Southern Housing (202320023)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320023

Southern Housing

11 August 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 the resident’s reports of:
1. issues with the air filtration system.
2. overheating and a lack of ventilation in the property.
3. repairs to the intercom.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy dated May 2020. The landlord is a housing association and is the leaseholder of a block of flats. The property is a 3-bedroom, upper floor flat and is occupied by the resident and her 3 children. The landlord did not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The resident had reported issues to the landlord about the building’s intercom since at least 8 September 2022.
On 10 May 2023 the resident asked the landlord to change the filters in the air filtration system as they were clogged with dust. She said that the dust was causing health issues for her family, and that she wanted the landlord to review its annual filter changes to carry them out more frequently. She also said she had damp and mould in her bathroom due to a lack of ventilation in the property.
On 23 May 2023 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She said that:
1. her property only had 2 windows, both with restricted openings which limited the air flow throughout the property.
2. contractors had advised her that the air filtration system was under pressure due to the lack of ventilation and high temperatures in the property.
3. a contractor had refused to change her filters on 11 April 2023, stating that filters were changed annually and that it had changed hers in October 2022.
4. the filters were clogged with dust after 7 months which showed that they required more frequent changes.
5. the landlord had implied it was her responsibility to change the filters. She disputed this, stating that the landlord should maintain its own appliances.
6. she and her children were suffering due to the dust flowing around the property.
7. she was unhappy at being challenged over who was responsible for repairs.
On 23 August 2023 the landlord spoke to the resident about the complaint, during which the resident raised continued issues with the intercom. On 6 September 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It stated:
1. regarding the intercom:
  1. it was unable to see any recent reports of any issues.
  2. it was currently working. Faults could occur after repairs.
  3. it had no access to the intercom database which was held by a third-party contractor. It hoped to rectify this by 15 September 2023.
  4. the resident could contact the contractor for updates on repairs.
2. regarding the overheating in the property:
  1. this would require a major works project.
  2. it was awaiting feedback about this from a consultancy.
  3. the building design meant that it could not easily install air-conditioning.
  4. the issues were due to the building design, which was not something within its control, and therefore, it would not warrant compensation.
3. regarding the air filtration system:
  1. it had offered a one-off service to the system but would normally expect the resident to undertake servicing.
4. it provided the resident with information and options about moving home.
On 23 September 2023 the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said:
1. the landlord’s stage 1 response offered no resolutions.
2. the faulty intercom meant that she kept having to leave her property to allow visitors, contractors and deliveries into the building.
3. the landlord had said it would resolve the intercom issue by 15 September 2023, yet no one had attended.
4. she listed 11 reports of intercom faults from 9 February to 11 September 2023, stating that she felt inconvenienced by trying to get issues resolved.
5. she wanted to know how long the landlord expected her to put up with the heat issues, which she had been reporting since moving into the property.
6. her children were unable to sleep because of the heat and suffered with headaches and nose bleeds.
7. previous resolutions offered by the landlord to deal with overheating were never actioned.
8. she requested air flow measurements for each room in her property.
9. her tenancy agreement did not state that it was her responsibility to maintain the air filtration system.
On 12 October 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. In its response, the landlord apologised for the inconvenience and stress caused and the effect on her children’s health. It clarified that it considered stress to be a personal injury and therefore, it would not provide compensation. Regarding the:
1. intercom it:
  1. said a third-party contractor controlled the intercom database and that it was awaiting parts for a replacement intercom. Once received, it would schedule an appointment to complete the installation.
  2. estimated the parts would take up to 8 weeks to arrive, after which installation would commence.
  3. offered the resident compensation of £450, in recognition of any inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the delay in repairs.
2. ventilation in the property it:
  1. said that a specialist in ventilation would visit the resident on 26 October 2023 to assess the balance of the ventilation units. The specialist would also offer any necessary recommendations.
  2. would send any documented air flow measurements to the resident.
3. overheating in the property it:
  1. recognised the discomfort it was causing and was looking for solutions.
  2. explained that in mid-August it had conducted a feasibility survey for installing air con with specialist consultants.
  3. apologised that due to the expense, it was unable to proceed with the installation but would explore alternative solutions.
4. advised the resident that it would contact her by 27 October 2023 to discuss previously unresolved actions.
In September 2023 the resident contacted the Ombudsman. She said that the heat in the property was too uncomfortable and that she wanted the landlord to move her to more suitable accommodation. In later correspondence, she said that installing air conditioning in the property would also provide a resolution.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact the living conditions have had on her family’s health. Unlike a court we cannot establish what caused the health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim. However, where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
The resident indicated that she wished for the landlord to move her to a different property. The Ombudsman is unable to order the landlord to do this. The way the landlord allocates its social housing is governed by its statutory obligations and its allocation policy which determines the priority of applicants on its waiting lists. The Ombudsman is unable to make orders that could cause an adverse impact on other individuals who may have a higher priority than the resident for the landlord’s properties.
In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident referred to other issues she had raised with the landlord, including a loss of hot water and heating, and a new fault with the intercom after the landlord repaired it. These matters did not form part of the original complaint brought to us. It is unclear whether the resident raised these issues as a separate complaint with the landlord.
Accordingly, this investigation will only consider the issues addressed in the landlord’s stage 2 response on 12 October 2023. Any issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if needed.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the air filtration system

The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 requires landlords to ensure that their properties are fit for human habitation at the start of a tenancy and throughout. They should do this by ensuring properties are free from hazards from which a risk of harm may arise to the health or safety of tenants.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to help landlords identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety from any deficiencies identified in dwellings. It classes the following as potential hazards:
1. damp and mould, which can occur due to a lack of controllable background ventilation.
2. excess heat. Factors causing this include ventilation rates, thermal capacity and insulation of the building.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states that landlords must repair any installation they own or control which directly or indirectly serves the dwelling. It also states the landlord must keep the installations in the property in repair and good working order.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states that it is the resident’s responsibility to report defects which mean their home may not be reasonably suitable for occupation.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that some of its properties have a managing agent that arranges contracts and provides services in communal areas. In these cases, the landlord will endeavour to communicate and work closely with them to ensure the service residents receive is satisfactory.
The repairs policy also states that:
1. an emergency repair is anything causing immediate risk to the health, safety, and security of any occupants. These will be carried out in 6 hours.
2. it does not specify a time for non-emergency repairs.
On 10 May 2023 the resident informed the landlord that the filters in the property’s air filtration system needed changing. She provided pictures showing the filters clogged with dust. The resident said that a contractor had refused to change the filters, stating that they would only do so annually. The resident mentioned that dust in the air was causing health problems for herself and her children and that she had dust mites flying around her home.
On 23 May 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord again, chasing an update on the filter changes. She stated that it was difficult to breathe and that there was limited air flow due to the clogged filters. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the filters on either occasion, or that it addressed her concerns about dust mites. This shows poor communication by the landlord which likely caused distress to the resident. This was unreasonable.
On the same day the resident raised a complaint to the landlord, in which she explained that a contractor had said it changed the filters in October 2022. The resident said the filters were clogged after 7 months of use and she wanted the landlord to increase the frequency of the filter changes. She also said that the landlord had implied that filter changes were her responsibility. The resident questioned where it stated this in her tenancy agreement.
On 30 May 2023 the landlord apologised to the resident and said that it would change the filters as soon as possible, at no cost to her. This response came 13 working days after the resident raised her initial concerns. The following day, the resident repeated her questions to the landlord, asking for clarification on who was responsible for the filter changes and why it would only change them annually. She said that maintenance was not her responsibility as she did not install the system.
The evidence shows that the resident chased the landlord for a response on 3 further occasions, until it responded on 20 June 2023. The landlord said that it thought a contractor had changed the filters. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on complaints about repairs states that landlords should monitor progress and have accessible records of appointments, work orders and completion dates. The evidence shows that the landlord serviced the air filtration system and changed the filters on 30 June 2023. However, its response to the resident showed a failure to monitor its work orders. This likely caused distress to the resident, which was unreasonable.
On 13 July 2023 the landlord said it was waiting for an update on the air filtration system. It said that it was working through an action plan and would update the resident the following week. This Service has seen no evidence of any further communication to the resident, or of any action plan around this time. The lack of communication likely caused distress to the resident. That it did not follow through with its proposed actions was unreasonable.
On 6 September 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It confirmed that it had provided a one-off solution to service the air filtration system, however it would normally expect the resident to undertake this. It also said that the guidelines were to service the system once a year, although it stated it could “get away with servicing every 2-3 years”. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s specific concerns that the air filtration system was clogged after 7 months. Its response also failed to assess whether it had a duty to repair and maintain the system in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 regarding its own installations, which was inappropriate.
On 26 September 2023 the resident requested to escalate her complaint. She stated again that her tenancy agreement did not state that it was her responsibility to maintain the system. She quoted guidelines from the manufacturer of the air filtration system, which recommended inspecting the filters every 6 months. The resident also requested the air flow measurements for each room in her property. This Service has not seen any evidence to show that the resident received any air flow measurements. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have demonstrated how it followed up the actions it promised in its stage 2 response. That it did not, was unreasonable.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords must 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 landlord’s complaint responses failed to demonstrate why it was the resident’s responsibility to maintain a system installed by the landlord. It also failed to explain why it could not inspect the filters bi-annually considering the condition of the filters after only 7 months.
In correspondence with this Service on 18 July 2024, the resident advised that the issues with the filters had persisted. The landlord’s failure to fully answer the resident’s questions to enable a resolution likely caused distress to the resident. This was unreasonable.
In summary, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the air filtration system. This is because the landlord:
1. failed to respond to the resident’s concerns within a reasonable time.
2. failed to monitor the progress of its work orders.
3. failed to consider its obligations under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
4. failed to evidence that it followed up the actions promised in its stage 2 response.
5. failed to fully answer the resident’s questions and clearly explain why she was responsible for the maintenance of the air filtration system.
The landlord’s failures likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience. After carefully considering the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an order for the landlord to pay the resident £300 has been made.
In addition, we have made an order for the landlord to provide clear reasons for its decisions about the responsibility of the maintenance of the air filtration system, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. This includes its position on the frequency of filter inspections considering the evidence provided by the resident.
We have also made an order for the landlord to send the resident any air flow measurements for her property if it has not done so already.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of overheating and a lack of ventilation in the property

On 10 May 2023 the resident told the landlord there was mould in her bathroom due to a lack of ventilation. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord responded to this report or that it inspected or treated the mould. The landlord failed to respond in line with its repairs policy and did not consider the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018. This was inappropriate.
In the resident’s complaint on 23 May 2023, she stated that there was limited air flow in the property due to having only 2 windows, both with restricted openings. She said that the property reached extremely high temperatures. The resident wrote to the landlord again on 31 May 2023, stating that a contractor had said that the air filtration system was having to work harder because of the temperatures. She wrote to the landlord on 20 June 2023 reporting that her son was suffering due to the lack of air flow and “ridiculously high temperatures the property”.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s concerns about high temperatures on these occasions. This likely caused distress to the resident, which was unreasonable.
On 21 June 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord. She stated that the landlord could not expect residents to stay in properties where the heat made it unbearable to live and sleep. She raised the mould in the bathroom and that her children were suffering. The resident asked that the landlord either replace the windows with ones that could fully open or install air conditioning.
The landlord responded to the resident on 29 June 2023, 26 working days after she had raised the issue of high temperatures in her complaint. It stated that it was waiting for an update following a contractor visit to the resident’s property and that it would update her with the next steps. On the same day, the resident responded and said the contractor had explained to her that there was a design fault with the building, meaning it would continuously overheat. The resident asked the landlord how it would resolve the issue and asked it to consider moving her to more suitable accommodation.
There is no evidence to show that the landlord followed up with the resident regarding the outcome of the contractor visit or any next steps. This likely caused the resident distress, which was unreasonable.
On 10 July 2023 the landlord asked the resident to confirm the outcomes she was seeking. The resident replied the next day, explaining that the property had floor to ceiling glass panels which retained heat, causing the high temperatures. She said that the excessive heat was causing a strain on her and her children’s mental wellbeing and that she wanted to explore alternative accommodation.
On 13 July 2023 the landlord provided the resident with information on housing options. Whilst the landlord acknowledged the request to consider alternative housing, it failed to address her concerns about the high temperatures. There is no evidence that the landlord inspected the resident’s property to assess the temperatures, or that it provided her with any support regarding the property overheating. This was a failure of the landlord to respond in line with its repairs policy. It was also a failure to consider the potential hazards of excessive heat as stated by the HHSRS, considering it was aware that the heat was impacting the resident’s children. This was inappropriate.
On 6 September 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord stated that the issue with overheating required a major works project. It stated that the building design did not easily allow the installation of air conditioning, however it would continue to look at future upgrades. Whilst the high temperatures were somewhat outside of the landlord’s control, the landlord had notice of a potential hazard. It would have been reasonable for it have considered any temporary measures to help alleviate the housing conditions on the resident and her family. That it did not, was unreasonable.
In the resident’s request to escalate her complaint on 23 September 2023, she said the landlord had not provided any resolutions in its response. She asked how long the landlord expected her to endure the high temperatures and stated that it was affecting her work. She said the heat was significantly affecting her children. She also said that using fans would cause a financial strain. The resident mentioned that she had raised complaints about the temperature since 2020 and that the landlord had failed to action previous resolutions.
On 12 October 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It stated that it recognised the discomfort caused to the resident and was looking for solutions. The landlord explained the costs were too high to install air conditioning. The landlord apologised that it was unable to proceed with the installation and said that it would continue to explore alternative solutions. There is no evidence that the landlord explored alternative options such as any funding to help with the costs, or that it explained any further options to the resident. This was unreasonable given that the resident continued to report that excessive heat was impacting her and her family.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord stated that a specialist in ventilation would visit the resident to assess the ventilation units and offer any recommendations to improve the air flow in the property. This Service has not seen any evidence of a visit from a specialist or of any outcomes from a visit. We are therefore unable to determine if any recommendations were made, and subsequently, the landlord’s response to these.
It was reasonable that the landlord explored the possibility of installing air conditioning in the property. However, there is no evidence that the landlord considered other options to mitigate the housing conditions that the resident had reported. In her email dated 21 June 2023, the resident’s alternative request was for the landlord to change the windows to ones that fully opened, allowing better ventilation in the property. The landlord failed to address this, which was unreasonable.
The landlord also apologised that it had not completed the outcome of a previous complaint regarding overheating and said that it would address this on 27 October 2023. This was reasonable.
The landlord’s records show that it sought a new quote for the installation of air conditioning in the building in January 2024. It is not clear if this was discussed with the resident. In June 2024, the landlord provided each flat in the building with an air-cooling unit. The resident stated that for a family of 4 in a 3-bedroom property, 1 air-cooling unit was not adequate. The resident informed this Service that she had requested more than 1 unit, but the landlord said it was unable to provide more.
The landlord provided the air-cooling unit to the resident more than 1 year after she had reported high temperatures in her property. It was also around 8 months after the landlord said it would look for an alternative solution to the air conditioning. The delay in providing an alternative likely caused the resident distress, which was unreasonable.
In summary, this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of overheating and a lack of ventilation in the property. This is because the landlord:
1. failed to address or inspect the resident’s reports of mould in line with its repairs policy.
2. failed to respond to the resident’s reports of high temperatures on several occasions.
3. failed to follow up with the resident regarding the outcome of a contractor visit and any associated next steps.
4. failed to inspect the levels of heat in line with its obligations under the HHSRS.
5. failed to offer any temporary measures to alleviate the symptoms of overheating in its complaint responses.
6. failed to explore alternative options to help with the cost of installing air conditioning or explain any further options to the resident.
7. failed to evidence if it followed up on any recommendations made by a specialist in ventilation.
8. failed to respond to the resident’s request for fully opening windows.
9. failed to provide an alternative solution to air conditioning within a reasonable time.
The landlord’s failures likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience. After carefully considering the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an order for the landlord to pay the resident £400 has been made.
Due to no evidence of an inspection of the high temperatures or the ventilation, we have also made an order for the landlord to arrange for a qualified surveyor to inspect the building to assess what works are required to resolve the overheating and ventilation issues and to determine if the work falls into a repairs programme. A copy of the inspection report must be provided to all parties and to this Service and must assess if any further temporary measures can be put in place to alleviate symptoms and/or improve air flow in the meantime.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the intercom

The landlord’s records show that the resident had been reporting faults with the intercom since at least September 2022. The records also show that on 27 July 2023 the landlord sought a quote for a new intercom system.
On 23 August 2023 the landlord called the resident to discuss a complaint she had raised on 23 May 2023. Following the conversation, the landlord wrote to the resident to acknowledge and summarise her complaint. The summary included one of the resident’s desired outcomes as having the intercom fixed.
In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 6 September 2023, it explained that it had no access to the intercom database and that a third-party contractor hired by the freeholder managed the repairs. The landlord said that it hoped to have this issue rectified by 15 September 2023.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on complaints about repairs states that landlords should inform the resident of any delays to agreed actions and explain why these are necessary. There is no evidence to show that the landlord made attempts to resolve the issue by 15 September 2023, or of any communication with the resident to update her on the delayed repair. This likely caused distress to the resident, which was unreasonable.
In the resident’s escalation request, she stated that she was having to take time away from her work to get the issues resolved, which was inconvenient. In its stage 2 complaint response issued on 12 October 2023, the landlord apologised for any stress caused to the resident and the impact on her family’s health. It explained that it considered stress to be a personal injury. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided the resident with information on making a personal injury claim, and to provide its insurance details. That it did not, was unreasonable.
The landlord also stated in its stage 2 response that it was waiting for parts for a replacement intercom. It estimated that installation would take place around 8 weeks later and offered the resident compensation of £450 to recognise the inconvenience caused by the delay in repairs.
In correspondence with this Service, the resident said that the landlord had told her to report intercom issues to the third-party contractor. On doing so, she said that the contractor did not respond. The resident explained that the process for reporting and chasing up intercom repairs was not clear. The landlord had emailed the resident on 13 July 2023, outlining its own responsibilities and those managed by the third-party contractor. The email stated the main front door and anything in the resident’s property was the landlord’s responsibility.
There is no evidence to show that the landlord communicated with the third-party contractor regarding the resident’s reports of issues with the intercom. The landlord’s repairs policy states that for properties with managing agents, it will endeavour to communicate and work closely with them to ensure a satisfactory service for residents. As the resident’s tenancy agreement is with the landlord, it would have been fair for it to liaise with the third-party contractor and take ownership of the progress of repairs. In its stage 2 response, the landlord failed to provide the resident with a clear process and point of contact to chase up any outstanding repairs. This was not in line with its repairs policy, which was inappropriate.
The resident informed this Service that the landlord replaced the intercom. However, due to the failures identified in this report, this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the intercom. In summary, the landlord:
1. failed to communicate with the resident regarding delays to repairs.
2. failed to provide the resident with its insurance details and information on how to make a personal injury claim.
3. failed to provide a clear process or take ownership of monitoring the progression of outstanding repairs in line with its repairs policy.
The landlord identified some of its failings and offered redress which this Service considers proportionate to the distress and inconvenience likely caused to the resident and in line with its remedies guidance. An order has been made for the landlord to reoffer the £450 compensation to the resident if it has not already been paid.
We have also made an order for the landlord to write to the resident, setting out the repairs it is responsible for and the process that the resident must follow for repairs managed by the third-party contractor.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy states it will acknowledge a complaint and an escalation request within 5 working days.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint response times mirror the Code, which sets out good practice for a landlord’s complaint handling practices.
The resident raised her complaint on 23 May 2023. The landlord asked the resident for confirmation that she still wished to raise a complaint on 21 June 2023. On 4 July 2023 the resident contacted the landlord chasing a response to her complaint. The landlord responded on 10 July 2023 apologising for the delay and asked the resident what outcomes she was looking for. The resident provided her answer to the landlord the following day.
On 22 August 2023 the resident chased the landlord for a response. The landlord formally acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 23 August 2023. This was 65 working days after the resident had raised her complaint, and the landlord provided no explanation for the delay in acknowledging the resident’s complaint. This was not in line with the landlord’s policy and was inappropriate.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 6 September 2023. This was 10 working days after acknowledging the complaint. Although this was in line with its policy, the overall response time from the resident raising her complaint in May 2023 to the landlord issuing its response in September 2023 was considerably delayed and not acknowledged by the landlord. This likely caused distress to the resident, which was unreasonable.
In its stage 1 complaint response on 6 September 2023, the landlord stated that it was unable to see any recent reports of the intercom issues mentioned by the resident. The resident responded to the landlord on 23 September 2023 requesting to escalate her complaint to stage 2. In her response, the resident disputed the landlord’s reply and included a log of 11 intercom faults reported between the dates of 9 February and 11 September 2023.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that complaint handlers must consider all information and evidence carefully. The landlord’s response showed that it missed significant information by failing to fully investigate the complaint before providing its response. This likely caused distress to the resident which was unreasonable.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request 1 working day later, on 26 September 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 12 October 2023. This was 12 working days after acknowledging the resident’s escalation request. The landlord provided its stage 2 response in a reasonable time, and in line with its policy.
In summary, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because the landlord:
1. failed to formally acknowledge the resident’s complaint in line with its policy.
2. failed to provide a stage 1 complaint response within a reasonable time.
3. failed to fully investigate the complaint before providing its stage 1 response.
The delay in the landlord’s acknowledgement of the complaint showed a potentially obstructive complaints process. After carefully considering the distress likely caused to the resident by the failures identified, and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an order for the landlord to pay the resident £125 has been made.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the air filtration system.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of overheating and a lack of ventilation in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the intercom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. write to the resident apologising for the failures identified in this report.
2. pay the resident £1,275 compensation, comprising of:
  1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience likely caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the air filtration system.
  2. £400 for the distress and inconvenience likely caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of overheating and a lack of ventilation in the property.
  3. £125 for the distress and inconvenience likely caused by its handling of the complaint.
  4. £450 compensation in relation to the intercom issues. This can be deducted from the total compensation, if it has already been paid.
3. write to the resident providing clear reasons for its decisions about the responsibility of the maintenance of the air filtration system, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. This includes its position on the frequency of filter inspections, considering the condition of the resident’s filters after 7 months of use.
4. send the resident a copy of any air flow measurements relevant to the property if this has not been done already.
5. arrange for a qualified surveyor to inspect the building to assess what works are required to resolve the overheating and ventilation issues, and to determine if the work falls into a repairs programme. A copy of the inspection report must be provided to all parties, including the Ombudsman.
  1. the report must address if any further temporary measures can be put in place to alleviate symptoms and improve air flow in the meantime.
  2. if further measures are recommended, the landlord must provide, and adhere to, an action plan to put in place any measures that it is responsible for.
6. write to the resident, setting out the repairs it is responsible for and the process that the resident must follow for repairs managed by the third-party contractor.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service, within 4 weeks.