarded within the complaints procedure that has already been paid.

  1. Confirm to the leaseholder whether the roof replacement works will be carried out in the 2024-25 financial year and if so, when it will be in a position to say exactly when the works will commence and/or when it will carry out consultation about the works.
  1. The Service recommends that the landlord takes steps to ensure that repair handling staff are sure of the repair responsibilities of landlords and residents.