Southern Housing (202312644)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312644

Southern Housing

27 June 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. The resident’s complaint about the level and reasonableness of a service charge increase.
2. The resident’s concerns about which elements of the service charges were payable.
3. The resident’s request for further information about service charges and a service charge increase.
4. The resident’s concerns that inadequate materials had been used by the developer to mount a mirror cabinet.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder. The lease began in January 2019. He lives with his wife and daughter. The property is situated within a larger block. All residents in the block pay a service charge to the landlord for various services. The resident is connected to a District Heat Network and part of the service charge includes charges for his heating and hot water usage.
The resident’s service charges are calculated and billed from 1 April to 31 March each year. The resident’s heating and hot water charges are calculated and billed from 1 October to 30 September each year. The service charges include a repair element for the heat network, which is separate to the element paid for heating and hot water usage.
On 29 December 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that a mirror cabinet in the bathroom had fallen from the wall on 21 December 2022. The resident was concerned that the materials used were inadequate and had caused the cabinet to fall. He asked the landlord to investigate the materials used.
The landlord emailed the resident on 6 January 2023. It advised the resident on his responsibility to complete any repairs and directed the resident to claim on either his, or its, insurance policy.
On 24 February 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident advising that his service charges would be increasing on 1 April 2023 from £196.71 per month to £274.05. This included a ‘Service Charges Pack’ which provided a breakdown of each element of the expected service charges for 2023 and 2024.
In a separate undated letter, understood to have also been sent to the resident by the landlord in February 2023, the landlord advised the resident that he had been undercharged for his heating and hot water usage for the previous billing year. As a result, a shortfall of £617.20 had been incurred which would be reclaimed from the resident’s meter when he topped it up, at a rate of 20%.
The resident emailed the landlord to ask for further information on 9 March 2023 about the calculation of service charges for both the current and upcoming billing years. He said that the increase was unreasonable and that the service charges were not good value for money because of the standard of some of the services provided. The resident referred to an ongoing defect with the heating and hot water system as an example of why he felt the increase was unreasonable. He was concerned that the landlord would use the heating and hot water system repairs element of the service charge to fix the defect.
On 27 March 2023 the landlord confirmed that it had passed his concerns to the relevant team. The resident emailed the landlord for a response on 3 April 2023. On 11 April 2023 the landlord sent the resident a document entitled ‘2023/2024 Service Charges Estimates – Response to Queries’. The document set out an overview of how the charges were apportioned, calculated, and what the charges covered.
On 9 June 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. He said that:
1. the landlord had not given an adequate or timely response to his queries about the service charge increase
2. he disputed the level of increase and that he felt he should not have to pay some elements, such as the ‘sinking fund’ charge
3. the increase was unreasonable based on the quality of services provided and outstanding defects to the heating and hot water provision at the property
4. the backdated payments for energy usage were unfair and that he should not have to pay them, adding that they were also unreasonable because residents had no choice over their energy supplier
5. the wrong material was used for the bathroom cabinet which had led it to fall and hit his wife, which the landlord should investigate
On 13 June 2023 the resident asked us to investigate his concerns. We responded by asking the resident to provide us with a final complaint response before we could investigate.
On 4 July 2023 the resident resubmitted his earlier complaint from 9 June 2023 to the landlord. On 14 September 2023 we sent the landlord a formal request for action, because it had not responded to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 4 October 2023. It:
1. explained that it had provided information about the increase in service charges in February and April 2023, including explanations of what each element was for
2. explained the billing process and contract information about the commercial energy charges relating to the resident’s heating and hot water usage
3. said that the elements it was charging for were included in the lease agreement and that the backdated charges had been handled in line with the terms of the lease agreement and other relevant legislation
4. said that the resident’s concerns about defects to the heating and hot water provision were not relevant or part of the increase in service charges
5. said that it had reviewed the photographs the resident had provided of the fallen mirror cabinet and deemed the materials were appropriate
6. noted that 330 such cabinet units were installed and they had received no other reports that they had fallen, meaning there was no evidence of a defect
7. advised the resident that repairing or replacing the cabinet was his responsibility and directed him both to his insurer or the landlord’s public liability insurer
The resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 4 October 2023. He:
1. repeated that the service charge increase was unreasonable
2. questioned the legality of the landlord’s decision to request a backdated payment for heating and hot water usage
3. challenged the level of service charge and the landlord’s administration of its commercial energy costs
4. said that the material used the install the bathroom mirror cabinet had been dangerous
5. asked for an update on the progress of resolving the defect to the heating and hot water system
6. asked for clarity that he was not able to change his heating and hot water supplier
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 5 October 2023. On 8 November 2023 it asked the resident for more time to gather information to respond to his complaint.
On 22 November 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It:
1. provided additional information around the service charge calculation and further explanation of what some elements paid for
2. apologised that it did not adequately explain the increase in service charges in its stage 1 complaint response and provided an explanation
3. upheld its stage 1 complaint response position regarding the bathroom mirror cabinet and concerns about backdated energy charges
4. explained how repairs to the heat network would usually be calculated
5. confirmed that repairs to resolve the defect to the heat network had been agreed with the developer and clarified that the developer would bear the cost, not residents
6. clarified that the resident was not able to change his heating and hot water supplier and provided information to the resident about how the charges were calculated and the tariffs were managed
On 4 January 2024 the resident emailed this service and confirmed that he remained unhappy and wanted us to investigate. He said that the service charge increase was unreasonable, that he should not have to pay a backdated charge for heating and hot water, and that the landlord had not adequately investigated his concerns about the materials used to mount the bathroom mirror cabinet.
We called the resident on 20 June 2025. We explained our jurisdiction and confirmed that the resident’s outstanding concerns were his complaints to the landlord which are defined above.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

The Housing Ombudsman is not free to investigate every complaint referred to us. What we can and cannot investigate is called our jurisdiction and is set out in the Scheme.
Paragraph 42.d of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman 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. When the resident complained to the landlord he said he was unhappy with level of the increase of his service charge. He also referred to issues at the block such as an ongoing defect to the heating and hot water system as part of his comments on the reasonableness of this increase. In addition the resident said the charge was unreasonable because he felt that charges which related to communal cleaning, waste removal, and landscaping charges, did not provide good value for money. We have not investigated these concerns because the resident’s complaint about the level and reasonableness of a service charge increase is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction (OSJ).
Paragraph 42.f of the Scheme states that Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. The resident’s concerns about which elements of his service charges were payable, such as a backdated service charge relating to hot water and heating costs, require legal interpretation of the terms of the resident’s lease agreement. As such, it would be more reasonable and effective for the resident to seek a remedy through the courts or tribunal. This element of the resident’s complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction (OSJ).

The resident’s request for further information about service charges and a service charge increase

Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act) gives tenants the right to request a summary of the service charge account from their landlord. This allows tenants to see a breakdown of the costs a landlord has incurred over the previous accounting period. It gives tenants the right to inspect further information regarding the summary of the service of accounts, including related documents, receipts, invoices, and contracts. The Act says ‘facilities for inspection must be provided within one month of the request, and must be available for a period of two months.’ The landlord does not have a designated policy relating to its handling of service charges.
The landlord first provided the resident with information about his new service charges for the upcoming billing period on 23 February 2023. This included information such as:
1. the estimated cost for each element of the service charge for the whole block
2. the percentage proportion of this cost that would be payable by the resident
3. the total cost for each element payable by the resident only
4. a summary of what each element pays for
5. the landlord’s contact details to raise queries or to access financial advice
The resident raised a query with the landlord on 9 March 2023. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s query 11 working days later, on 27 March 2023. The resident was unhappy that it took the landlord until 11 April 2023 to respond to the query. This was 3 working days longer than the month required by Section 22 of the Act and was a minor failing. The evidence shows that the resident was frustrated by this delay.
In the resident’s email of 9 March 2023 he:
1. requested an explanation of the increase and a full report of the previous years’ service charges
2. raised a query about if the service charges would be used to pay to repair a defect with the heating and hot water system
3. requested a breakdown of how certain elements of the charge were calculated, such as the ‘bulk waste removal’ element
The landlord’s ‘Service Charges Estimates Response to Queries’ document that it sent to all residents on 11 April 2023 contained information about several elements of the service charge increase. It included an explanation of why the service charges were increasing. It also included a breakdown of how several elements of the service charges were calculated, including bulk waste removal. The landlord provided a reasonable amount of information in response to most of the resident’s concerns.
However, the resident’s request for a full written breakdown of the previous years’ service charges was not provided until 22 September 2023. In addition, the resident’s concerns about how repairs to the defect in the heating and hot water system would be paid for, were not addressed until the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 4 October 2023. This was a significant delay beyond the 1 month timescale set out in the Act and was a failing.
It is unclear if the landlord had the information required to answer the resident’s queries earlier than the responses it provided. However, there is no evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident proactively or informed him that it was working to acquire the further information it needed. This was unreasonable and caused frustration to the resident.
In the resident’s formal complaint of 9 June 2023 he also challenged the landlord’s collection of a reserve or ‘sinking’ fund as part of the breakdown of service charges and the landlord’s calculation of costs for heating and hot water. The landlord appropriately included an explanation of the calculation of these elements again in its stage 1 complaint response.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response on 22 November 2023 that it had taken until that date to provide what it considered to be an adequate explanation of the service charges increase. This failing is mitigated as the evidence shows that several attempts to explain the increase had been made. Much of the information provided in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response had been provided to the resident before, but the landlord is correct that the final explanation given on 22 November 2023 was the most complete.
Much of the resident’s complaint focussed on the level or reasonableness of many of the service charge elements. The evidence shows that the landlord provided adequate explanations as to why these costs had increased by the time of the stage 2 complaint responses. It also signposted the resident to the First Tier Tribunal in its stage 2 complaint response. This was appropriate, however it had missed several opportunities between 9 March 2023 and 22 November 2023 to make the resident aware of his right to approach the tribunal. It would have been good practice to provide the resident with this information sooner than it did. There is evidence the landlord has since improved its service in this regard, as documents relating to service charges after the stage 2 complaint response contain this information frequently.
In conclusion, by the time of the stage 2 complaint response the evidence shows that the landlord had provided adequate information relating to the resident’s requests. However, there had been unreasonable delays in providing some of those explanations or information, with the landlord acknowledging that a full explanation of the increases in service charges themselves took over 8 months, until 22 November 2023. There was therefore service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for further information about service charges and a service charge increase.
The landlord acknowledged some of its failings, but not all of them. It offered £30 compensation. The evidence shows that this amount was not reflective of the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience gone to by the resident. Our remedies guidance suggests that where there service failures have resulted in delays in getting matters resolved but may not have significantly affected the overall outcome of the complaint, compensation of up to £100 should be considered. We have ordered the landlord to pay £100 compensation to reflect the delays in this case.
After the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, the resident remained unhappy with the quality of information the landlord had provided. He told this Service on 20 June 2025 that an example of the information he wished to see would be receipts the landlord had paid out to contractors for services included in his service charges. However there is no evidence that the resident made a specific request for receipts to the landlord prior to its stage 2 complaint response. It would not have been reasonable therefore to expect the landlord to have provided these at this time. The resident should raise a new service request with the landlord to obtain this information.

The resident’s concerns that inadequate materials had been used by the developer to mount a mirror cabinet

The resident raised a concern about the materials used to hang the bathroom mirror cabinet on 29 December 2022. He highlighted that this was a potential health and safety issue that could affect other residents. The landlord’s Repairs Policy states that the health and safety of its residents is its primary concern. It is reasonable therefore that the landlord should investigate the materials used.
The evidence shows that the landlord attended on the day that the mirror cabinet fell and noted that it had likely fallen due to being overloaded. This demonstrates that the landlord considered the resident’s concerns. The resident confirmed over the phone on 22 December 2022 that he would be installing his own cabinet to replace the old one in accordance with his responsibilities under the lease agreement. There were no further actions that the landlord needed to take at this time.
It advised the resident in its reply on 6 January 2023 that he could consider claiming on his own insurance or, because he believed the landlord to be at fault, consider claiming against the landlord’s insurance. The landlord was within its rights to advise the resident to make a claim against its liability insurance. Landlords are entitled to use liability insurance as a means of managing the cost of negligence claims and the landlord would not be obliged to pay compensation for negligence outside the insurance process. This was appropriate because the resident had claimed his wife had been injured and a claim against the landlord’s public liability insurance may have been an appropriate way to resolve his outstanding concerns, if the landlord were found to be at fault.
In the resident’s complaint his outstanding concern was that other residents with the same installation could be at risk. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response it noted that it had investigated the resident’s concerns. It had found that there was no evidence that it needed to take further action in response to his concerns because:
1. it had reviewed the mirror cabinet and the resident’s photographs at the time and found that it had been installed using the correct materials it had been supplied with
2. that a significant amount of time (understood to be 3 or 4 years) had passed since the other units had been installed
3. it had not received any reports that any other units had fallen of more than 330 that had been installed
The landlord demonstrated that it had considered the resident’s concerns. The decision it made was reasonable based on the evidence that was available to it. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that inadequate materials had been used by the developer to mount a mirror cabinet.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the expectations the landlord must meet in its complaint handling. Landlords must acknowledge complaints and escalation requests within 5 working days of being received. Stage 1 complaint responses should be issued within a further 10 working days. Stage 2 complaint responses should be issued within a further 20. Where delays are expected, the Code states that landlord must ‘inform the resident of the expected timescale for response.’
The resident asked to raise a formal complaint on 9 June 2023. The resident asked the landlord to respond again on 4 July 2023 but the landlord did not respond. This Service sent the landlord a formal request for action on 14 September 2023. It took the landlord 11 working days to acknowledge our request for action, which was a failing. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 4 October 2023. It took the landlord 83 working days from the time of his initial complaint to provide its stage 1 complaint response. This failing was significant and unexplained.
The evidence shows that as a result of the landlord’s delays in providing a stage 1 complaint response, the resident went to avoidable time and trouble. The resident also went through unnecessary distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s delays in responding to his concerns.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 4 October 2023. The landlord acknowledged this request the following day. The landlord asked for an extension to respond on 8 November 2023. However its stage 2 response was already overdue by 5 working days at this point. It issued its stage 2 complaint response on 22 November 2023, which was a delay of 15 working days.
The evidence shows that the landlord was working to acquire complex information from several internal departments and staff members to provide its stage 2 complaint response. The delay therefore was not unreasonable. However, it should have notified the resident of its need for an extension sooner that it did. This was a failing.
The landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failures in its stage 2 complaint response. It offered £50 compensation. Our remedies guidance states that where there has been a service failure resulting in time and trouble, and distress and inconvenience, compensation of up to £100 should be considered. Our remedies guidance notes that this is usually applicable to failings which have lasted for a short duration. There were delays of 98 working days in the landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses combined. £50 was not reflective of the impact of this failing. We have ordered the landlord pay £100 compensation below, inclusive of the £50 already offered.
There is also no evidence that the landlord learned from this failing. There is no evidence that it investigated the reason for the significant delay at stage 1 of its complaint handling. In conclusion, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In May 2024 we published our Special Report on this landlord. The report identified concerns about delays in the landlord’s complaint handling. It made several recommendations, including the ‘roll out of a complaint handling training programme to all staff’. It is not necessary therefore to make further learning orders around complaint handling in this case.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.d of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the level and reasonableness of a service charge increase is outside the Ombudsman’s Jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about which elements of his service charges were payable is outside the Ombudsman’s Jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for further information about service charges and a service charge increase.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that inadequate materials had been used by the developer to mount a mirror cabinet.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
1. Paid the resident £200 compensation, made up of:
  1. £100 compensation for delays in responding to the resident’s request for further information about service charges and a service charge increase. The £30 already offered may be deducted from this amount, if it has been paid already.
  2. £100 for delays in complaint handling. The £50 already offered may be deducted from this amount, if it has been paid already.
  3. This must be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any money owed to the landlord by the resident.