Southern Housing Group Limited (202221863)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221863

Southern Housing Group Limited

26 June 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of heat loss from the property.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 11 November 2013. The property is a semi-detached 2-bedroom house. The property is prefabricated and of non-standard construction. The resident has a genetic immunity condition, and she lives and cares for her disabled child and her brother who is also disabled.
In August 2022 the resident raised a formal complaint. She said that she had not received an adequate response to the enquiries that she had raised following a fire on the estate. She had concerns as she had not had a fire safety inspection as promised by the landlord. She wanted an update on the safety of her home construction and the proposed refurbishment programme. In October 2022 the resident also added to the complaint the fact that the roof and walls needed insulating as the property was freezing because the heat could not be contained. She said that the cost of trying to heat the property was putting financial pressure on her.
In February 2023 the landlord responded. It said that in respect of inadequate insulation in the property it would be undertaking a regeneration program to bring the property to a sustainable standard. The resident will be offered a temporary or permanent decant. Currently it was focused on re-housing its residents that had suffered a total loss in the fire. Once this was completed it would continue to work on the larger regeneration project. It said the cladding was safe and met the current building safety regulations. It said that capital investment works were not due to start at the property until the 2023/2025 planned program.
The resident escalated her complaint to a stage 2. She wanted to know if the insulation works would be done prior to the regeneration works. She said the cold in the property was affecting her and her family’s health. She considered it fell below the legal standard. She was also struggling to pay for her energy usage. She wanted a fire risk assessment and wanted to know if any asbestos was in the property. She wanted her concerns addressing and practical solutions offered. She could not face another winter in the property.
The landlord responded. It said that due to the nature of the construction of the property there was no alternative approach to new insulation. Any works would need to be facilitated in a programmed manner. It had asked its community investment team to look at whether any further assistance could be offered in respect of the rise in the resident’s energy costs. It had arranged for a further heat loss survey of her home and hoped that this would find a way forward to make the property more comfortable.
It had forwarded the resident’s request to its fire risk assessment team to consider whether a further inspection was necessary. It also offered to contact the fire brigade on her behalf if she wished. The asbestos survey completed on 14 March 2023 had confirmed that the asbestos was safely contained. It was awaiting the outcome of an application to the government’s decarbonisation fund. If successful, this may support the external improvements needed to its homes to enable them to reach EPC C standard. Once it had an update it would arrange separate communication to its residents.

Post Complaint.

The resident remained dissatisfied that the property was still losing heat, and the landlord had not provided a resolution.
This Service asked the landlord for an update on its application to the government decarbonisation fund. The landlord said that it had assessed the relative homes and determined that they were not viable for such investment in view of the current government funding caps.

Assessment and findings

The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (the HHSRS) offers landlords a risk-based tool to enable them to consider potential hazards. This is useful as landlords have a responsibility to keep properties free from category one hazards, which includes excess cold. Guidance for the HHSRS sets out the appropriate temperatures and the health risks that could be caused if temperatures fall below. It also suggests that landlords could complete a heat assessment to determine the cause of any heat loss and determine whether radiators are the correct size for rooms.
The Equality Act 2010 provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals and to advance equality of opportunity for all. The landlord would be required to comply with the provisions for public bodies under the Act. Under the Act the landlord had a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled.
It is noted that the resident has stated that she considers that the issue has exacerbated her and her household medical conditions. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the property temperature and the resident’s medical condition. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
This service acknowledges that the resident reported the heat loss in November 2021 and the landlord tried to remedy the issue by fitting 2 more radiators. The next report according to the records was on 27 September 2022 when it was raised as part of the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It is unknown why the resident had not raised her concerns as a formal complaint prior to 2022. Given the passage of time, and the gaps in reporting this Service has investigated the landlord’s response from September 2022.
It is further noted that the resident raised numerous other queries during the complaints process which was appropriate. However, this Service has considered the resident’s concerns about the heat loss from her property as this is what she expressed her dissatisfaction about when she approached our Service.
The landlord contacted the resident by telephone in September 2022. The records show that it was at this point the resident said she considered the property was not fit to live in. She said this was due to poor insulation and the heat not being able to be contained. She was concerned as it would be winter again soon and the heating bills would cause financial pressure.
The resident continued to chase the landlord for a response. The landlord did not respond until 9 February 2023 which was 5 months after the resident had raised her concerns. This was inappropriate and a failing of its handling of the matter. The resident had expressed concerns about her welfare and that of her household. She had also expressed concerns about the financial strain that heating the property over the colder months in particular would cause. She then had to live with the uncertainty and spend time and effort chasing the landlord for a further 5 months.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have visited the resident when it was put on notice in September 2022. It would have also been appropriate for it to have risk assessed the impact that the condition of the property was having on the resident and her household. By not doing so the landlord failed to act in accordance with its duties under the Equality Act 2010.
Furthermore, landlords have a responsibility to keep properties free from category one hazards, which includes excess cold. Guidance for the HHSRS sets out that a healthy indoor temperature is approximately 21°C and that temperatures below 16°C, may pose serious health risks, particularly for elderly or more vulnerable residents. Correspondence provided to this Service shows that the resident had told the landlord that she could not increase the temperature in the property above 12C. The landlord has therefore failed to satisfy itself that the property was free from a category one hazard. That it did not was a serious failing.
The resident escalated her complaint on the basis that she wanted to know whether any insulation works could be completed while she had to wait for the regeneration programme. She said she could not cope with another winter. She explained that the property was making her household ill and was impacting her mental health. The landlord responded in March 2023. It said that there was no alternative approach to new insulation that would not require extensive works which would need to be programmed. The landlord repeatedly failed to identify the need to risk assess the property, but it did at this point arrange for a heat survey to be completed.
The heat survey was completed shortly after the stage 2 response. The comments in the report said the property was like “a freezer”. The heat was reported as escaping through the walls. In addition to this the report stated that the windows and doors were badly fitted and on this basis fitting radiators would not resolve the issue. It advised that a surveyor would be required to provide a full report on the window and doors and the insulation. It also said that the house required insulation from top to bottom as there was nothing to contain the heat inside the property.
This Service has recently contacted the landlord to establish what action it has taken to resolve the issue since the complaint. The landlord advised that it had made referrals for the resident to charity organisations who could assist with funding towards her utility bills. The resident advised that she had received £49 from a charity organisation.
The landlord also said that it completed another heat loss survey in January 2024 which again found that the property had ill-fitting doors and windows. It again recommended insulation in the walls and loft. It suggested the fitting of an extra radiator in the lounge. The landlord provided correspondence showing that in March 2024 it was proposing to insulate the external walls in the kitchen and hallway and fully insulate the loft. The resident advised this Service that the proposed insulation works were completed around the beginning of May 2024.
While this Service appreciates that partial insulation works would reduce the heat loss from the property. The landlord has still not evidenced that it completed a risk assessment at any point. An order will be made to ensure that a risk assessment is now completed. The risk assessment will need to include readings of the temperature in the property so the landlord can ensure that the property is not posing a hazard due to excess cold.
The risk assessment will need to be completed again in the colder months later this year. This will enable the landlord to measure whether the works it has completed have resolved the issue. The assessment must also include details of how it has considered the resident’s individual circumstances. These must include affordability, her vulnerabilities and that of her household in accordance with its duties under the Equality Act 2010.
In summary the landlord’s continued failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of heat loss amounts to severe maladministration. The landlord has failed to evidence that it had risk assessed the property to ensure it was free from a category 1 hazard. It failed to show that it had considered the resident and her household’s vulnerabilities in accordance with its duties under the Equality Act 2010. It also failed to consider the financial impact this was having on the resident.
The landlord’s failings in this matter would have had a significant impact on the resident and her household. She had to live in cold conditions for an indefinite period of time. Furthermore, the resident had the distress of not knowing when or if the matter would be resolved alongside the financial worry of being able to pay her heating costs. This was further exasperated by the landlord’s failure to respond for a period of over 5 months. This caused the resident time and effort having to chase her landlord to try to get the matter resolved.
The Ombudsman therefore considers it appropriate to require the landlord to provide financial redress which recognises the resident did not have full enjoyment of the property due to the excess cold. A 20% amenity loss calculation has therefore been applied. This percentage has been reduced slightly based on the fact that the loss of enjoyment would have a greater impact during the winter months than the summer months. The period considered for this calculation is 27 September 2022 (when the resident raised the heat loss issue in her complaint) to 1 May 2024, (The estimated completion time frame when some insulation had been put in the kitchen, hallway and loft). This period consists of 83 weeks.
As part of the calculation this Service has factored in the rent figure provided by the landlord which was £121.12 per week. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable to require the landlord to pay the resident £2010.59 compensation for loss of amenity. This figure has been calculated as follows:
An amenity loss calculation for the use and enjoyment of the property for 83 weeks x £24.22 = £2010.26. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all of the circumstances into account.
This investigation also considers that the landlord’s failings caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident. The Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance sets out that compensation in the range of £600 to £1000 should be awarded where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. Compensation may be higher where there was a severe long-term impact.
The landlord’s failure to consider the resident and her household’s vulnerabilities was significant. Its poor communication, failure to risk assess the property and the impact it was having on her, and her household was inappropriate. Furthermore, the resident had to live with the uncertainty and financial worry of trying to heat her home for a significant period of time. She had informed the landlord that she was having to visit foodbanks due to the financial strain. In addition, she had to spend time and effort chasing the landlord to try to get matters resolved.
The resident had also informed the landlord that the excess cold was affecting her and her household’s health. Its therefore reasonable to conclude that this has had a significant impact over a substantial period of time. Therefore, in line with the guidance the landlord has been ordered to also pay the resident £1600 for distress and inconvenience caused.
In May 2024, the Ombudsman issued a special report about the landlord, highlighting concerns with its risk management. The report recommended the landlord revise its relevant policies to include:
1. How it will identify hazards present in each property.
2. How it will proactively work to remove hazards and reduce risk to the resident and the property arising from the hazards present in the property.
In this investigation we have identified failures similar to those that are included in our special report. We therefore order the landlord to consider the findings highlighted in this investigation against the recommendations in our special report of May 2024.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy gives ten working days for a stage one complaint response, and 20 working days for a stage two response. In this case, the stage one response took 124 working days to issue its response. This was not in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and its own timescales which was a failing.
The landlord’s stage 1 response just stated that it would in future undertake a regeneration program. This response lacked any investigation into the issue raised. It did not show that it had listened to the resident’s concerns about the loss of heat and taken it seriously. The landlord failed to investigate the complaint in line with its policies and good practice. It failed to offer an appropriate apology and demonstrated a dismissive and disrespectful approach to the resident.
The landlord took 26 working days to respond to the resident’s escalation request which was slightly outside of its own policy timescales. It stage 2 response went slightly further to explain why the works needed to be facilitated in a programmed manner. In respect of putting matters right it suggested a heat loss survey which was reasonable. It also acknowledged that the resident had expressed concerns about affordability and said it would look into whether any assistance could be provided.
This Service considers the above complaint handling failures amount to maladministration. At both stages of the complaint there was a failure to respond within timescales of the complaint. The responses demonstrated a lack of investigation and curiosity. The complaint responses failed to put things right, consider redress or a meaningful apology. The landlord failed to learn from its mistakes. In determining an appropriate order for compensation, consideration has been given to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
As stated above the Ombudsman issued a special report about the landlord in May 2024 and this also highlighted concerns with its complaint handling. The report recommended that the landlord should:
1. Roll out a complaint handling training to all staff and contractors.
2. Ensure that it has one system in which landlord staff can record complaints, escalations requests and responses, including all relevant fields needed to ensure the landlord can satisfy itself that it’s following its own policy and complying with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
In this investigation we have identified failures similar to those that are included in our special report in respect of complaint handling. We therefore order the landlord to consider the findings highlighted in this investigation against the recommendations in our special report of May 2024.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of heat loss from the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to arrange for its Chief Executive Officer to apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
Pay directly to the resident a total of £3860.26.
1. The compensation is broken down as follows:
  1. £2010.26 for the amenity loss.
  2. £1600 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused.
  3. £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
Within 8 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to complete a risk assessment of the property The risk assessment will need to include:
1. Readings of the temperature of the property.
2. An inspection of the condition of the windows and doors and whether they meet the relevant standards.
3. Details of any risks identified, and action required including timescales to complete the actions.
4. Details of what consideration has been made of the resident’s circumstances including her household vulnerabilities and affordability.
5. Details of how it will monitor the temperature of the property particularly in the winter months.
6. The landlord must share the outcome of the risk assessment with the resident and this Service also within 8 weeks.
As set out above, the landlord is also ordered to review the findings highlighted in this investigation against the recommendations in our special report of May 2024.The landlord should satisfy itself that the changes it has or will make in accordance with our special report would rectify the failings identified in this investigation. It should focus particularly on:
1. How it manages its vulnerable resident’s and ensures that it adheres to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
2. How it will identify hazards present in each property.
3. How it will proactively work to remove hazards and reduce risk to the resident and the property arising from the hazards present in the property.
4. Satisfying itself that it has effective procedures in place to record and store information accurately.
5. That there is effective internal communication, and that teams are aware of relevant roles in keeping the resident updated and recording the communication.
6. Satisfying itself that its relevant staff are aware of the complaint handling principles set out in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
7. The landlord must share the outcome of this review with this Service also within 8 weeks.