Southern Housing Group Limited (202224966)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224966

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 handling of the follow-on works after the resident’s report of sewage coming through his bathroom pipework.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident occupies a three-bedroom flat under an assured tenancy agreement that commenced on 15 October 2012. The resident has two dependent children. The landlord noted on its system that there were mental health vulnerabilities in the household, however, neither party has provided further information to the Ombudsman about these vulnerabilities.
4. The resident reported on 11 June 2021 that sewage was coming out of the bath and sink in his property. He said that as a result, this damaged the flooring and skirting boards and caused damp and mould. The resident said although the landlord had agreed to replace his flooring and skirting boards, the landlord’s contractor repeatedly missed and rescheduled appointments over an extended period. He also said that when the landlord’s contractor attended the property, it would not carry out the replacement of his flooring and skirting boards. The resident said the works were incomplete at the time of writing this report.
5. The resident raised a formal complaint on 8 April 2022. He said that the landlord’s contractor had missed three appointments between November 2021 and January 2022 to replace the flooring and skirting boards. The landlord said in its stage 1 response on 26 April 2022 that it had rescheduled one of the appointments with the resident’s agreement, but the other appointment could not go ahead due to an adult not being present at the property. It also said the third appointment did not take place because there was an emergency appointment that had taken precedence. It offered £25 for the initial appointment being missed.
6. The resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response on 26 April 2024 because:

a.     He disputed he had left his children alone when the contractors attended the property.

b.     The dates used in the landlord’s response for the appointments were incorrect.

c.      He was unhappy with his treatment by the landlord.

7. Initially the landlord said it would not progress the resident’s complaint because it had taken too long for him to request an escalation. This is because the landlord considered the resident escalated his complaint on 8 November 2022. At this time, the resident had explained that the landlord had not completed the work and that this had been ongoing for an extended period. The resident also said the landlord’s contractor had failed to complete an appointment scheduled for that day because it did not have the tools to complete the job.
8. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 24 March 2023. It said it upheld the resident’s complaint because:

a.     It had not completed the repairs within a reasonable timeframe.

b.     The stage 1 response failed to address the longstanding repairs because it had not compensated the resident for the delays dating back to 2021.

c.      There was poor communication between its contractor and the landlord because it did not keep the resident updated on the remedial works following the sewage flood.

9. The landlord apologised for its failures, offered the resident £1,260 in compensation, and explained it had arranged an appointment to complete the outstanding works for 27 and 28 March 2023.
10. The resident escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman because the repairs remain incomplete, and he said that the compensation awarded did not account for the further appointments that were unsuccessful and the additional delays he had experienced.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

11. The resident told the Ombudsman:

a.     The blockage had damaged his carpets and the landlord would not replace them. He said he made a claim for these on his insurance, but he had to pay an excess of £450. He said he felt this was unfair because the damage was caused by the blockage.

b.     He felt the sink and bath needed to be replaced because of the presence of sewage and that the landlord had said it would not replace them.

c.      There was an infestation of silverfish which he believes is related to the initial blockage.

12. Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states: “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.”
13. The Ombudsman is unable to look at these elements of the resident’s complaint during this investigation. This is because he did not raise them as part of his initial complaint, and they have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure.

Handling of the follow-on works after the resident’s reports of sewage coming through his bathroom pipework.

14. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on landlords to keep in good repair and working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation. When a resident notifies the landlord of an issue, it is responsible for making repairs that are lasting and effective. The landlord should complete repairs promptly to avoid impacting the resident’s enjoyment and use of their property.
15. The landlord’s repair policy states:

a.     It will complete routine repairs as quickly as possible at a time to suit residents.

b.     Responsible adults over the age of 18 must be at home to let in contractors otherwise work cannot start or continue.

c.      If it is unable to keep an appointment it will inform the resident as soon as possible and discuss an alternative date.

16. The landlord’s compensation policy states that “failure and delays” in undertaking repairs are a service failure. It also states that missed or failed appointments are a service failure. To put things right it will consider compensation payments.
17. The resident explained to the Ombudsman that his complaint was about the way the landlord’s contractor had handled his appointments and the delays experienced in getting the follow-on works for the flooring and skirting boards completed.

The handling of the follow-on works

18. The resident reported there was a blocked drain that resulted in sewage coming through the bath and sink on 11 June 2021. The records provided to the Ombudsman only list the reports it had on its system. The records do not show the subsequent appointments the landlord made. The appointments noted in this report were those detailed in internal communications and communications the landlord had with the resident. This was evidence of poor record keeping. The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts, repairs, and services provided. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. This hampered the Ombudsman’s investigation into the resident’s complaint.
19. The evidence shows there were 10 reports about the blockage, ongoing plumbing issues, and damp and mould between 11 June 2021 and 28 March 2023.
20. The landlord responded by:

a.     Attending the property on 18 October 2021 and confirmed that its contractor had not carried out the remaining works. It said it would investigate this and update the resident. There is no evidence the landlord did either of these things.

b.     Arranging an appointment on 28 November 2021, 4 and 5 December 2021 and 7 January 2022. These appointments did not go ahead because the contractor said it could not gain access for the first two appointments and it cancelled the last appointment. The resident disputes the contractor could not gain access to the property for the first two appointments.

c.      It requested an update from its contractor on 8 April 2022 about the missed appointments to date.

d.     It conducted a joint visit with its contractor on 12 April 2022 and agreed to the following scope of works:

Bathroom	Cloakroom
Replace nonslip flooring 2m x 2m. Renew boxing under the basin. Renew tiles on boxing. Redecorate. Clean under the bath. Investigate pipework under the bath.	Renew nonslip flooring 2m x 1m. Renew boxing. Redecorate. Clean behind boxing.

 

e.     It logged four reports for the replacement of the flooring and skirting between 27 May 2022 and 7 February 2023. There are no follow-up appointments detailed on the repair records for these reports.

f.        It re-raised a job for the above works on 9 August 2022. There is no appointment evidenced in the repair records relating to this.

g.     It emailed its contractor on 3 October 2022 to ask for an update on the works. The contractor said it had not replaced the flooring because based on its own assessment this was not required. The landlord explained the resident had waited 18 months for the works and that the contractor needed to arrange to do this without further delay.

h.     It emailed its contractor on 7 March 2023 requesting an update on the scope of works previously agreed. The contractor said it had not completed the works because the resident had disputed the choice of flooring. The landlord said the issue was not the resident but the contractor’s operatives concluding the flooring does not need to be replaced. It asked the contractor to complete the scope of work.

i.        It raised a job for the above works on 13 March 2023. The system notes the operative left the job because they said the resident was abusive. There is no appointment date attached to this incident.

j.        It requested a quote for an alternative contractor to complete the works on 13 March 2024. The resident said the contractor attended the property on 3 April 2024.

21. The landlord does not particularise a timeframe for routine repairs to be completed in its policy, however, the landlord said it would complete the repairs by 28 March 2023. It took the landlord 456 working days after the blockage was reported to agree for the works to be concluded at this appointment. This was an avoidable, significant, and unreasonable delay in completing the work.
22. The evidence showed the landlord scheduled some appointments and this is discussed in more detail in paragraph 28. However, there is no evidence that it had completed the work at these appointments. This showed the appointments were ineffective. In addition, the evidence does not show if the landlord responded to each of the resident’s reports that the works remained incomplete.
23. The landlord acknowledged and apologised in its stage 2 response that it had unreasonably delayed carrying out the repairs between 11 June 2021 and 28 March 2023. It said it was “deeply sorry for the delays in resolving the repairs in [the resident’s] home” and that it would use the case to “recommend that multi-trade repairs are managed more efficiently and that closer monitoring was required when a property is affected by sewage and compromises the health and hygiene of a resident’s home.” It offered the resident a discretionary payment of £1,000 and a further £110 for its delay in repairing and service failures. It also said it would complete the outstanding repairs on 27 and 28 March 2023.
24. The resident explained that he was happy with the outcome of the stage 2 response including what the landlord had done to recognise his experience and the impact of its failures on him and his household. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord had acted appropriately in recognising its failures and tried to put things right when it offered a remedy and a date to complete the works.
25. However, the evidence shows the landlord failed to complete the repairs at the subsequent appointment and it was rescheduled for 24 April 2023. The resident told the landlord he did not hear from the contractor and no further appointments took place.
26. There is evidence landlord scheduled an appointment for or around 3 April 2024 with an alternative contractor. The resident explained that because the repairs remained incomplete at the time of writing this report, he and his family experienced further distress and inconvenience in chasing the repairs through to completion.
27. Ultimately, the landlord was aware it had delayed matters unreasonably but allowed the repairs to be delayed again. There is also evidence it took steps to seek a quote on 13 March 2024 for an alternative contractor to carry out the works. The resident told the Ombudsman the landlord had attended his property on 3 April 2024 to carry out the repairs. This was a further 237 working days after the works were due to be completed on 28 March 2023.
28. The Ombudsman considers the landlord unreasonably delayed in completing the works after it had given an appointment to do so in its stage 2 response. This caused additional distress and inconvenience for the resident because the landlord failed to do what it said it would do.

Appointments

29. The resident said the landlord’s contractor:

a.     Failed to attend appointments it had arranged with him, he specifically noted 3 appointments where this happened, these were 29 November 2021, 4 and 5 December 2021 and 7 January 2022.

b.     Told the landlord that the resident had left his dependent children alone in the property so it could not start the repairs. The resident said he had been in the property at the time and the contractor attended but his child had opened the door and the operative said it would return later but they did not.

c.      When it attended appointments after the complaint procedure had concluded, repeatedly rescheduled appointments. He said when it did attend it took pictures of the flooring and concluded it would not replace it.

30. Between 29 November 2021 and 3 April 2024, the following appointments were identified in the landlord’s correspondence:

a.     29 November 2021. The landlord rescheduled this appointment for 4 and 5 December 2021. The landlord did not dispute the resident’s account that this was a missed appointment.

b.     4 and 5 December 2021. The landlord rescheduled this appointment for 7 January 2022. The landlord did not dispute the resident’s account that this was a missed appointment.

c.      7 January 2022. The landlord rescheduled this appointment for 13 January 2022. The landlord did not dispute the resident’s account that this was a missed appointment.

d.     13 January 2022. The landlord said this appointment was attempted but declined by the resident. The resident said he could not comment on this appointment, he explained this was because there were so many failed appointments.

e.     30 September 2022. The resident said the contractor attended without any flooring to complete the job. The landlord apologised and said it had asked the contractor to contact the resident to arrange a further appointment. When the landlord spoke with the contractor, the contractor said the flooring did not need replacing. The landlord explained it had contacted the contractor on numerous occasions with a schedule of works and explained the resident had been waiting 18 months for this job to be completed. It asked for the repairs to be arranged immediately.

f.        27 and 28 March 2023. The resident said the contractor attended with a “poor attitude”, took pictures of the flooring, and said he would return after sourcing materials. When the resident asked if the operative would return, he said they took exception to this and started shouting, cancelled the job and left. The landlord rescheduled the appointment for 24 April 2023.

g.     24 April 2023. The resident said the contractor did not attend and he told the landlord he had not had any further contact with it. The resident said the contractor did not attend this appointment due to staff illness and no further appointment was made. There is no evidence the landlord monitored this.

h.     3 April 2024. The resident told the Ombudsman the landlord had arranged for a different contractor to attend, and it was completing the work during that week.

31. The Ombudsman notes that the repair records provided did not provide details of any appointments relating to the reports it had on its system. In addition, some of the text that detailed the repair reports was missing. The appointment dates shared with the Ombudsman were the appointments referred to as part of its complaint’s investigation notes. Consequently, the Ombudsman cannot determine if the landlord followed up with its contractor to arrange further appointments on each occasion the resident reported problems.
32. The Ombudsman notes that the repair records provided did not provide details of any appointments relating to the reports it had on its system. In addition, some of the text that detailed the repair reports was missing. The appointment dates shared with the Ombudsman were the appointments referred to as part of its complaint’s investigation notes. Consequently, the Ombudsman cannot determine if the landlord followed up with its contractor to arrange further appointments on each occasion the resident reported problems.
33. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord said it would not dispute the resident’s account for the appointments on 29 November 2021, 4 and 5 December 2021 and 7 January 2022. This is because it said it had seen evidence of the appointments being “constantly rescheduled.” This was appropriate because it was in line with its compensation policy. There was reasonable redress for this element because it acknowledged its failings and tried to put things right.
34. The Ombudsman considers the landlord to be empathetic and apologetic in his communication with the resident for his experience with the general handling of the resident’s appointments. It said in its stage 2 response it was “deeply sorry for the service failures of its contractor and the inconvenience ensured by [the resident’s] family.” This was appropriate and an example of proper acknowledgement of its failings for the appointments.
35. There are no records relating to appointments between 24 April 2023 and 3 April 2024. There is evidence of the landlord requesting a quote from an alternative contractor to complete the works on 13 February 2024. Consequently, the Ombudsman was unable to comment further on whether the landlord acted reasonably about its handling of appointments during this time.
36. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have monitored the appointments between 24 April 2023 and 3 April 2024 and reviewed its offer of compensation based on any further failures it found. This should have included the appointments missed in March and April 2023. As it failed to show it did this, the resident felt the landlord was not committed to addressing any ongoing appointment issues and their impact on him or completing the repairs.
37. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs.

Complaint handling

38. The Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code) states:

a.     Landlords must issue a full response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged. 

b.     Landlords must issue a final response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.

c.      Outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned promptly with appropriate updates provided to the resident.

d.     The landlord must progress complaints to the next stage of its procedure if it is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction.

39. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will provide stage 1 responses within 10 working days of its complaint acknowledgement and stage 2 responses within 20 working days of an escalation request.
40. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 11 working days after the complaint was acknowledged. The delay was short and would have had a minimal impact on the resident.
41. The resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the outcome of the landlord’s stage 1 response on 26 April 2022. This was an escalation request and the landlord failed to identify it as one. The landlord issued its stage 2 response within 196 working days of the resident’s escalation request. This was an unreasonable delay and was not appropriate.
42. The resident made two further escalation requests on 30 September 2022 and 8 November 2022. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s initial escalation request on 26 April 2022 or the request on 30 September 2022. It responded to the resident’s escalation request on 8 November 2022 by explaining it would not progress the complaint because the resident was out of time to request one.
43. Following the intervention of the Ombudsman, the landlord progressed the complaint to stage 2 of its complaint process on 6 February 2023. The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s decision not to escalate the resident’s complaint unreasonable. The landlord should have recognised the resident’s escalation request on 26 April 2022 and accepted that the later correspondence in November 2022 was chasing an outcome to the escalation request.
44. The landlord acknowledged its failure to escalate the resident’s complaint in its stage 2 response and offered £50 to the resident in recognition of this.
45. However, the compensation was not proportionate to the time it took the landlord to progress the resident’s complaint. On this basis the Ombudsman considers the landlord did not sufficiently remedy the complaint.

Determination

46. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration with the way the landlord handled the follow-on works following the resident’s report of excrement and sewage coming through his bathroom pipework.
47. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the way the landlord handled the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

48. Within 28 days of this determination, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:

a.     Write to the resident to apologise to the resident for the failures found in this report.

b.     Pay the resident an additional £1,100 in recognition of:

1. £50 for the failed appointments in March and April 2024.
2. £1000 for the delay in completing the repairs between 28 March 2023 and 3 April 2024.
3. £50 for the delay in progressing the resident’s complaint.

This is in addition to the compensation awarded during the complaints process. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not applied to his rent account unless he requests this.

c.      Arrange for complaint handling refresher training for relevant colleagues. This is to address any misunderstanding over what constitutes an escalation request.

d.     Provide evidence of compliance with the orders of this service.

Recommendations

49. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:

a.     reviews any wider feedback from residents about missed appointments by its contractor to understand if there is a wider concern related to it. It should share this with the senior leadership team responsible for the management of its contract so that any issues identified can be taken forward with the view to mitigate any negative impact on residents.

b.     inspect the bathroom again. This is because the resident later reported further concerns and the presence of maggots.

c.      offer training to its repairs staff on the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management – to ensure they are aware of the importance of creating and maintaining clear and accurate records to demonstrate the landlord’s compliance with its obligations.