Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Southern Housing (202325387)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325387

Southern Housing

31 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. the increase in the costs of the resident’s service charge.
    2. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for documents relating to service charges for the year 2021-2022.
  2. The Ombudsman has also taken the decision to investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder with the landlord. The property is a one-bedroom shared ownership flat. The landlord is the freeholder. The freehold transfer states there is a managing agent in place for the estate. The estate also has a Scheme of Management which manages and maintains the appearance of the estate.
  2. The landlord issued its year-end service charge account on 2 November 2022. On 2 March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord about a 32% rise in the service charge. She was concerned about future service charge increases and how it would affect her ability to sell her property. The resident said she had not been provided with a breakdown of the management agent costs. On 13 March 2023 the resident requested invoices and receipts for the service charge.
  3. On 28 June 2023 the resident made a complaint to the landlord about the 32% increase in service charge and the outstanding invoices and receipts for service charge year 2021-2022. The resident said her initial request for invoices and receipts was made over 3 months ago and she was still waiting on a large amount of information. She said she had not received information about the managing agent’s fees. The resident had asked for a detailed breakdown of the management charges for both the landlord and managing agent which had not been provided. She said she had repeatedly asked for a meeting with the landlord to discuss the service charges. The resident said this request had been ignored. She said she had been passed between different departments, and the landlord was not responding.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 3 August 2023. It attached a list of transactions behind the figures of the 2021-2022 service charge. The landlord said the managing agent charge was the largest part of the service charge. It said this was for the maintenance of the estate and the cost of the resident’s personal water. The landlord said the managing agent charge also included an estate charge. It said its contractor attends to the grounds fortnightly and the cleaning weekly. The landlord said the increase in electricity costs was because the supplier had gone into administration. The landlord apologised that it had not yet visited and said it would contact the resident by 10 August 2023 to arrange a visit. It apologised for the delay in answering the resident’s queries and for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint. It awarded £90 for the delays and the inconvenience caused.
  5. On 6 August 2023 the resident escalated her complaint. She was dissatisfied because she said there was outstanding information and questions that needed clarifying. The resident said she had not been given information specific to her block but a wider area. She stated she was still waiting for invoices and receipts for the managing agent charge. The resident said the landlord had not answered her question about the breakdown of the management fees for both the landlord and managing agent. She requested receipts for the estate charge.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 October 2023. It acknowledged the resident had been given incorrect information regarding the electricity costs. The landlord said the management fees went towards the costs of administration of service charges and were not separated. It said it had requested receipts for the estate charges and would update the resident by 10 November 2023. It increased its compensation offered by £25 because it had provided incorrect information about the electricity costs.
  7. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 23 October 2023. She was dissatisfied that she had only received partial information from the landlord regarding the service charge year 2021-2022. The resident did not feel the level of compensation was fair when the landlord had not provided her with all the receipts and invoices that it was legally required to do. She said she wanted to receive the requested documents and to be appropriately compensated.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is set out in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or part of a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. As such, our investigation has not considered the resident’s complaint about the increase in service charge costs, as this falls outside the jurisdiction of this service. The First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) can establish whether service charges are reasonable. Therefore, should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should seek advice and consider approaching the tribunal.

Scope of investigation

  1. In correspondence with the landlord and the Ombudsman, the resident has asserted that not complying with obligations in section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 is a criminal offence.
  2. While the resident’s concerns and comments are acknowledged, it is not for the Ombudsman to decide whether a criminal offence has been committed. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider the evidence that is available and determine whether the landlord has complied with its duties and obligations; and if not, what steps it has taken to put things right. Although we may hold the landlord accountable where we find its obligations have not been upheld, we would not seek to determine whether it had committed an offence or breached legislation. This would be a matter for a court.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for documents relating to service charges for the year 2021-2022.

  1. Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) gives leaseholders the right to inspect any receipts or invoices which support the landlord’s service charge figures. The request must be made in writing within six months of receiving the summary. The landlord must provide facilities for inspecting the information within one month of the request. The facility must be available for a period of two months.
  2. The landlord issued its year-end service charge account for year 2021- 2022 on 2 November 2022. The resident made her request in writing for receipts and invoices for this period on 13 March 2023. This was within 6 months of receiving the summary which is in line with the timeframe stated in section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985).
  3. The resident reiterated her request on 15 March 2023. The landlord had replied about some service charge queries that she had raised. However, it had not answered all her questions and had not acknowledged her previous request for the receipts and invoices.
  4. On 31 March 2023 the landlord sent the resident a list of invoices that made up the service charge. This was not a sufficient response. This is because section 22 of the Act gives the resident the right to inspect any receipts or invoices which support the landlord’s service charge figures. Seeing a list of invoices is not the same as seeing each individual invoice which the resident is entitled to inspect.
  5. The resident requested to see the receipts and invoices again on 31 March 2023. She reiterated it was her legal right to see these. The resident chased the landlord again for this information on 13 April 2023.
  6. On 14 April 2023 the landlord sent the resident a link to an online folder containing some invoices. The resident replied querying why invoices relating specifically to her block had not been provided. The resident also queried the electricity costs as the landlord had just sent her a spreadsheet of the costs and not the actual bills or invoices. On 4 May 2023 the landlord advised the resident that it receives the electricity invoices in a spreadsheet.
  7. The resident chased the landlord for the management agent and building insurance receipts on 17 April 2023. At this point the 1-month timeframe as stated in the Act had passed. The landlord had not provided the resident with access to see all the receipts and invoices within the required timeframe.
  8. While the landlord was not required to provide the resident with copies of the invoices and receipts, it was required to provide the facilities for inspecting this information within 1 month of the request. It was also required to provide the resident with the facilities to take copies of the documents. These facilities are required to be made available to the resident for a period of 2 months.
  9. On 4 May 2023 the landlord provided a building insurance invoice. It should not have needed the resident to chase this information. This should have been available within the month after the resident made her request. In response to the resident’s requests for receipts for the managing agent costs, the landlord sent a service charge budget. This was not the receipts or invoices that the resident had requested.
  10. When the resident raised her complaint on 28 June 2023 it had been over 3 months since she made her original request to see receipts and invoices. In her complaint the resident said she had been repeatedly chasing documents and requested the receipts and invoices for the managing agent costs again.
  11. Attached to the stage 1 response issued on 3 August 2023 the landlord provided a transaction list for the 2021-2022 service charge. In the resident’s escalation email she stated again that she wanted to see receipts and invoices. It was unclear from the evidence why the landlord thought a transaction list was sufficient when section 22 of the Act specifically references receipts and this was what the resident had repeatedly asked for.
  12. Despite the resident’s repeated requests for the managing agents receipts and invoices, the evidence showed that the landlord did not ask the managing agent for these until 10 July 2024. This was 334 working days after the resident made her request. The evidence showed that the landlord asked the managing agent for this information because of the Ombudsman’s information request for this investigation.
  13. It should not have taken an Ombudsman’s information request for the landlord to contact the managing agent for the invoices and an explanation of the apportionment of the costs. It was unclear from the evidence whether the landlord got a response from the managing agent. The resident advised the Ombudsman on 23 July 2025 that she had not received any further information regarding the managing agent costs.
  14. The landlord did not address these outstanding receipts and invoices in its stage 2 response despite the resident raising these in her escalation email.
  15. The invoices the Ombudsman has seen that were sent to the resident by the landlord ranged from £31,172 to just under £3 million. These invoices were mainly for the landlord’s whole portfolio or large regions such as the “London/Luton region”. There was no explanation to how these invoices were apportioned to the resident’s block which contains 16 flats. The evidence showed the landlord did not provide an explanation to the resident despite the resident raising this matter.
  16. The evidence showed the landlord addressed some of the resident’s other queries. However, when the resident requested clarity on some of the information she was provided, often the answers were not detailed or clear. The landlord also provided the resident with incorrect information. In the stage 1 response the landlord provided some incorrect information about the communal electricity costs. It was only when the resident questioned this in her escalation email that the landlord stated in its stage 2 response that there had been an error in the information given.
  17. In its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged there were delays in providing the resident with answers to her service charge queries. For these delays the landlord awarded the resident £75 compensation. This was made up of £25 for the delays and a discretionary payment of £50 in recognition of the inconvenience and time and trouble caused. The resident declined this award as she felt it was insufficient, and she was still waiting for some receipts and invoices months after repeatedly requesting them.
  18. The landlord offered the resident an additional £50 compensation at stage 2. This was after initially awarding an amount lower than it had previously offered in its stage 1 response. This is addressed below in the complaint handling section of this report. The landlord said this additional £50 awarded at stage 2 was for having provided incorrect information about the communal electricity costs. It did not compensate the resident for the continued delays in being able to see some of the receipts and invoices which were still outstanding despite the resident’s repeated requests for these.
  19. Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for documents relating to service charges for the year 2021-2022. This is because the resident experienced delays in being able to see receipts and invoices in relation to the service charge for 2021-2022. There are still receipts and invoices that the landlord has not provided access to for that financial year. The landlord did not contact the managing agent for its receipts and explanation of apportionment until 334 working days later because of the Ombudsman’s information request. The landlord has also not explained to the resident how the large invoices it sent her were apportioned to the resident’s block.
  20. The landlord is ordered to award the resident £275 compensation. This is in addition to the £125 compensation it offered for these matters across its complaint responses which the resident did not accept at the time. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance to reflect the detriment to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states there are 2 stages to its complaints process. The policy states the landlord will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. The resident made her complaint on 28 June 2023. However, the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint until 10 July 2023. This exceeded the 5 working days stated in the Code and the landlord’s policy.
  3. The landlord’s delayed acknowledgement email stated the resident would receive the stage 1 response by 25 July 2023. However, this was not in line with the code as the stage 1 response should be issued within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. Within 10 working days of 10 July 2023 should have been 21 July 2023.
  4. On 25 July 2023 the landlord contacted the resident requesting an extension for issuing its stage 1 response to 28 July 2023. The resident agreed to the extension. It then contacted the resident again on 3 August 2023 requesting a second extension to 7 August 2023. The resident also agreed to this. However, the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 3 August 2023.
  5. The evidence showed that the stage 1 response needed to be chased up internally within the landlord on 28 July 2023 and again on 3 August 2023. This showed there was a lack of understanding within some parts of the landlord about the importance of adhering to the timeframes for complaint handling. The landlord awarded the resident £15 compensation at stage 1 for not responding to the resident’s complaint within the correct timescales.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 6 August 2023 but experienced further delays as the landlord did not reply to this email. On 30 August 2023 the resident re-sent her email advising that it had been 3 weeks and she had not received a response. The landlord did not reply until 18 September 2023 which was 29 working days after the resident had sent her email. The landlord requested the resident confirm what matters remained outstanding. It then sent an acknowledgment of the escalation to stage 2 on 25 September 2023. This was 34 working days after the resident had sent her email.
  7. The landlord’s delay in escalating the resident’s complaint meant she was unable to promptly exhaust the landlord’s complaints procedure and to bring her complaint to the Ombudsman.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 October 2023. However, the stage 2 response did not cover all the points the resident had raised in her escalation email.
  9. The Code states that “Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate”. The landlord did not address all the points the resident raised in her escalation email in its stage 2 response. It missed out the resident’s request for information specific to her block and not a wider area, and the outstanding receipts and invoices for the year 2021-2022.
  10. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that it had provided the resident with incorrect information at stage 1 about the communal electricity costs. The Code states landlords should consider all relevant information and evidence carefully at each stage of the complaints process. Considering the evidence carefully should prevent incorrect information being issued.
  11. There was also an error in the stage 2 response. In the stage 1 response the resident was offered £90 compensation but in the stage 2 response the resident was offered £50 compensation. When the resident raised this with the landlord it acknowledged its error and apologised for this. The landlord clarified that it meant to award the resident an additional £50 which brought the total to £140 compensation.
  12. Considering the above, the Ombudsman has concluded that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This is because the landlord did not acknowledge the initial complaint or the escalation within the timeframes specified in the Code. The landlord also did not address all the resident’s points raised in her escalation email and provided incorrect information in its responses at both stage 1 and stage 2.
  13. The landlord is ordered to award the resident £185 compensation. This is in addition to the £15 compensation it offered at stage 1 for delays in its complaint handling which the resident did not accept at the time. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance to reflect the detriment to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42d of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the increase in the costs of the service charge is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for documents relating to service charges for the year 2021-2022.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £600 to the resident. This total includes the £140 that the landlord awarded the resident across its complaint responses which she did not accept at the time. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not applied to her rent or service charge account. The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with this order within 4 weeks of the date of this report by submitting a copy of the remittance advice, or equivalent document, to the Ombudsman.

The compensation is comprised of:

  1. £400 in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for documents relating to service charges for the year 2021-2022.
  2. £200 in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide the resident and the Ombudsman with the receipts and invoices from the management agent. The landlord must also provide the resident and the Ombudsman with an explanation of how each invoice for the service charge year 2021-2022, including those from the managing agent, were apportioned to the resident’s block and the justification for these apportionments.