From 13 January 2026, we 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 (202214560)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214560

Southern Housing

13 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Communal door repairs.
    2. The resident’s requests for a refund of service charges for the period the communal door was not operational.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of a flat. The landlord is the freeholder of the block of flats. The building has an inner and outer communal entry door. The resident pays a service charge which includes an amount for door entry system repairs.
  2. The resident e-mailed the landlord on 7 June 2022 and reported the communal entry door was not working. She reported it again on 21 June 2022. The landlord’s door contractor attended on 24 June 2022 and identified a fault with the power supply unit. It replaced the fuse during that appointment.
  3. The landlord was aware of continued issues with the door and the contractor repaired the outer door in November 2022.
  4. The landlord became aware of further issues with the inner communal doors in January 2023. The landlord decided to install a new door entry system. It raised the works with its contractor to install the new system on 12 March 2023.
  5. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 2 June 2023. She said she first raised issues with the communal door in June 2022. She told the landlord her family felt unsafe. She asked when it would repair the communal door. She also wanted compensation for the service charges she had paid during the year the door did not work.
  6. The landlord confirmed with its contractor that it had fully installed the new door entry system on 10 July 2023.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 21 July 2023. It awarded the resident £115 compensation broken down as £50 for distress and inconvenience, £50 for complaint handling delays and £15 for failing to respond to her correspondence within timescales. It apologised for the delays and lack of communication. It told the resident:
    1. Its contractor repaired the communal door in November 2022.
    2. The door entry system was old, and it stopped working completely in March 2023.
    3. It instructed its contractor to begin work to install a new door entry system by 7 June 2023.
    4. Its contractor delayed the works because it needed to employ a sub-contractor.
    5. The sub-contractor experienced delays in ordering the parts it required.
    6. Its contractor had confirmed it completed the installation on 10 July 2023.
    7. It was unable to offer her compensation for delays with communal repairs as it was not in line with its compensation policy.
  8. The resident contacted this Service on 14 November 2023. She remained unhappy with its response to repairing the communal door. We asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
  9. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 3 January 2024. It apologised for the delay in installing the new door security system. It said the delays were caused by miscommunication between the landlord and its contractor. They both thought the works had been completed in June 2023 but they remained outstanding until 10 July 2023. It awarded her £100 compensation, £50 for the delay in providing its stage 2 response and £50 for the time and trouble she had spent chasing the matter. It repeated it would not provide compensation for delays with communal repairs. It provided the relevant section of its compensation policy.
  10. The resident escalated her complaint to this Service on 17 January 2024. She was unhappy with the amount of compensation the landlord awarded. She wanted it to increase its compensation to reflect that she pays a service charge that includes door entry system repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has said that the issues have had a negative effect on her and her daughter’s mental health. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s mental health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. However, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident may have experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

Handling of communal door repairs

  1. The landlord is responsible for maintaining the communal parts of the block. Its repairs policy states that routine and communal repairs should be completed as quickly as possible but does not provide a timescale.
  2. When the resident reported issues with the communal doors in June 2022 it responded promptly. Its contractor attended and completed a repair on 24 June 2022. The landlord considered the issue solved following that repair. However, there was a misunderstanding with the notes following the contractor’s visit. Its operative believed the system needed to be replaced. Given the landlord was aware that residents of the block continued to raise the issue it should have sought clarification from its contractor.
  3. The landlord raised a repair job sometime in August 2022. It delayed in arranging the works because it needed to consider if it needed to complete a section 20 consultation before it could proceed. This is a legal framework and part of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which requires landlords to consult leaseholders before carrying out major works that will incur costs recoverable through service charges. It also wanted to obtain a second quotation. It was appropriate the landlord responded to the resident’s request for an update in September 2022. It told her its contractor was waiting to receive delivery of materials to complete the repair.
  4. The resident raised further concerns about her daughter’s safety in her reply in September 2022. There is no evidence the landlord responded to those concerns. This was not appropriate.
  5. The resident had to wait almost5 months from her report in June 2022 until the repair of the outer door was completed on 2 November 2022. In addition to that, the inner communal door remained defective. While the landlord’s repairs policy does not set a timescale for communal repairs its delay in its response was unreasonable. It was aware of ongoing issues. In not acting sooner it did not show it had considered the security concerns the resident had raised when she reported the issues with the door.
  6. Internal landlord e-mails from 14 February 2023 show it again needed to consider if a section 20 consultation was required before they could proceed with installing the new door entry system. While the landlord should have acted sooner to progress to that stage it was reasonable that further delays followed due to its need to consider if the consultation was required and for it to obtain quotations for the works.
  7. Following its acceptance of a quotation the landlord raised an order with its contractor to install the new door entry system on 12 March 2023. Given how long the issues had gone on for it was appropriate it contacted its contractor on 22 March 2023 and asked it to prioritise the works. The landlord requested an update on 21 April 2023 and the contractor apologised the same day. It said there had been delays in obtaining the materials it required to complete the works.
  8. The delay in completing the repairs to the door prompted the resident to raise a stage 1 complaint on 2 June 2023. She contacted the landlord on 5 June 2023 and said its contractor had replaced her call receiver. She did not think it had installed a receiver with video function. It was appropriate the landlord contacted its contractor the same day. It established the receiver did have video capability, but the receivers for the new system were smaller then from the previous system. It e-mailed her to tell her about that on 6 June 2023.
  9. It was appropriate the landlord contacted its contractor on 23 June 2023 as part of its stage 1 investigation to establish why it had not fully installed the system. Its contractor said its sub-contractor attended on 6 and 7 June 2023 to install receivers in each flat but could not access all the flats. It also said delays in getting the parts required for the installation had contributed to its failure to meet the 6 week target.
  10. The evidence shows the installation of the new door entry system was completed on 10 July 2023. Although that was later than the 6 week target the contractor had set, the delays with obtaining the required materials and getting access to all flats was outside of the landlord’s control. Given the landlord’s repairs policy states it will complete communal repairs as quickly as possible the length of time taken to install the new door entry system was reasonable. It is also important to note that the external door was operational during that period. However, the length of time the communal doors were not fully functional before work started on the new door entry system was not reasonable. Had the landlord acted sooner it could have identified the miscommunication with its contractor and resolved the issues sooner, so it did not act as quickly as possible when completing the earlier repairs.
  11. It was appropriate the landlord explained the reasons for the delays and apologised to the resident in its stage 1 response on 21 July 2023. Its approach throughout its investigation in communicating with its contractor to ensure the new system was installed showed it had taken the resident’s complaint seriously. However, in only awarding her £50 for the distress and inconvenience it did not go far enough. Other than a general assurance that it takes the safety of its residents very seriously it did not address her concerns about her and her daughter’s safety in its response.
  12. In awarding the resident a further £50 for inconvenience and time and trouble in its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged its stage 1 response had not gone far enough. However, it again missed an opportunity to address the safety concerns the resident had raised in her complaint.
  13. Although the landlord’s repairs policy does not set timeframes for how long communal repairs should take it says it will complete them as quickly as possible. It was not appropriate that the communal doors in the block were not fully operational for just over 1 year. While the landlord put some matters right in its complaint responses it did not adequately reassure the resident about her safety concerns. It is for that reason there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of communal door repairs.
  14. The landlord has been ordered below to pay another £100 compensation to the resident, in addition to the £100 that it previously offered in its internal complaints procedure to her for the distress and inconvenience caused. This is in recognition of its lack of response about her safety concerns. That amount falls within the service failure banding of this Service’s remedies guidance.
  15. The Ombudsman considers the £115 the landlord awarded the resident for its delays in responding to her complaint and failure to respond to correspondence within timescales reasonable.

Handling of the resident’s service charge refund request

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will not pay compensation for communal repairs. It says it can award compensation on a discretionary and individual basis for issues with communal repairs. In doing so it will consider the resident’s personal circumstances, the impact and the overall effort which they have personally made to ensure it carried out the repairs.
  2. It was appropriate the landlord addressed the resident’s request for a refund of service charges as compensation. Its decision not to award compensation for the delays in communal repairs was in line with its compensation policy. It did not change its position at stage 2. It was appropriate that it provided an exert of its policy to show the resident why it had made that decision.
  3. When considering if the landlord’s approach was reasonable, it is important to consider the wording of the apportionment of the resident’s service charge. The letters the landlord sent to her that explained her service charge for the years covered by her complaint gave a breakdown of the charges for her block. It said that she was to pay £100 in 2022-23 and £3.33 in 2023-24 for door entry service repairs.
  4. As highlighted in this report although there were delays the landlord did complete repairs to the communal doors in those years. Due to the age of the system those repairs were not long lasting which resulted in the landlord installing a new system. Given the resident’s service charge paid towards door system repairs the landlord’s decision not to provide a refund was reasonable. It was also in line with its compensation policy which it explained to the resident at both stages of her complaint. For those reasons there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for a refund of service charges.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of communal door repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for a refund of service charges for the period the communal door was not operational.

Order

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £200 total compensation broken down as:
      1. £100 that it previously offered her, if she has not received this already.
      2. £100 in recognition of the length of the lack of response about her safety concerns.
  2. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence to show it has complied with the order within 4 weeks.

Recommendation

  1. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident the £115 it awarded her for its delays in responding to her complaints and correspondence.