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

Southern Housing Group Limited (202307516)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307516

Southern Housing Group Limited

24 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

  1. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s report of damp and mould within the property.
    2. The resident’s report of a loss of power within the property.
    3. The resident’s report of a leak from above.
    4. The resident’s report of a blocked/leaking toilet.
    5. The resident’s report of damage to her personal belongings.
    6. The associated complaint. 

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The tenancy started in October 2011. The landlord has not provided a copy of the signed tenancy agreement to this Service.
  2. The resident lives in the property with her husband and 3 children. The resident told this Service that her children have medical conditions including severe respiratory issues. 
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint on 20 February 2023. She was concerned about the conditions of the property and the impact it was having on her children’s health. She referenced damp, mould and condensation, and problems with the drainage system. She described leaking windows, radiators, and toilets. She said there was a leak from above and ceilings were damaged. Additionally, she said the electrical system was poor.
  4. On 8 March 2023, the resident’s legal representative issued a ‘letter of claim’ to the landlord under the pre-action protocol for housing condition claims.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 20 March 2023. It said:
    1. A leak was reported on 28 February 2023.
    2. It had decanted the resident, who was due to return to the property on 31 March 2023.
    3. The target completion date for the remedial works was 29 March 2023.
    4. It had arranged a post inspection for 31 March 2023 to check its contractors had completed the works and to pick up any additional works required.
    5. It offered the resident £58 to cover the running cost of the dehumidifier and £50 for the time, trouble and inconvenience dealing with the leak.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 26 March 2023. She said the landlord failed to address the underlying issues and that she had reported the leaks over 3 months ago. She said there had been no electricity in the home for 2 months and her family could not cook dinner or bathe. She explained the property had flooded constantly and there was a significant amount of damage to her personal possessions. She strongly felt the conditions within the property were impacting the health of her children.
  7. On 12 April 2023, the resident told the landlord that the ventilation system it had fitted did not work.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 2 May 2023. It outlined the works its contractor completed within the property in March 2023. It said it arranged for its ventilation specialist to attend on 1 June 2023. It asked the resident to complete claim forms regarding her allegation of damages to health and personal belongings. It also informed her that upon letting, it asked residents to obtain contents insurance. It said its previous offer of compensation was still available.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaint procedure.

  1. The resident’s legal representative and the landlord’s legal representative continued to liaise regarding the resident’s disrepair claim. In June 2024, the resident advised this Service that legal proceedings had not yet started.

 

 

 

Assessment and findings

  1. We provide a dispute resolution service which is an alternative to a legal route. We frame our approach by three principles – be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman made several recommendations to this landlord within our special report published in May 2024 concerning complaint handling, record keeping, and repairs. The Ombudsman has therefore not made recommendations in this report around these aspects of service but expects the landlord to take all relevant learning points from this case into account.

Scope of investigation

  1. A significant part of the resident’s complaint relates to the impact of the living conditions on the health of her children. The Ombudsman accepts that several members of the household have been diagnosed with medical conditions and the resident is extremely concerned. Unlike a court, the Ombudsman cannot establish what caused the health issues, or determine liability and award damages. This is more appropriate for the courts or an insurer to decide.
  2. The resident complained about several aspects of disrepair with the property. The Ombudsman expects a resident to raise a complaint within a reasonable period of issues occurring. As such, this adjudication considers events from August 2022 up to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response dated 2 May 2023. This is 6 months before the resident raised a formal complaint on 20 February 2023.
  3. Having reviewed the landlord’s records, there is no evidence the resident raised a repair request or complaint to the landlord about flooding, leaking windows or radiators in the 6-month period before the resident’s formal complaint. As such, the Ombudsman has not investigated the above concerns within this report.
  4. In June 2023, the resident informed this Service of insect infestations in the property. The resident did not raise this within her initial complaint to the landlord. The Ombudsman is unable to consider complaints that have not completed the landlord’s internal complaint process.
  5. To resolve this complaint, the resident asked the landlord to move her and her family to a property more suitable for their circumstances. The Ombudsman understands the resident’s reasons for wanting to move. However, the Ombudsman cannot order the landlord to rehouse a resident. This is because we do not have access to information regarding the availability of suitable vacant properties owned by the landlord, and we do not have details of any other prospective tenants waiting to move who may have higher priority than the resident for rehousing.
  6. The resident confirmed she has registered her housing needs with the local authority. The local authority is responsible for the allocation and management of the council’s housing allocation policy. Complaints about local authorities and their assessment of housing needs are a matter for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
  7. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of any reports, surveys, or inspections arranged as part of the resident’s disrepair claim. The documents described above have not been considered in this investigation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould within the property

  1. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to assess hazards and risks within its tenanted properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential health hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
  2. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould says a landlord should have a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould and must ensure its response to reports of the above are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. Additionally, we recognise the challenges faced by landlords with overcrowding. Nonetheless, occupancy factors do not mean that the landlord has no responsibility. We expect landlords to take reasonable steps in partnership with residents in these circumstances, to consider improving ventilation or other appropriate measures.
  3. Following a resident’s report of damp within a property, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to conduct an inspection/property visit to understand the extent of the problem, the probable cause and decide an appropriate course of action.
  4. The landlord’s repair records reference reports of mould within the property in April 2018, January 2019, February 2019, December 2021, and November 2022. This report does not assess the historical reports of mould. However, as the resident had reported similar issues during her occupation of the property, it should have put the landlord on notice that the damp reported in November 2022 required active management and close oversight.
  5. Following the report of damp on 24 November 2022, records indicate the landlord attended the property within a reasonable period to complete a ‘fact find’. Records state it identified mould affecting all the bedrooms, living room, kitchen, bathroom, and hallway. The landlord said it advised the resident about heating and ventilating the property. It also arranged for a specialist damp survey and mould wash. These actions were appropriate in the circumstances.
  6. It is a concern to the Ombudsman that the landlord failed to evidence the results from the specialist damp survey, or actions taken as a result. There is reference of an internal conversation about the installation of a Positive Input Ventilation (PIV) system and a replacement extractor fan, but no documentary evidence has been shared with this Service. Further, the landlord failed to evidence the outcome from the damp specialist’s return visit to the property that was referenced within the stage 2 complaint response.
  7. In this case, the Ombudsman has identified a record keeping failure. The records provided do not include all details of what happened at every appointment. This Service expects landlords to keep sufficiently detailed records of repair attempts and when it completes repairs. It is essential for the landlord to keep track of repairs for which it is responsible, to ensure it meets its repairing obligations.
  8. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is unclear 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. Considering the above, while the Ombudsman recognises the landlord took some actions following the resident’s report of mould, it is concluded that redress is warranted to the resident. This is to compensate for the impact the landlord’s record-keeping has had on the Ombudsman’s ability to complete a fair and thorough investigation.

The resident’s report of a loss of power in the property

  1. When a landlord is responsible for a repair, the landlord must complete said repair within a reasonable period.
  2. The resident told the landlord during her complaint escalation that she had been without electricity for over 2 months. It is unclear to the Ombudsman when this occurred.
  3. This investigation is focused on the 6-month period immediately prior to the resident’s formal complaint. During this time, the landlord’s records show the resident reported electrical issues on 3 February 2023 and a full loss of power on 5 February 2023. The landlord attended on 6 February 2023 to restore the power. After considering the evidence available, the Ombudsman finds the landlord attended within a reasonable period.


The resident’s report of a leak from above

  1. On 17 February 2023 the resident reported a leak from a property above. The landlord acted appropriately by inspecting the property and decanting the resident. It also provided a copy of its pre-works inspection and post-works inspection. However, the lack of documentary evidence from this time has impacted the Ombudsman’s ability to assess the landlord’s communication with the resident and whether there were any avoidable delays in its handling of the remedial works. As such, the Ombudsman has awarded compensation to the resident to reflect the impact the landlord’s record keeping had on this investigation.

The resident’s report of a blocked/leaking toilet

  1. The resident reported a blocked/leaking toilet to the landlord on 20 February 2023. The landlord evidenced it appointed a drainage contractor the same day to clear the blockage in the main stack. Photos from the job report shows the matter was resolved by 21 February 2023. As such, the Ombudsman finds the landlord responded appropriately and resolved the matter within a reasonable period.

The resident’s report of damage to her personal belongings

  1. The landlord’s repair policy sets out that residents are responsible for insuring the contents of their home and garden. Further, its complaints policy explains that personal injury and liability claims will be handled by insurers, outside of its complaints process.
  2. In the Ombudsman’s view, considering the resident felt the landlord was responsible for the damage caused to her personal belongings, it was fair and reasonable for the landlord to direct her to make a claim upon its own insurance, in line with its policy.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. In November 2021, the Ombudsman issued guidance on disrepair claims. The Ombudsman’s view was that the matter does not become ‘legal’ until proceedings had been issued with the court. It clarified that landlords should continue to promote and encourage alternative dispute resolution avenues where there are allegations of disrepair. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to consider the resident’s complaint through its internal complaint procedure.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) is applicable to all member landlords. It specifies a stage 1 complaint should be finalised in 10 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with no more than a further extension of 10 days. A stage 2 complaint should be finalised within 20 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with a further extension of 10 days if required. A landlord should not exceed these timescales without good reason.
  3. The resident complained on 21 February 2023. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 20 working days later. The resident escalated her complaint on 26 March 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 response 24 working days later. As such, the landlord responded within the timescales expected by the Ombudsman.
  4. The Code requires a member landlord to address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate. The stage 1 response does not demonstrate any investigation by the landlord into the concerns the resident made on 21 February 2023 about the conditions of her property. Instead, it focuses on a leak which occurred on 28 February 2023. This was a complaint handling failure. The landlord’s actions here were not fair or reasonable. It caused confusion, frustration, and distress to the resident as she was uncertain as to how seriously the landlord was taking her concerns.
  5. The stage 2 response focused on the work completed in the property in March 2023. However, it did not investigate how it handled the resident’s previous reports of disrepair. Also, it did not reference the inspection that it promised at stage 1, nor did it summarise the outcome from said inspection. Considering the nature of the resident’s complaint and subsequent escalation, the Ombudsman finds the landlord failed to treat the resident’s complaint with the necessary attention and importance it deserved.
  6. Under the dispute resolution principles, it is good practice for a landlord to evidence learning from a complaint. At stage 1, the landlord said it had asked the admin team to be more focused on ensuring repairs are progressed quicker as an emergency action going forward. At stage 2, it said it learnt that repairs needed to be completed within a reasonable timeframe and that it must listen to its residents. The learning points identified within the resident’s complaint lack substance, particularly as the landlord did not identify specific repair delays within its complaint responses. This raises questions about the effectiveness of the landlord’s complaint procedure and whether it is learning appropriate lessons from the complaints brought to it.
  7. Overall, the Ombudsman finds the landlord did not handle the resident’s complaint effectively. It missed an opportunity to use the formal complaint process to consider its actions, address any failings and put things right.

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a power outage within the property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak from above.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a blocked/leaking toilet.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damage to her personal belongings.
  6. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £550 compensation in addition to the sum previously offered within its final complaint response. This is comprised of:
    1. £250 to reflect the impact the record keeping failures have had upon this investigation and the ensuing distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
    2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the complaint handling failures identified.
  2. The landlord must provide compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.