From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Southern Housing (202325518)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325518

Southern Housing

13 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of a leak.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. It is aware that the resident has mental health issues.
  2. Following the resident’s reports of a roof leak in December 2022, the landlord undertook works which it completed on 6 March 2023. The resident reported further leaks in the same month. The resident complained to the landlord on 30 October 2023. She said that despite her reporting the leak several times it had failed to rectify the problem. She told the landlord that the bedroom ceiling was damp and covered in mould spores.
  3. We contacted the landlord on 19 December 2023 as the resident told us she had not received a response. It subsequently sent its stage 1 response on 11 January 2024. It apologised to the resident for its poor service. It provided a history of repair work to the roof and set out when it would attend to complete outstanding repair work. It offered the resident £200 in compensation for disruption caused to her and in recognition of her time and trouble.
  4. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 16 January 2024. She was unhappy that it had not completed repair work within the timescales set out in its previous complaint response and that work remained outstanding.
  5. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaint process on 7 March 2024. It apologised for ongoing issues with the roof and said repair work was now complete. Its contractor would contact the resident by 22 March 2023 to arrange internal repair work to rectify damage caused by the leak. It revised its compensation offer to a total of £345, broken down as:
    1. £300 for the disruption caused to the resident and for her time and trouble.
    2. £15 for its failure to follow process and policy.
    3. £15 for the disruption involved in a repeat repair visit.
    4. £15 for its delay in responding to the complaint at stage 2.
  6. The resident referred her complaint to us as she was unhappy with the landlord’s responses. She wants the landlord to replace the roof to avoid future issues.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said her mental health was affected by the landlord’s handling of her reports of a leak. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this element of the complaint is better dealt with via the court.
  2. The Housing Ombudsman assesses landlords’ handling of residents’ complaints to ascertain whether they took reasonable steps to resolve these within their internal process. This investigation has, therefore, focused on the events and evidence from December 2022 leading up to its final response on 7 March 2024. Any events following its stage 2 response are mentioned in this report for context purposes only.

Roof leak

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure of the building, including the roof in good condition. It says that the landlord will complete repair work within a reasonable time of receiving notice of it.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy in place at the time of her reports of a leak says it will:
    1. Attend to emergency repairs within 6 hours.
    2. Measure the amount of time it takes to complete repair work.
    3. Aim to complete repair work in as little time as possible and in one visit.
  3. The landlord’s damp and mould procedure sets out upon receiving a report of damp or mould it will:
    1. Contact a resident within one working day to discuss the report.
    2. Arrange for a visual inspection to take place within 10 working days.
  4. The resident reported a roof leak to the landlord in December 2022. On 6 March 2023 it completed work to rectify the leak as well as repairing ceilings in the property damaged because of subsequent water ingress. On 22 March 2023 the resident told the landlord that stains and damp patches had appeared on her bedroom ceiling. The landlord’s records show that it responded to this 14 working days later on 12 April 2023, when it said that it had raised a repair job to rectify a possible leak from the loft. This was outside of timescales set out in its damp procedure. Its failure to arrange an inspection of the issue in line with its procedure meant it missed an opportunity to identify the source of the problem and respond appropriately.
  5. The landlord subsequently attended the repair job on 11 May 2023. The operative who attended was unable to rectify the issue and fed back that a visit from a surveyor was necessary to investigate a suspected roof leak. There is no evidence that it arranged this or updated the resident on its next steps. As she had waited over 7 weeks for it to attend, and the leak was causing damage to the property, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to treat the matter with more urgency.
  6. We are aware that the resident was away from the property between June and July 2023 due to a period of ill health. On 3 August 2023 she contacted the landlord and asked it to arrange repair work to the ceiling. She chased it again on 6 August 2023 and said that a visit from a surveyor was needed. Despite this the landlord arranged for a plumbing operative to attend on 13 September 2023 who was unable to take any action to rectify the problem. Given its previous visit had already identified that the issue stemmed from the roof, it would have been appropriate for it to review its repair records to ensure it sent an operative equipped to deal with the problem. Its failure to do so led to further delays for the resident.
  7. The resident chased the landlord 4 times between 21 September 2023 and 24 October 2023 for an update on the repair work. There is no evidence that it provided any information to her regarding its attendance in response to this contact. Upon raising her complaint on 30 October 2023, the resident said that the bedroom ceiling was “full of mould spores”. Although it responded to this contact on 3 November 2023, it did not give a date that the roof repair would be conducted and instead said its roofing contractor would be in touch with the resident to arrange repair work.
  8. The landlord’s records indicate that its contractor attended to carry out the roof repair work on 27 November 2023. Its repair records do not give any details of the outcome of this visit. However, its stage 1 response of 11 January 2024 explains that its contractor was unable to conduct repair work on this date due to it requiring the erection of scaffolding. There is no evidence that the landlord kept the resident informed or updated during this time which, given the delays she had already experienced, likely left her very frustrated.
  9. In its stage 1 response the landlord apologised for the trouble the matter had caused to the resident. It said it would erect scaffolding on 16 January 2024 and its roofing contractor would attend the same day to complete repair work. It said it would carry out a further visit on 22 January 2024, to rectify the internal issues caused by the water ingress including a mould treatment.
  10. The resident contacted the landlord on 16 January 2024 to advise that although it had erected the scaffolding as agreed, its contractor had failed to attend to complete the roof repair. Due to this she requested escalation of her complaint.
  11. The resident chased the landlord for an update on the situation 3 times between 17 January and 11 February 2024. Whilst it provided responses to say its complaint team was due to contact her regarding the issue, there is no evidence that this happened. Its failure to communicate with her about, explain or remedy its delays led to her experiencing unnecessary additional time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience.
  12. In the landlord’s stage 2 response on 7 March 2024 it apologised for issues with the roof. Although it explained that it had completed repair work to the roof, it did not give any explanation for its delays nor address its poor communication around the issue. It said that its contractor would contact the resident by 22 March 2024 to arrange repair work to rectify the internal damage caused by the leak.
  13. The landlord’s final response said that it had realised that a managing agent was responsible for arranging roof repair work at the property. It gave contact details for the agent and advised the resident she should report any future communal repairs to them. Given that she has not entered into any agreement with a managing agent this advice was inappropriate. Her tenancy agreement sets out that the responsibility for communal repair work lies with the landlord. Due to this we would expect it to liaise with its managing agent regarding repair work and not put the onus on the resident to do so.
  14. Where there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by it (including an apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  15. In its final response the landlord made a total offer of compensation to the resident of £330. Its breakdown of this apportioned redress for its failure to follow policy, disruption caused to the resident and her time and trouble. It is our opinion that this offer failed to recognise the level of distress caused to the resident. The matter had been ongoing for over 11 months and the landlord did not recognise the level of inconvenience likely caused to the resident having to continually chase it to complete its agreed action, which remained outstanding at the time of its final response. Its complaints decision did not recognise that the effects of its failings were compounded by the resident’s vulnerabilities.
  16. Our remedies guidance provides for compensation in the range of £100 to £600 for situations where there was failure by a landlord that adversely affected the resident causing distress and inconvenience. As the landlord did not fully recognise the effects of its failings and the fact these were compounded by the resident’s vulnerabilities, we have made an order for it to pay increased compensation.
  17. Our special investigation report in May 2024 into the landlord found a series of systemic failings affecting residents, including in its handling of repairs. Due to this we asked it to make changes which included, reviewing its responsive repair policy and how it worked with its contractors, to improve its service. As the events in this case took place before the time of our special investigation, we have not made orders or recommendations for it to review its handling of the repair requests in addition to those made in the special investigation report.
  18. We are aware that following the landlord’s final response it completed internal repair work to rectify the damage caused by water ingress from the leak. It appropriately post inspected this work on 23 August 2024 and noted it had been completed satisfactorily. Although we are aware that the resident remains concerned that the roof may leak in the future, we recognise that landlords are entitled to opt to repair damaged items where it is more economical to do so, rather than replacing them. We are satisfied that the evidence confirms that the leak has been resolved with all associated repair work completed.

Associated complaint

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. At either stage, if the response cannot be completed within these timescales, the resident will be notified to inform them of the progress of their complaint and when they will expect a full response. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) timescales.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 30 October 2023 and it failed to acknowledge the complaint until 27 December 2023 after contact from this Service. It offered no explanation, apology or redress to the resident for this delay in its subsequent stage 1 response on 11 January 2024. This was unreasonable.
  3. The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 16 January 2024 however this was not acknowledged by the landlord until 12 working days later. This was not in line with its policy.
  4. Although the landlord sent the resident an extension letter prior to issuing its stage 2 response, it sent this 22 days after acknowledging her escalation request. Given its timescale for responding to stage 2 complaints is 20 working days, it should have advised the resident of the delay before this period had elapsed.
  5. In its final response on 7 March 2024 the landlord offered the resident £15 in compensation for its late response to her complaint. It failed however to offer an explanation for this, apologise, or identify any learning that it would implement as a result. We have, therefore made a finding of service failure. We have made an order for the landlord to pay increased compensation to the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of a leak.
    2. Associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to take the following action and must provide evidence of its compliance:
    1. Pay to the resident the sum of £565 broken down as follows:
      1. £500 (this includes the £330 previously offered if not already paid) for its failures in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
      2. £65 (this includes the £15 previously offered if not already paid) for its complaint handling failures.
      3. This payment must be paid directly to the resident and not to her rent account.
    2. Send a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord discusses with its staff its protocol around repair issues where a managing agent is in place. Asking residents to report issues to managing agents whom they have no contractual relationship with should be avoided. Where managing agents are in place, the landlord should ensure it liaises with these regarding issues and not expect this responsibility to fall on its residents.