Southern Housing (202347516)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202347516

Southern Housing

20 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

1. This complaint is about how the landlord handled repairs to a communal car park gate at the resident’s building.

Background

2. The resident is the leasehold owner of the property, which is a 2-bed flat. The building has an underground car park, with a communal access gate.
3. The resident reported issues with the car park gate on 5 December 2023. He said it would not close, and he had safety concerns as a fire door between the car park and the building was already faulty. As he had already made a complaint about other repair issues (which he has not referred to us), the landlord treated his report of issues with the gate as part of his complaint.
4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 20 December 2023. It said the job had initially not been processed due to an IT error, and that it had recently changed contractors. It said its new contractors attended on 12 December 2023 and inspected the gate. It said the type of gate meant specialist engineers and parts were needed, and the parts ordered had a 4-6 week lead time. It said the anticipated completion date for the works was 31 January 2024. It apologised for any delays.
5. The resident escalated his complaint after the landlord did not complete the works by 31 January 2024. He said:
   1. The car park gates were still not fixed.
   2. He felt there was a lack of transparency and communication surrounding the repair.
   3. He had safety concerns around the gates. This included antisocial behaviour and criminal activity in the car park (with easier access to the building) while the gates were out of action.
   4. He wanted a clear timeframe for repair, confirmation the gates would be replaced, and compensation from the date the gates broke to the date they are repaired.
6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 19 March 2024. It said:
   1. It completed the repairs on 13 March 2024.
   2. The delay was due to the time for parts to arrive.
   3. It gave a list of the repairs it had completed, and confirmed it would consider replacing the gate.
   4. It was sorry for any poor communication.
   5. It has a monthly inspection of the communal areas. Moving forward, it would complete a thorough inspection to identify any hazards. It would also be installing CCTV for the communal gate.
   6. It offered £50 compensation for distress and inconvenience.
7. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response, so referred his complaint to us. He said:
   1. The gates had been broken since 4 December 2023, and were still not working as of 21 March 2024.
   2. Security threats did not lead to the landlord expediting the repair.
   3. He did not believe the compensation offered was sufficient.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to the communal gate

8. It is common ground that the landlord is responsible for keeping the car park gates in repair under the terms of the lease. The landlord has accepted that there were delays in repairing the gate, and offered £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. The resident does not believe this is sufficient.
9. Our role is to determine whether the landlord acted reasonably and in line with its obligations when handling the repairs. When a landlord has accepted failings and offered compensation, we assess whether the compensation offered appropriately reflects the likely level of distress or inconvenience caused by its failings, and whether is it in line with our published remedies guidance.
10. When determining whether a compensation offer is sufficient, we consider how much of the delay was caused by failings on the landlord’s part, and how much was unavoidable. It would be neither fair nor reasonable, for example, to order a landlord to pay compensation for delays in parts being available, as that would be outside of the landlord’s control. We would only expect a landlord to offer compensation for unreasonable or avoidable delays which were within its control.
11. The landlord’s repair logs show the resident reported issues with the gate on 5 December 2023. The landlord logged an emergency repair for the following day, and explained to the resident this did not guarantee the repair would go ahead on the first appointment. This was reasonable and in line with its policies.
12. However, its contractors did not receive the request. This was due to a technical issue. The resident brought the non-attendance to the landlord’s attention on 7 December 2023, and it manually raised a repair request with its contractors. This was a short delay, caused by a technical error the landlord was not initially aware of. As such, this delay was outside of the landlord’s control.
13. The contractors attended on 12 December 2023. The landlord’s records show this was the earliest possible appointment. The operative confirmed there was a problem with components in the gate, and that a follow-up appointment was needed. They attended again on 14 and 18 December 2023. They told the landlord that while the gate itself was safe, there were various works needed. They recommended that the gate be left open pending the repairs, and confirmed that there were no temporary repairs they could complete in the meantime.
14. Following that appointment, the landlord told the resident there would be a 4-6 week lead time on the necessary parts, and estimated that it would complete the works by 31 January 2024. However, while the landlord received the contractor’s quote for the works on 21 December 2023, it did not approve the quote and raise the relevant works orders until 26 January 2024. Its internal notes show this was due to closures over the Christmas period, deliberation about costs, and staff changes. However, those delays were within the landlord’s control. As such, we have seen no evidence that this 1-month delay was reasonable or unavoidable.
15. The landlord’s records confirm that the contractors attended on 18 March 2024 and completed the relevant repairs. They also tested the repairs. However, their notes confirm that when testing residents’ gate control fobs, it became apparent that they no longer worked. They therefore ordered new gate controls, and left the gate fully functional on 8 April 2024.
16. It took a total of 5 months for the landlord to return the gates to working order. There is no set timescale for communal area repairs in the landlord’s repairs policy, which says it will complete repairs as quickly as possible. However, we would still expect it to complete repairs within a reasonable timescale.
17. The landlord’s repair records show a number of different delays. However, not all of those delays were within the landlord’s control. The initial delay was the result of a technical issue outside of its control, and the appointment on 12 December 2023 was the earliest appointment possible once it manually raised the repairs. The repair was also complex, and required specialist engineers. It is not unusual for a complex repair to require more than 1 appointment for specialist engineers to determine what repairs are needed.
18. In addition to this, the landlord is not responsible for delays caused by lead time for parts, as that is outside of its control. And while it was undoubtedly frustrating that the issues with the gate remotes caused a further delay, the evidence does not show this could have been avoided (as it was not apparent until after the contractors completed the identified repairs). As such, the only delay caused by failings on the landlord’s part, and which was avoidable based on the evidence provided, was a 1-month delay in approving the quote for works.
19. In addition to this, we have not seen evidence of proactive and appropriate communication from the landlord while the repairs remained outstanding. While a number of the delays were outside of the landlord’s control, we would still expect a landlord to provide appropriate updates to affected residents during that time.
20. The evidence provided shows the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the security of the building, and explained that he should report any suspicious behaviour to the police. This was appropriate, as the police would have the power to investigate and take appropriate action related to criminal activity in the car park or building. The landlord does not have similar powers. However, in its communication with the resident, it also provided repair dates it did not stick to, and only provided updates when chased by the resident. For example, it did not update the 31 January 2024 date in its stage 1 response, despite being aware that it had not approved the quote until 26 January 2024 (making it impossible to meet that deadline).
21. While this was a target date rather than a guaranteed date (and therefore subject to change), we would have expected the landlord to update the resident on any changes, rather than relying on him chasing up after it had already missed the deadline. It has also provided no evidence of giving the resident any updates between 31 January 2024 and its stage 2 response on 19 March 2024, despite promising to do so (and the resident having chased for updates). This lack of communication would inevitably have increased the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced, and was a missed opportunity to manage expectations and demonstrate it was taking the repair seriously.
22. The landlord offered £50 compensation in its stage 2 response. The resident has also referred to the landlord offering him £200 when he referred his complaint to us. We have not been provided with any evidence of an increased compensation offer. However, the resident has indicated he also does not believe £200 is sufficient. He said it does not reflect the security threat to him or the other leaseholders, or the amount of time he spent chasing repairs up with the landlord.
23. We would not expect the landlord to offer compensation for the criminal acts of third parties. This was a complex repair which needed specialist parts, and the engineers confirmed that there were no temporary repairs available in the meantime. The resident also reported that antisocial behaviour started on the first day the gates were left open. So while there may well have been an increase in antisocial behaviour, the evidence indicates this was the result of the repair issue itself, rather than the landlord’s failings. However, the increased concerns about building security are relevant to the compensation for distress and inconvenience.
24. The £50 offered in the stage 2 response is insufficient for the level of distress and inconvenience in this case. The landlord unreasonably delayed the repair for around 1 month. This would inevitably cause distress and inconvenience, which would have increased because of concerns about antisocial behaviour and the security of the building. The landlord’s lack of appropriate updates also caused the resident inconvenience, as he had to chase it for updates.
25. Taking into account all the circumstances of this case, we consider that £200 compensation would be enough to put things right. This is in line with our published remedies guidance for failings which adversely affect a resident, but which have no permanent impact.
26. It is unclear from the evidence whether the landlord did increase the compensation offer after its stage 2 response. However, this would not change the overall outcome. This is because we would usually only consider a finding of reasonable redress when there is an appropriate offer of compensation during the complaints process, rather than after it. As such, we find there has been maladministration in this case.

Determination

27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of repairs to a communal car park gate at the resident’s building.

Orders

28. If it has not already done so, the landlord must pay the resident £200 compensation for the failings identified in this report within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.
29. The landlord must provide us with evidence of compliance with the above order within the same timescale.