Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Southern Housing (202336213)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202336213

Southern Housing

26 September 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 reports that her boiler flue was inaccessible.

Background

  1. In 2008 the resident bought a 30% share in the property, a second-floor new build flat. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. On 27 November and 14 December 2023 the resident reported problems accessing her boiler flue (the pipe where gases and condensation from the boiler escape). The landlord referred her first report to its heating contractors but they could not complete the repair as the resident was a shared owner.
  3. The landlord surveyed the property on 9 January 2024. It found the boiler flue was inaccessible and went through both the ceiling and the roof. The surveyor noted the resident told him a gas engineer had been unable to repair the boiler as there was no access to the flue. They also documented that the resident asked for an inspection hatch to be installed.
  4. The resident complained about access to the boiler flue on 29 January 2024. She said she had raised the issue over a number of years and could not service her boiler because of it. She said she had been without heating and hot water for 2 weeks. She said the surveyor promised her a call back on 26 January 2024 but this did not happen. She believed water was leaking into the boiler and the landlord was liable for any damage caused by this.
  5. Evidence suggests the landlord arranged to install an inspection hatch on 31 January 2024 but the resident cancelled this work.
  6. On 1 February 2024 the landlord told the resident she was responsible for replacing the boiler (including the flue). It said she would need to contact the Home Ownership Team for permission to do so. The resident told the landlord she intended to replace the boiler during a call of 6 February 2024. She asked for permission to relocate the boiler flue. The landlord referred this to its Home Ownership Team that day.
  7. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 21 February 2024. It apologised for misinformation, a failed call back and delays. It attached a form so the resident could apply for permission for alterations and apologised for not providing this sooner. It offered £295 compensation.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint on 28 February 2024, saying she had no other choice than to replace the boiler and move the flue on 14 February 2024. She invited the landlord to inspect it. She said her electricity costs increased (when she could not use her gas boiler) and believed delays dealing with the issue caused her to get shingles. She reiterated her belief that the landlord was responsible for damage to her boiler as it did not help to resolve the situation.
  9. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 28 March 2024. It disagreed that the boiler could have been repaired instead of being replaced, had the resident been able to access the boiler flue. It said it did not offer compensation for loss of heating and hot water to shared owners. It signposted her to claim through its insurer for any costs she believed it was liable for. It increased its compensation award to £420 for its failures.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident has complained that she has been unable to access the boiler flue since she bought the property. In the interests of fairness, and taking into account the availability of evidence, this investigation is focused on how the landlord handled reports from November 2023 that were addressed in both stages of the complaint process.
  2. The lease of 2008 was an agreement between the landlord (the freeholder of the property) and the resident (the leaseholder). It said the resident needed to keep any gas apparatus, used only for her premises, in good repair and condition. The landlord was responsible for maintaining and repairing the roof.
  3. This meant the resident was responsible for maintaining and repairing the boiler and the flue that served the property (outside of any initial defect period, usually lasting no more than 2 years). Therefore, the landlord should not have referred her reports of November and December 2023 to its contractors. This was a service failure and misled the resident to believe it would carry out repairs.
  4. Further, the lease said the resident could not alter the exterior of the property. While it was positive the landlord inspected the boiler flue access, this did not happen until 9 January 2024, 28 working days later. We have not seen evidence of a target timeframe for the landlord to carry out such inspection, but the time taken to inspect the property was unreasonable and delayed any repairs further.
  5. Although the resident was responsible for repairs, the landlord’s offer to install an inspection hatch shows it took her concerns about boiler flue access seriously. However, the landlord did not raise the work until 31 January 2024. This was more than 2 months after the resident first reported a problem. It was another failure in service that compounded the detriment to the resident, who was without hot water or heating by that point
  6. The lease said the resident would need written permission to carry out any internal alterations. It is positive the landlord referred the resident’s permission request of 6 February 2024 to its Home Ownership Team that day. It is also reassuring that the complaint handler asked for her application to be prioritised, highlighting she was without hot water and heating. However, the landlord did not provide the relevant permission forms until 2 weeks later.
  7. While this delayed the permission process, the impact on the resident was minimal. This was because she had already carried out alterations without the landlord’s permission. The landlord’s Home Ownership Policy says residents who make alterations without consent are likely to be in breach of their lease. It says any retrospective application for consent will be more costly (than the usual £200 administration fee).
  8. We understand why the resident chose to carry out boiler repairs without permission. By that point, she had been without hot water and heating for some time. It is positive that the landlord took a pragmatic view to this and waived the £200 administration fee. This shows it was sympathetic to the resident’s situation. We have not been told what the outcome of her application was.
  9. When deciding if there has been maladministration, we consider both the events that led to the complaint and the landlord’s response to those. The landlord’s acknowledgment of failures, and its actions to put things right, are as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration if the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
  10. The resident believes the landlord’s failures meant her boiler needed to be replaced. We understand her frustration that the boiler flue was inaccessible, particularly if it had been since she purchased the property. She was justified in her complaint about this issue. However, we cannot make liability decisions on whether the landlord was responsible for the damage to the boiler. Such decisions may be made by the landlord’s liability insurer, the resident’s own contents insurer, or the courts.
  11. However, we have assessed how the landlord responded to these concerns. Its invitation to claim for boiler damage through its insurer was appropriate. The resident told us she does not recall this invitation. We would encourage her to contact the landlord and explore this option, should she now wish to make a claim.
  12. The resident also complained that the issues resulted in her developing shingles. We are not medical experts so we cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. Again, the resident could seek independent advice or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance or the courts. While we cannot determine impact on health, we can assess any distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failings.
  13. The landlord’s compensation policy has provision to compensate residents who experience a loss of hot water and heating due to its delays. However, this does not apply to shared owners, unless their heating is provided by a communal heating system. Therefore, the landlord’s decision not to award compensation for this issue alone, was reasonable.
  14. However, the policy goes on to say the landlord can make discretionary compensation payments for inconvenience caused by service failure. It refers to our remedies guidance for how to determine an appropriate amount. Its award of £420 recognised that the resident was:
    1. Without hot water and heating for longer than necessary.
    2. Misled to believe the landlord may carry out repairs.
    3. Caused unnecessary time and trouble pursuing the matter and progressing her complaint.
  15. Our remedies guidance suggests awards of between £100 and £600 when there have been failures that adversely affected the resident with no permanent impact. The landlord has acknowledged the failings identified in this report. We are satisfied the award recognised the detriment of these on the resident and was inline with our dispute resolution principles of being fair and putting things right. Therefore, we find the landlord has provided reasonable redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s reports that she could not access the boiler flue.

Recommendation

  1. We recommend the landlord pays the resident the £420 previously offered for its failures, if it has not done so already. This recognised genuine elements of service failure and the reasonable redress finding is based on this being paid.