Southern Housing (202423862)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202423862

Southern Housing

10 July 2025

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 handling of:
1. repairs to the property.
2. the subsequent complaint.

Background

The resident occupies a 2-bedroom first-floor maisonette under an assured tenancy agreement. The resident’s daughter, who was 8 at the time of the events complained about, also resides at the property. The resident told us and the landlord that she has a functional neurological disorder which affects her balance.
The resident complained to the landlord about the condition of the property on 27 March 2024. She said:
1. there had been multiple problems with the property when she first viewed it in August 2023 and the landlord had told her it would resolve these before she moved in. The resident said when she moved in 4 weeks later many aspects of the work had not been completed.
2. the landlord told her in October 2023 it would carry out repairs to the roof to resolve damp and mould in the property. But it had still not completed these and its contractor had repeatedly cancelled agreed appointments. The resident reported there was a bulge in an internal wall of the property from water coming in and a skylight in the property was also leaking.
3. she was still waiting for the landlord to carry out repairs to the staircase in the communal hall of the building, which was leaning badly.
4. she wanted the landlord to fix the repair issues across the property and improve its communication with her about the planned work.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 April 2024. In this it:
1. accepted there were issues with the property it had not resolved before the resident moved in and apologised for this.
2. said it had contacted its surveyor and insurance team about the ongoing repairs. It said as part of its action plan it would:
  1. have a structural engineer visit the property on 22 April 2024 to inspect the staircase and raise any necessary repairs.
  2. chase up the completion of the scaffolding so repairs to the roof could begin. It stated once the scaffolding was erected it would carry out repairs to the roof and the skylight together.
  3. keep the resident updated on progress.
3. upheld the resident’s complaint and offered her £615 as compensation consisting of:
  1. £450 for inconvenience.
  2. £60 for missed appointments by its contractor.
  3. £15 for its miscommunication.
  4. £15 for the resident needing to chase up repairs.
  5. £60 for its “failure to repair”.
The resident continued to inform the landlord she was unhappy with the progress of the repairs. On 21 August 2024 the landlord recorded the resident phoned to ask that her complaint was escalated. She said:
1. she was still waiting for the landlord to complete the repairs following her original complaint.
2. the staircase was now leaning inwards. The resident said this was a health and safety issue and she was concerned about her daughter’s safety using the stairs.
3. the repairs to address the damp and mould in the property and the water ingress to the internal wall were still outstanding.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 6 November 2024. In this it:
1. acknowledged there had been further delays in resolving the repairs since its stage 1 response and apologised for this.
2. stated that its contractor was scheduled to attend the property on 8 November 2024 to replace the window which was considered to be the cause of the leak.
3. said it had escalated the repairs to the staircase to its complex works team to resolve. It said this team would contact the resident by 15 November 2024 and keep her updated about this work.
4. offered the resident a further £615 in compensation (for a total of £1,230). The additional £615 consisted of:
  1. £450 for the resident’s further inconvenience and trouble.
  2. £75 for the landlord’s complaint handling and not responding in line with its timescales.
  3. £15 for it not following policy.
  4. £15 for the resident needing to chase up repairs.
  5. £60 for its “failure to repair”.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 17 January 2025. She said as an outcome she wanted the landlord to complete the repairs and provide additional compensation. As of the date of this report the resident confirmed the landlord had completed repairs to the staircase in March 2025 but the problems with damp and mould are ongoing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

As part of the resident’s complaint she told us she considered the landlord’s delay in resolving the damp and mould had affected her daughter’s health. She outlined the damp and mould had affected her daughter’s bedroom and this had caused her difficulty breathing.
Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of independent medical reports. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This will be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation as the courts can make legally binding decisions. If the resident wishes to pursue the impact on her family’s health further, she should seek independent legal advice. Where there is evidence of a failing by the landlord, we will still consider distress and inconvenience caused from the landlord’s actions.
From the available documentary evidence and what the resident told us, we consider there are 3 key issues to be looked at in assessing the landlord’s overall handling of the repairs at the property which this report will address, namely its handling of:
1. repairs during the void period before the resident moved in.
2. repairs to the staircase after the landlord’s inspection on 16 October 2023.
3. the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould following the landlord’s inspection on 16 October 2023.

The landlord’s 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.
In our opinion the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, which has impacted our ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.

The landlord’s repair obligations

The landlord’s responsive repair policy says it is the landlord’s responsibility to keep the structure and outside of its properties in a reasonable state of repair. This includes:
1. drains, gutters, outside pipes and the roof of the building.
2. external walls, windowsills and window frames.
3. inside walls, floors and ceilings.
4. steps and other access points which are its responsibility.
The landlord’s responsive repair policy says for repairs which are its responsibility it will address these within the following timescales:
1. for emergency repairs, which pose an immediate risk to the health and safety of the occupants or immediate damage to the structure of the property, it will carry out works to make the issue safe within 6 hours of the repair being reported.
2. for non-emergency repairs it will arrange an appointment with the resident as soon as possible and at a time which suits the resident. It says it aims to complete repairs in a single visit and in as little time as possible and will measure the amount of time it takes to complete a repair.
Though the landlord’s responsive repair policy does not specify a timeframe for non-emergency repairs we expect landlords to complete repairs within a reasonable time. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances and the nature of the repair. Where there is a delay in completing repairs, we expect landlords to be proactive in:
1. communicating the cause of delays to residents.
2. explaining to residents what it intends to do about the delays.
3. identifying what it can do to mitigate the impact of delays on residents.

Repairs during the void period

The landlord’s void lettable standard says that before it lets out a property it must meet the following standards:
1. a visual inspection of the roof should take place. The standards specify an inspection from ground-level is sufficient unless there is evidence of leaks into the property, in which case the source should be identified and fixed.
2. fascias and soffits should be intact and fit for purpose.
3. internal staircases should be securely fixed, in a sound condition, free from damage and must have a securely fitted banister or handrail.
On 18 July 2023, before the resident moved in, the landlord recorded the property required major repairs whilst in the void period. The reasons it gave for this were because the kitchen was beyond economical repair and the levels of damp in the property.
The resident told us the landlord had originally said the repairs would take several months when she viewed the property. However, she said the landlord phoned her around 4 weeks later and said the property was ready for her to move in to. From the available evidence the landlord recorded it completed the void works on 8 September 2023. However, the available records do not show what repairs the landlord completed at the property and only included photographs of the property condition. This was a records management failing by the landlord.
The resident told us the property was not in a good condition when she moved in and she began raising repair requests. On 6 October 2023 the landlord created repair requests to:
1. inspect damp and mould coming through the walls and stairs.
2. repair the plasterboard backing of the living room wall, which had fallen in.
The landlord conducted an inspection of the property on 16 October 2023. This was appropriate as it was consistent with the landlord’s damp and mould procedure, which stated an inspection should take place within 10 working days of being reported. This inspection report said:
1. there was a defective soffit and fascia on the roof which was allowing water ingress into the property. The inspection reported there was a problem with damp in the property but no evidence of mould. The landlord also noted there had been previous problems with damp in the property.
2. there was evident sloping on the staircase for the building.
3. an internal wall in the lounge was hollow in places and the plasterboard backing had blown.
4. the resident had recently moved in and considered the landlord should have addressed the issues when the property was in void. The landlord agreed to arrange new repairs for each issue.
From the available evidence the landlord’s inspector on 16 October 2023 identified that the fascia and soffit required repair from a ground-level inspection. Due to a lack of adequate records, it is not known what action the landlord took during the void period. The evidence shows the repairs to the facia were only being identified after the void works were completed. Because of this, it is reasonable to conclude there was insufficient inspection of the roof prior to those works starting. As such the evidence suggests the landlord’s actions were not consistent with its void letting standards, which was inappropriate.
Similarly, though due to a lack of adequate records it is not known how the landlord assessed the staircase during the void period. Its inspector saw that these were “evidently sloped” around a month after the void repairs were completed. There is no evidence the repair issue with the staircase was a new issue which materialised following the void period. Therefore, the landlord should have assessed if the staircase was securely fixed and in a sound condition and raised any necessary repairs at the time. There is no evidence the landlord did this, which was inappropriate compared to its void letting standards.
The landlord’s void letting standards do not specifically say what repairs it should conduct to internal walls or plasterboard during the void period. However, for other internal fixtures such as door frames, skirting boards and floorboards it says these must be securely fixed and (if relevant) ready for decoration by the resident before the property is let out. From this, we consider it is a reasonable expectation that the landlord would have also been responsible for ensuring that any plasterboard on internal walls was securely fixed and ready for decoration in line with its void letting standards. There is no evidence that it did this, which was inappropriate.

The landlord’s repairs to the staircase

The landlord recorded from its inspection on 16 October 2023 that it would arrange for its contractor to provide a quote for repairing the staircase. This was because it would affect multiple stories of the building. There is no evidence the landlord took further action on this until 12 January 2024 when it created a repair request to “level up the sloping staircase if possible”. This was inappropriate, compared to the landlord’s repair policy and our expectations as to a reasonable timeframe. It took 61 working days for the landlord to act on the repair it had told the resident it would raise. There is no evidence of any delay that prevented the landlord from acting on this sooner or that it took action to keep the resident updated or mitigate the impact on her.
The landlord recorded on 22 March 2024 the resident had contacted it for an update about the staircase repair. It said that it had visited on 17 January 2024 and it required a structural report before it carried out any repair. Due to a lack of adequate records we have not seen any evidence of the landlord’s attendance on 17 January 2024 or what action it had taken to get a structural report since then. This was a failure by the landlord.
Following the resident’s initial complaint the landlord inspected the property again on 18 April 2024. This recorded:
1. there were evident signs that the staircase was severely sloping and there were cracks on the outer wall where the stairs were coming away. It recorded the resident was concerned this had become worse since she moved in.
2. there were signs of cracks on the external walls of the building.
3. it would need to appoint a loss adjuster to check for subsidence and whether the repair issue with the staircase was related to movement of the building.
The structural engineer visited the building on 22 April 2024 and the landlord’s insurer contacted the landlord with its findings on 25 April 2024. This recorded:
1. the damage to the staircase was not from subsidence and was the result of historical structural alterations.
2. the bottom part of the staircase had been removed, possibly when the building had been converted to flats, and the staircase had “lost structural integrity” as a result.
3. there was evidence that previous attempts had been made to rectify the staircase from bracing added to the second storey.
4. another tenant in the building had described that the staircase had been skewed for the past 25 years but “appear[ed] worse now”.
5. the external cracks on the building were likely to have occurred recently in connection to the historical alterations. The level of damage was low and movement had stabilised so no further action was required in relation to a subsidence claim.
On 26 April 2024 the landlord recorded the insurers findings that the damage was not related to subsidence. It stated it would need to make a decision about the staircase and obtain a quote for repairs. Due to a lack of adequate records the next record regarding the landlord’s handling of the repair request was on 3 October 2024. There is no evidence about what further action the landlord took to progress the repair between this time or the reasons for any delays. This was a records keeping failing by the landlord.
Furthermore, during this time the resident continued to contact the landlord for updates and to request that she be temporarily moved out of the property until the repairs were completed. Specifically:
1. on 31 May 2024 she told the landlord the staircase was getting worse and the landing was also tilting. She said the condition of the staircase was making her functional neurological disorder worse and considered the property was not suitable for her or her daughter.
2. on 9 July 2024 she told the landlord she had heard nothing further about the repairs to the staircase. She said the staircase was “folding in on itself”, was not safe for her or her daughter to use and she felt the landlord was not taking their safety and wellbeing seriously.
3. on 21 August 2024 she said the staircase was leaning inwards which was a health and safety issue and she was concerned about her daughter using the stairs.
There is no evidence the landlord re-inspected the staircase in response to the resident’s correspondence with it or assessed whether there was a health and safety risk to the resident’s household. This was inappropriate. In line with its responsive repair policy it should have done this and considered if it was possible to mitigate any risk. As part of its considerations around risk, it would be reasonable in these circumstances, given the vulnerabilities of the resident and her family, for it to have shown whether it thought it was necessary to move the resident and her daughter temporarily.
On 3 October 2024, following the stage 2 complaint, the landlord recorded it had sought 3 quotes for carrying out the repairs and 2 contractors had said they were unable to carry out the work due to major structural issues with the staircase and landings. It said it would need to refer the case to its complex projects team as the only quote returned exceeded the amount it could approve. The landlord made the referral to its complex projects team on 1 November 2024. From the records provided there is no explanation of why it took the landlord 21 working days to make this referral. This was unreasonable, given the delays up until to this stage.
On 6 November 2024 the landlord told the resident as part of its stage 2 response that it had escalated the repair to its complex projects team. It said the team would be in contact with her. From the available records there is no evidence this happened and the resident wrote to the landlord again on 30 December 2024 to say she had not received an update. This lack of communication was inappropriate. The landlord’s complex projects procedure states it should have created a project delivery plan and communication strategy and communicated this to the affected residents within 5 working days of the project being accepted.
The landlord told us it completed repairs to the staircase on 24 March 2025. As such it took the landlord a total of 366 working days to complete the repair after the landlord first identified these as necessary on 16 October 2023. We recognise the repairs were complex, which would have understandably taken longer to resolve than a routine repair. However, there were several periods of unexplained delays in the landlords handling of the repair and there is no evidence that it communicated with the resident about the reasons for delays or looked at ways to mitigate these. As such, the length of time taken to complete the repairs was unreasonable.

The landlord handling of reports of leaks, damp and mould

From the damp and mould inspection on 16 October 2023 the landlord said it would raise a roofing repair to fix the defective fascia and soffit that was allowing water ingress. From the available evidence the landlord did not create this repair request until 20 November 2023. This was an inappropriate delay, as it was not consistent with the landlord’s repair policy or our expectations. It took 25 working days later for the landlord to act on the repair that had been reported, there is no evidence of any delay that prevented the landlord from acting on this sooner or that it took action to keep the resident updated or mitigate the impact on her.
On 2 November 2023 the resident made another repair request for the landlord to replace a window frame for a skylight in the property which was leaking when it rained, causing additional damp. Due to a lack of adequate records there is no evidence about what further action the landlord took to progress this, or the other repair request, until the resident’s complaint on 27 March 2024 or the reasons for any delays. This was a records keeping failing by the landlord.
Furthermore, the landlord’s damp and mould procedure says following a damp and mould inspection it should keep the resident updated on the progress of remedial works and complete these within 6 weeks. The procedure says if the landlord cannot resolve the repair in 6 weeks it should escalate the case to consider the reasons for this, possible solutions, whether it needs to review its action plan and whether it needs to provide temporary accommodation to the resident(s). There was no evidence the landlord followed this procedure, which was inappropriate.
As part of the landlord’s inspection on 18 April 2024 the landlord recorded there was evidence of damp stains from the roof leaks which its contractor had not repaired. The landlord said it would chase up the contractors to erect the scaffolding for the repairs and it told the resident it would address both repairs when this was completed. There is no evidence about what further action the landlord took following the inspection and the resident told the landlord on 27 May 2024 it had still not fixed the leaks. This was inappropriate because the landlord’s responsive repair policy and damp and mould procedure says it should have monitored the progress of the repairs, addressed any delays and kept the resident updated.
On 26 June 2024 the landlord closed the repair request for fixing the fascia and soffit as completed. From the available records no details were given of what repair work was carried out. We have not been provided with a copy of any completion report. This was a records management failing by the landlord. In addition, it took the landlord a total of 176 working days to complete the repair after it was first identified from the landlord’s inspection on 16 October 2023. This was inappropriate, as it greatly exceeded what could be considered a reasonable timescale for the repair.
On 9 July 2024 the resident told the landlord its contractor had carried out work on the skylight but it had not replaced the rotten window frame so the leak was not resolved. The landlord accepted the repair was not suitable and agreed to refer the work to another contractor. It created a new repair request to renew the window frame and replace the windowpane on 12 July 2024.
The landlord’s target completion date for this work was 10 October 2024. This was inappropriate because in line with the landlord’s responsive repair policy and our expectations it should have taken account of the previous delays and looked at ways to prioritise completing this repair. From the available evidence the landlord did not complete the repair to the skylight until 8 November 2024, a total of 260 working days after the resident first made the repair request. This was inappropriate, as it greatly exceeded what could be considered a reasonable timescale for the repair.
Following the resident’s stage 2 escalation on 21 August 2024, and her reports of ongoing problems with damp and mould, the landlord arranged another damp and mould inspection. Its inspection on 23 August 2024 recorded:
1. there was evidence of water staining in the property that were not due to condensation. It said the cause appeared to be water ingress from the guttering of the property or defective flashing but scaffolding would be needed to investigate further.
2. though damp staining was visible there was no evidence of mould growth from the leak.
3. as an agreed action from the inspection the landlord would erect scaffolding to roof-level, inspect the guttering, roof tiles and flashing and repair any defects.
The resident told us by the time of the landlord’s stage 2 response the landlord had not carried out the work it had agreed on 23 August 2024 and these have still not been completed. From the available records there is no evidence the landlord took action to progress this repair during this time or that it updated the resident about any delays. This was inappropriate as in line with the landlord’s damp and mould procedure, it should have kept the resident updated on the progress of remedial works. In line with its damp and mould procedure it should have aimed to complete these works within 6 weeks and taken action to escalate the case if it could not meet this timescale.

Impact of the landlord’s handling of the repairs and redress

In summary, there were failings in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property in that it:
1. did not keep adequate records of its handling of the repairs.
2. did not act in line with its void letting standards in terms of identifying and raising repairs for the roof soffit, fascia, staircase and insecurely fixed plasterboard.
3. unreasonably delayed creating the repair requests for the roof soffit, fascia and staircase following its inspection on 16 October 2023.
4. significantly delayed responding to the repair request to the staircase, taking a total of 366 working days to complete this.
5. did not assess whether there was a health and safety risk from the staircase in response to the resident’s concerns. It also did not consider if any risk could be mitigated whilst the repairs were outstanding or whether a temporary move was appropriate.
6. significantly delayed responding to the repair request for the leak from the roof fascia and soffit, taking a total of 176 working days to complete this.
7. significantly delayed responding to the repair request for the leak from the skylight, taking a total of 260 working days to complete this.
8. has not completed the further repairs for the leak from the roof it agreed on 23 August 2024, as of the date of this report.
The resident told us that she experienced a loss of enjoyment of her home, distress and inconvenience from the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the property. She also described there are ongoing problems with water ingress and damp over 18 months after she first informed the landlord of this. In our view the failures would have been likely to have reasonably caused the resident loss of enjoyment of her home, distress and inconvenience as she described. Considering the series of significant failures by the landlord over this time we consider these would have had a seriously detrimental impact on her.
In line with our guidance on remedies we also consider there were aggravating factors in this case. The resident had informed the landlord she had a functional neurological disorder which affected her balance and, as the landlord did not temporarily move her and the staircase was the only way into the property, she needed to use this until the landlord completed the repair. She said this worsened the impact of the damaged staircase on her and the stress she experienced about her safety in using it. There is no evidence the landlord took this into account when handling the repairs or considered how it could mitigate this. Whilst we cannot comment on whether the landlord’s handling of the repair made the resident’s functional neurological disorder worse, our view is that the impact on the resident in terms of distress and inconvenience was likely to be significant.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response it accepted there had been significant delays in responding to the resident’s repair requests which had caused her inconvenience and trouble. It offered her a total of £1,155 compensation for these failings.
The landlord has acknowledged failings and made an attempt to put things right. However, we consider the offer overall was not proportionate to the failings identified in our investigation. As such we have made a finding of maladministration and ordered the landlord to pay an additional financial remedy. It should be noted that, had the landlord not already offered the resident significant financial redress for its failings, we likely would have reached a finding of severe maladministration for this part of the complaint.
In terms of the resident’s ongoing issues with damp and water ingress, as of the date of this report, the landlord told us that it had scheduled to erect the scaffolding on 28 April 2025. It stated it would complete the repairs agreed during its inspection on 23 August 2024 following this. As we have not seen evidence that this repair has been resolved, as of the date of this report, we have made orders for the landlord to complete this work.
The landlord provided no explanation of what it would do to reduce the likelihood of similar issues happening to another resident. However, the Ombudsman’s special investigation report in May 2024 into the landlord found it responsible for a series of systemic failings affecting residents, including in its handling of repairs. The Ombudsman required the landlord to make changes including reviewing its responsive repair policy and how it worked with its contractors to improve its service. As the events of the current complaint took place before and during the time of our special investigation, no orders or recommendations have been made for the landlord to review its handling of the repair requests in addition to those made in the special investigation report.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy says that it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of logging the complaint. It will respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of the resident escalating the complaint.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The Code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service they provide, and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and improvement.
Following the resident’s original complaint on 27 March 2024 the landlord acknowledged her complaint on 5 April 2024, 5 working days later. This was inside of the timescales of the landlord’s policy and the Code.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 April 2024, 10 working days later. This was appropriate as it was in line with the timescales of the landlord’s policy and the Code.
The landlord’s stage 1 response accepted there had been delays in completing the repairs, offered an apology and financial remedy to put things right and set out an action plan for how it would address the outstanding issues. Whilst this is what we would expect to see in line with the Code the majority of its action plan did not have completion target dates and recorded the actions were “to be booked in”. The landlord told the resident in its stage 1 response that it would oversee the action plan and update her, however there is no evidence the landlord kept the resident updated about progress as it said it would. This was inappropriate. Paragraph 7.3 of the Code states any remedy offered by the landlord should clearly set out what will happen and by when and then should be followed through to completion.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 27 May 2024 to complain about the lack of communication. She described that the repair issues were still outstanding, the impact that this was having on her and her daughter and asked the landlord “for [her] complaint to be taken further”. In line with the Code we expect landlords to recognise a complaint and if the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction it must be progressed to stage 2 of its procedure. In our view the resident’s email of 27 May 2024 was a clear expression that she wanted to escalate her complaint. Though the landlord responded to her email on 31 May 2024 to update her, it did not progress it to stage 2 of its procedure as she requested. This was inappropriate.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 21 August 2024 to complain about the lack of progress in completing the repairs since its stage 1 response. The landlord treated this as the resident escalating her complaint to stage 2 and acknowledged this with the resident on 28 August 2024, 5 working days later. This was appropriate as it was consistent with the timescales of the Code.
The landlord originally told the resident in its acknowledgement on that it would provide the resident with its stage 2 response by 11 September 2024. However, the stage 2 response was not issued until 6 November 2024, 50 working days later.
The landlord issued correspondence dated 7 October 2024 requesting an extension until 8 October 2024. Email correspondence also confirms extensions were requested on 17 September 2024 and 25 September 2024 with the reason given as “additional information required.” Although it is acknowledged further extensions were requested, section 6.15 of the Complaint Handling Code states a landlord must decide whether an extension to the timescale is needed and inform the resident of the expected timescale for response. In between the email correspondence above, the resident was still left unaware of when an outcome would be received, for example in its email dated 25 September 2024 an extension was requested until 27 September 2024, however following this date, there was no correspondence until 7 October 2024 when an extension was requested again until 8 October 2024. This was unreasonable.
In addition to this, section 6.15 makes clear, “any extension must be no more than 20 working days without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident.”
It was not reasonable for the landlord to request the number of extensions it had done so without explaining further than “additional information required”. Additionally, it was unreasonable in consideration of when the complaint should have been escalated as well as the total number of working days taken to respond from when it was acknowledged.
In terms of the content of the landlord’s stage 2 there were failings in this compared to the expectations of the Code in that:
1. the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint did not address all the points she raised when escalating her complaint (either from her correspondence on 27 May 2024 or on 21 August 2024). There is no evidence the landlord agreed any different complaint definition with the resident after this.
2. the response conflated the 2 repair requests the resident made for leaks from the roof and skylight. As a result, the landlord did not provide a clear decision on this part of the complaint.
3. though the landlord gave the resident an action plan this only referred to how it would respond to the repairs to the staircase and did not explain how it was going to address the ongoing issues with leaks and damp. There is also no evidence that the landlord followed the action plan through to completion.
The landlord apologised for the delay in issuing its stage 2 response and offered her a financial remedy of £75 for this. It did not acknowledge or remedy the other failings. In our view, this was not a reasonable remedy considering the extent of the delays and other complaint handling failings and the resulting impact on the resident. We have therefore ordered it to pay the resident the above award plus additional compensation.
The landlord provided no explanation of what it would do to reduce the likelihood of similar complaint handling issues happening to another resident. However, the Ombudsman’s special investigation report in May 2024 into the landlord found it responsible for a series of systemic failings affecting residents, including in its complaint handling. The Ombudsman required the landlord to make changes including reviewing its complaint handling performance to bring this in line with the expectations of the Code. As the events of the current complaint took place before and during the time of our special investigation, no orders or recommendations have been made for the landlord to review its complaint handling in addition to those made in the special investigation report.
In summary there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling in that it:
1. did not follow the remedy it said it would carry out at stage 1 through to completion.
2. did not escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 following the resident’s email of 27 May 2024 after she explained the complaint had not been resolved to her satisfaction.
3. delayed responding to the complaint at stage 2 and did not provide the resident with a reason for this delay.
4. did not fully address the resident’s complaint at stage 2, provide clear reasons for its decision or explain how it would resolve the outstanding issues.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord must within 28 days of this determination:
1. issue the resident with a written apology. The landlord must recognise its failings identified in this report and the impact these had on the resident.
2. pay the resident a total of £1,700 in compensation comprised of:
  1. £1,500 (inclusive of the £1,155 it previously offered) for the resident’s distress, inconvenience and loss of enjoyment of her home caused by its handling of the repairs to the property.
  2. £200 (inclusive of the £75 it previously offered) in recognition of the time and trouble of pursuing a complaint and the frustration caused by the failures in the landlord’s complaint handling
3. complete the repairs to the guttering, roof tiles and flashing of the property that it has agreed. If the landlord has not begun these repairs within 28 days of this determination it must pay the resident an additional £25 per day until the repairs begin. This will be to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its extensive delay in addressing this repair already.
4. provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any monies she may owe the landlord.
Within 10 working days of the completion of the repairs to the guttering, roof tiles and flashing the landlord must complete a post works survey to confirm that it has completed all the works and resolved the leaks into the property. The landlord must provide a copy of the survey to the resident and the Ombudsman within 10 working days of the property inspection. The landlord must, within 56 days of this determination, provide the Ombudsman with evidence of the completed post works survey or provide reasons and evidence as to why it cannot provide this within this timescale, together with details of when it will be completed.