Southern Housing Group Limited (202306442)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306442

Southern Housing Group Limited

11 July 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 complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of reports of a faulty oven.
2. The landlord’s record keeping.
3. The associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an affordable rent, assured short hold tenancy. Her most recent tenancy start date was 5 April 2021.The property is a 1-bedroom flat.
On 20 September 2022, the resident informed her landlord that her oven was not getting warm despite being switched on. The landlord attended the property on 30 September 2022 and informed the resident that the oven needed to be replaced.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 3 November 2022. She said:
1. The landlord attended the next day after she reported the oven being faulty. Its operative identified that the control knobs in the oven were damaged and would not turn to increase the temperature. He also noticed there was damage to the oven seal. The operative was able to activate the oven by changing a faulty knob from the grill to the oven. This meant the oven was working, but not the grill.
2. The operative said he would install a new oven.
3. The operative attended to replace the oven but the replacement oven did not have a grill function and was not ‘like for like’ as her previous one. She did not accept this new oven and asked to have one that was ‘like for like’ or for her previous oven to be repaired.
4. She requested for a date when her oven repairs would be completed or her oven replaced.
5. She requested compensation for missed appointments and poor service.
The landlord contacted the resident on 12 December 2022 requesting an extension to provide its complaint response. It provided its stage 1 response on 8 February 2022. It said:
1. Its records showed on-going conversations with the resident and its contractor which indicated that a new seal and knob would be arranged as opposed to a replacement oven. There were delays on parts being supplied due to supply chain issues and postal strikes.
2. The oven was replaced on 23 December 2022, demonstrating that the resident was without a functioning grill for nearly 3 months. It noted that not having access to a grill may have inconvenienced the resident however cooking facilities were available during this period.
3. The resident did not initially accept the new oven because it did not have a grill function. She felt this new oven should have been a temporary arrangement and the landlord should have provided her with a different oven more to her liking.
4. It had reviewed the resident’s tenancy and white goods including the oven were provided when she moved into the property. It said that all white items were gifted as per her tenancy agreement and therefore she was directly responsible for the repairs or placement of these items.
5. It appreciated that this would seem to be mixed messages, as its contractors attended the repair and replaced the resident’s oven. It said it would investigate further to prevent such issues and confusion arising in the future.
6. It would not charge the resident for any repairs and replacement on that occasion but she should be aware that white goods within her home would be considered her responsibility for any future repairs that were required.
7. It apologised for the missed appointments, delays, lack of communication and poor complaint handling, but it insisted that it would not offer the resident a replacement oven.
8. It offered £90 compensation as follows: poor complaint handling, poor communication, and delays in completing repairs, £50. Two missed appointments, £40.
The resident escalated her complaint on 20 February 2022. She said that the landlord’s stage 1 response contained some ‘misinformation’, that:
1. The ‘white goods’ gifted to her were only two items which were the fridge freezer and the washing machine. These items were free standing.
2. The electric fan oven/grill, the gas hob, and the electric extractor, all of which were integrally fitted appliances remained the assets of the landlord and therefore required to be serviced, repaired, and replaced by the landlord and its contractors.
3. She wanted the ‘misinformation’ to be corrected.
4. She did not accept the compensation.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 10 March 2023. It issued its stage 2 response on 17 April 2023. It upheld the resident’s complaint on the following grounds:
1. Misinformation of the repair responsibilities in relation to the appliances in the resident’s home. It said:
  1. The confusion regarding repair responsibilities had likely arisen because the resident’s tenancy agreement did not include an inventory at the start of her 2021 tenancy.
  2. More research should have been done to ascertain the repair responsibility for the oven.
  3. If the resident had been advised correctly that she needed to maintain her appliances she would not have suffered elongated delays and poor service.
  4. That tenancy agreement information needed to be clearer and have specific information in relation to landlord/ tenant responsibilities to avoid misunderstandings and incorrect information relayed to residents.
  5. It was not responsible for the replacement of the resident’s appliances but agreed that it was due to this misinformation that she experienced further delays and service failures.
  6. The housing and lettings team had been informed of the resident’s case and they would make improvements to wordings and details on tenancy agreements going forward.
2. Delays in resolving the repair and providing the second replacement oven. It said:
  1. It accepted that there were delays in the supply chain which led to the delays experienced by the resident.
  2. It would broaden its list of suppliers to ensure it completed repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
  3. It agreed there were repeat visits and missed appointments.
3. It accepted there were service failures in relation to complaint handling delays at stage 1 and stage 2, poor communication, and delays in completing the repair.
4. It offered £200 compensation, £40 for 2 missed appointments, £100 for complaint handling delays and £60 for service failures.
The resident escalated her complaint to this Service as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s position regarding the oven being a gifted item, and the landlord stating she was responsible for its repair. The complaint became one that the Ombudsman could investigate on 12 June 2023.

Scope of the investigation

The resident informed this Service that the new oven the landlord installed in December 2022 has become faulty. She has also raised issues concerning annual gas safety checks on her oven.
This Service has not seen any evidence that the resident has made a formal complaint about these issues or that the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. The resident may log these new issues with the landlord. If she remains dissatisfied after the landlord’s final response, she may then bring her complaint to the Ombudsman as a new case to be investigated. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports of a faulty oven.

The landlord’s repairs policy states:
1. In relation to affordable rent tenancies, since 2018 it no longer required a deposit or completed an inventory at sign up of the tenancy. Instead, it gifted affordable rent tenancies any white goods. This means that it is not responsible for the repair of these white goods.
2. The landlord is not responsible for any of the items which have been gifted to the tenancy by it. This means items which it has provided but has agreed to give to the residents so that they own them and are responsible for their repair maintenance and replacement.
3. Residents are responsible for repairs to their own cooker, fridge and other white goods including those it had gifted them.
4. The landlord’s repairs policy does not stipulate a time frame for when non-emergency repairs should be completed. However, the industry standard is for non-emergency repairs to be completed within 28 days.
When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair– treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
2. Put things right, and;
3. Learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right.’
The resident first reported the issue with the faulty cooker on 20 September 2022. The landlord provided a replacement oven twice. The resident rejected the first oven because it did not have a grill function or electric timers. She accepted the second oven installed in December 2022 which had a grill function but was smaller than her previous model.
The landlord’s records showed the resident contacted the landlord regarding her repairs at least 5 times after she made her formal complaint on 3 November 2022. The landlord did not respond until 12 December 2022, when it requested for an extension to provide a stage 1 response. The level of communication from the landlord was poor and not in line with what this Service would expect. This lack of communication was not reasonable and would have led the resident to feel her complaints were not being taken seriously, thereby causing further distress and inconvenience.
The landlord reported that it replaced the resident’s oven on 23 December 2022, more than 3 months after her initial report on 20 September 2022 and 67 days outside the timeframe for completing non-emergency repairs. This Service understands that there might be some delays associated with completing repairs, like the postal strike referenced by the landlord. However, in-line with general customer service standards, the landlord would be expected to proactively manage the repair and complete it as soon as practically possible. It would also be expected to update the resident and manage their expectations. In this case the landlord failed to act in line with customer service standards thereby causing the resident unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
This Service dispute resolutions principles state that where there has been a failing, we would consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ for the resident.
The landlord was reasonable in acknowledging that there were service failings in relation to how it handled the resident’s reports of a faulty cooker and it made reasonable attempts to put things ‘right’. Such as:
1. Initially attending the property, a day after the repair request was made and ensuring that the resident had access to cooking facilities.
2. It changed the oven a second time after the resident rejected the first replacement oven.
3. It agreed that there was some confusion and misinformation regarding whether it was responsible for the repairs of the oven.
4. It confirmed in its stage 1 and stage 2 response that the oven was a gifted item meaning the resident would be responsible for future repairs.
5. It agreed that there were lessons to learn going forward in relation to how it drafted its affordable rent tenancies and specifying landlord/ resident’s repair responsibilities.
6. It apologised and offered compensation.
There was service failure by the landlord. However, it offered compensation in line with that awarded for service failure as suggested in this Service remedies guidance, it replaced the resident’s oven, it apologised and demonstrated learning from the issue. These actions were reasonable and in line with this Service dispute resolution principles.
This Service finds there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a faulty cooker.

The landlord’s record keeping.

The resident reported that the landlord attended a day after she reported that the oven was not getting warm, while the landlord’s records suggest it first attended on 30 September 2022. The resident mentioned that the landlord attended the property on 3 November 2022 and refers to at least 2 missed appointments. The landlord’s records do not reflect the appointment on 3 November 2022 or any subsequent appointments until it replaced the oven on 23 December 2022.
Furthermore, the landlord’s complaint responses implied that the resident requested for a replacement oven because the one it supplied in December 2022 did not have a grill function. However, this was not the case. The resident confirmed to this Service that the oven the landlord installed in December 2022 had a grill function but the oven was smaller than her previous model.
The landlord acted appropriately by attending promptly to complete repairs to the resident’s oven. However, the landlord’s records are not clear on when it first attended, how often it attended and what repair actions it completed during each visit.
It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. In this case, the landlord has not kept robust records in relation to the resident’s oven repairs. This Service finds there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s record keeping. For this reason, an order for compensation in line with this Service remedies guidance has been made below.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaints policy states stage 1 complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days. It says any extensions should be agreed with the resident and should not be beyond a further 10 working days.
The resident made her formal complaint on 3 November 2022, the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint until it requested for an extension on 12 December 2022. This was 39 days from when the resident made her complaint and outside the timeframe specified in its complaints policy. The landlord not responding in line with its published time frame was a failing and would have understandably caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident.
Furthermore, the landlord did not agree an extension with the resident, it only requested for an extension after the resident had contacted it multiple times about her complaint. This was a failing and not in line with its policy regarding agreeing extensions with the resident.
The landlord’s policy states a complaint response should be given 10 working days after an extension has been agreed. The landlord’s stage 1 response was on 8 February 2023, this was 58 days after the landlord requested for an extension and 97 days from when the resident made her stage 1 complaint. This was a failing and not in line with the landlord’s policy. This unreasonably long delay would have caused further unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The resident escalated her complaint on 20 February 2023. The landlord’s records showed that again the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint until she contacted it on 9 March 2023. The landlord then acknowledged and escalated her complaint on 10 March 2023. This was 17 days from when she made her escalation request. This was a failing and not in line with its complaints policy.
The landlord’s complaint policy states stage 2 responses should be issued within 20 working days. It states when it is not able to provide a response within 20 working days, it would contact the resident and explain its reasons for not being able to provide a response and it would issue a stage 2 response within a further 10 working days.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 17 April 2023. This was 56 calendar days after the resident escalated her complaint. There is no evidence to show that the landlord informed the resident that it would be unable to respond within 20 working days. The landlord not responding within 20 workings days at stage 2 and not informing the resident about the delays in providing a response was a failing and not in line with its complaint policy.
It is a concern that the resident had to initiate contact with the landlord at stage 1 and stage 2 before it acknowledged her complaint. Neither the landlord’s stage 1 nor stage 2 response provided any explanation as to why the resident’s complaint was not acknowledged within its timeframe at both stages of its complaints process.
In her stage 1 complaint, the resident expressed concerns that the landlord did not install a ‘like for like’ oven. Its stage 1 response would have been an ideal opportunity to explain its position around like for like replacements. It failed to address this part of the resident’s complaint, this was not reasonable and not in line with this Service complaint handling code which states the landlord must address all the elements of the complaint.
This Service’s dispute resolution principles states landlords should learn from outcomes. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have learned lessons from its complaint handling failures at stage 1 and responded in accordance with its policy at stage 2. The landlord not showing any learning was a failure and not in line with this Service dispute resolution principles.
The landlord acknowledged there were failures in its complaint handling and offered the resident £100 in respect of these failure. However, this amount was not proportionate to the failures identified in this report in relation to its complaint handling.
This Service finds there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. For this reason, an order for compensation in line with this Service remedies guidance has been made below.
In May 2024, the Ombudsman issued a special report about the landlord, highlighting concerns about its complaint handling, risk management, repair timescales, and knowledge and information management. The report made several recommendations and the landlord was given 3 months to publish and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of how it intends to meet the recommendations. As such, the Ombudsman will not make any further orders in relation to those areas. However, the landlord should ensure it considers the findings highlighted in this investigation against the recommendations made in the special report.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of reports of a faulty oven.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its record’s keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident total compensation of £300. This amount is comprised as follows:
  1. £100 for record keeping failures.
  2. Additional £200 for complaint handling failures.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends the landlord pays the resident the £200 compensation (£40 missed appointments, £60 service failure and £100 complaint handling failures) it previously offered (if it has not yet done so). The finding of reasonable redress is on the basis that this payment is made to the resident.
It is recommended that the landlord provides the resident with copies of the purchase and warranty documents of the oven it installed in December 2022 if it has access to these.