Southern Housing Group Limited (202337322)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337322

Southern Housing Group Limited

12 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 the landlord’s:
1. handling of insulation and loft repairs.
2. complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord in a 3-bedroom house. The household has physical vulnerabilities which the landlord is aware of.
In July 2023 the landlord’s contractor attended the property and found a lack of insulation in the loft and dampness in 2 of the bedrooms. They found significant and mixed levels of erosion affecting the pointing across the sections of the front elevation as well as missing verge mortar and defective bedding to the tiles. To resolve this, they proposed various internal and external repairs, including insulation works.
On 17 October 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. She was unhappy with the landlord’s communication and said there were significant outstanding insulation repairs to the property including the loft. Further, she explained that she could not heat her home above 14°C and the household was clinically vulnerable and susceptible to respiratory infections brought on by the cold. On 8 November 2023 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its complaint process. In summary, it said:
1. It apologised it had not progressed the recommended works following its contractor’s July 2023 inspection.
2. It had now raised an order to carry out the insulation works, and its contractor would contact her directly to arrange a suitable time to complete the works.
3. It would inspect the works when complete and raise an order for the follow-up works including re-decoration.
4. It would check the heating system and assess whether an additional radiator was needed.
5. It would ensure the proposed actions were completed within the timeframes given.
6. It would offer £145 compensation, comprised of £15 for repeat chasing, £15 for repeat attendance, £15 for failure to follow process, and £100 for time, trouble, and inconvenience.
In the resident’s escalation request of 4 December 2023 she said she was yet to hear anything back from the landlord despite continuous efforts to chase the work. She said the repair to the loft hatch was outstanding and contributed to the cold temperature in her home. She added that the landlord’s contractor had told her they could not complete the work until 4 January 2024 leaving her household in freezing conditions. She explained that she had asked for electric heaters and help with the cost of running them, but the landlord had not responded.
On 17 January 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 final response. In summary, it said:
1. It apologised that its contractor had not contacted her with a start date for the works within its agreed timescales.
2. Its contractor started works as planned on 4 January 2024 (including installation of the loft hatch). The contractor completed the work on 15 January 2024.
3. The heating loss survey was carried out on 21 November 2023 and found that the bathroom heater was undersized. This was replaced on 18 December 2023.
4. The visible insulation in the loft was under current recommendations and would need topping up.
5. It apologised that her request for temporary heaters was not actioned promptly nor delivered as requested.
6. It understood its contractors had supplied the resident with one heater and it had arranged to check the heating system.
7. It would increase its offer of compensation to £354, comprised of £145 as offered in its stage 1 response, a further £150 for time, trouble, and inconvenience, £15 for its failure to escalate her complaint, £15 for failed callbacks and £14 for 7 days heating costs.
In the resident’s referral to this Service, she said there were misrepresentations and discrepancies in the landlord’s final response. She explained that the insulation issue and repairs to the loft had been ongoing for 18 months and her home had been extremely cold affecting the wellbeing of the household. She added that there had been a significant increase in her electricity bill to keep the property warm. As a resolution she wanted the landlord to complete and resolve all the outstanding issues and reimburse her for the increased electricity bills.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

This Service understands that the resident has raised concerns about the effect the situation has had on the wellbeing of the household. The Housing Ombudsman cannot determine liability for damages, including claims for the impact a situation has had on someone’s health. While we cannot consider the effect on health, this Service has considered any general distress and inconvenience that the resident experienced as a result of any failings by the landlord.

Handling of insulation and loft repairs

The landlord does not dispute that there were failings in its handling of this matter. Where the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, the Service assesses whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In July 2023 the landlord’s contractors inspected the property and recommended various works including, rendering and insulation works. While it is unclear what prompted this inspection the resident said in her complaint that the landlord had originally inspected the property in May 2023 where it identified insulation works to the loft. Yet this Service has seen no evidence of this visit. This likely indicates issues with the landlord’s record-keeping and a recommendation is made below in respect of this. In any case, the landlord failed to complete the recommended July 2023 works until January 2024, almost 6 months later. This was a considerable delay. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who was left with a poorly insulated property for a prolonged period.
It was not until 7 September 2023 that the landlord instructed the recommended works to be completed. Further, its records suggested that it did not raise the work on its system until November 2023. These were avoidable delays, and it is unclear why the landlord did not act sooner. Furthermore, the landlord’s records showed a lack of communication with the resident about the works, with the resident having to chase the landlord for updates on multiple occasions. This was contrary to its repair policy which states that it will confirm an appointment with the resident as soon as possible. This would have caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident who would have likely felt the landlord was not taking the situation seriously.
On 26 November 2023, the resident informed the landlord that due to the delays in the insulation work her heating was ineffective and the property was currently under 11°C. She therefore asked the landlord to provide her with electric heaters and for it to cover the extra costs. Although the landlord responded to her within a reasonable timescale it failed to action this request and again its communication was poor, failing to keep the resident updated. It was not until 12 January 2024 almost 2 months later it raised an order for heaters. This was unacceptable. Furthermore, it had to cancel the order as it had sent the request to the wrong team. This was another failing on the part of the landlord.
The landlord said in its final response that its contractor had provided the resident with an electric heater, however, the resident disputed this. From the landlord’s submissions, there is no evidence to reconcile the landlord’s claim its contractor had provided a heater. The resident said she had bought an electric heater herself in an attempt to keep her household warm, which had significantly increased her electricity costs. While this Service is unable to evidence or quantify any financial loss caused to the resident in this respect, it is reasonable to conclude that due to the delays in the works and the landlord’s inaction, the resident was left in a cold property during the winter months. This would have had a significant effect on the household, particularly given their vulnerabilities. This has been considered, in line with this Service’s remedies guidance when calculating compensation for the overall distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of this matter. The landlord must also consider contributing towards increased electric/heating costs.
The resident also informed the landlord that the loft hatch needed repairing. She added that she had reported this previously and that the landlord’s heat loss survey had found that this was a contributing factor to the cold in the property. The landlord did not dispute this. It is not entirely clear when this repair was originally reported, and it is concerning that the landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of the heat loss survey. This again likely indicates issues with the landlord’s record keeping. Nonetheless, the landlord should have arranged an appointment to repair the loft hatch as per its repair policy. However, it failed to do so. Instead, it added this to its contractor’s January 2024 schedule of work. This was inappropriate and the delays in repairing the loft hatch likely exacerbated the cold in the property.
In the landlord’s final response, it said it would increase the amount of insulation in the loft. The landlord’s records showed that this was completed at the end of May 2024. It is unclear why it took the landlord around 5 months to do this. Furthermore, the resident informed this Service that she did not feel the contractor had completed the work properly and added that the landlord had not post-inspected the work.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of insulation and loft repairs was unsatisfactory. Its communication was poor and there were lengthy delays in completing the recommended works. Furthermore, its actions demonstrated that it did not have due regard for the household’s health conditions leaving them in cold conditions for a prolonged period. While the landlord apologised for some of its failings and offered compensation to put things right, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the amount offered does not adequately reflect the significant detriment caused to the resident by the failings identified in this report. This amounts to maladministration and orders have been made below.
The resident has informed this Service that the landlord had not investigated or fixed the thermostat despite it agreeing to do so. While this does not appear to have been part of the resident’s original complaint or specifically addressed as part of the landlord’s final response, the Ombudsman has made a recommendation for it to investigate this matter.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s stage 1 response was confusing. It provided an action plan of works for the property and said these would be completed within the timeframes given, however, its response did not provide any timeframes. This error would have caused confusion and frustration to the resident who had to question when the work would take place.
Following the resident’s escalation request the landlord informed her that it would acknowledge the request by 11 December 2023. Yet this did not happen. This led to the resident chasing the landlord for a response. The landlord subsequently acknowledged the complaint on 18 December 2023, 14 days after the resident’s escalation request. This was contrary to its policy that states it will acknowledge escalation requests within 5 working days. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who would have likely felt the landlord was ignoring her concerns.
Furthermore, the landlord informed the resident that it would respond to her stage 2 complaint by 3 January 2024. However, it did not respond until 17 January 2024. Again, the landlord failed to do what it said it would. Overall, it took the landlord around 32 working days to issue its stage 2 final response contrary to its 20 working day policy timescales at stage 2. Furthermore, there was no evidence that it had agreed with the resident to extend the response timescale, in line with its policy. These were further failings on the part of the landlord that delayed getting matters resolved.
Although the landlord offered £15 compensation for the delay in raising the resident’s stage 2 complaint, it did not apologise or identify any learning from the complaint. Furthermore, neither of its formal responses acknowledged the household’s vulnerabilities, despite the resident raising this in both her complaint and escalation request. This showed a lack of understanding and empathy from the landlord. Given this, this Service considers that the amount offered by the landlord was not proportionate to the adverse effect caused by the complaint handling failings identified in this report. This amounts to service failure and a further award of compensation is made below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of insulation and loft repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord must do the following within the next 4 weeks:
1. Provide a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £854 comprised of:
  1. £354 as offered in its final response if it has not already done so.
  2. A further £450 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of insulation and loft repairs.
  3. A further £50 for the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
3. Write to the resident and invite her to submit evidence of increased electricity/heating costs incurred for the period of her electric heater use. It should provide her with an answer on whether it is willing to reimburse these amounts within 4 weeks of receiving her evidence.
4. Inspect the insulation top-up works and satisfy itself that this has been done correctly. The landlord must share its findings with both the resident and this Service.
5. Review the failings identified in this report, to determine what action has been/will be taken to prevent a recurrence of these. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman with the outcome of this review. This order is made in line with paragraph 54 g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report of Knowledge and Information Management (available at: KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).
The landlord should investigate the thermostat in the property and ensure it is working effectively. If the landlord finds that any remedial works are needed, these should be carried out within a reasonable timescale.