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

Take part in the consultation

Southern Housing (202446502)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202446502

Southern Housing

15 October 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 water leaks into the resident’s property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also taken the decision to investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom maisonette. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident’s household.
  2. The resident reported water leaks into the living room and 1st floor bedroom in 2022. The landlord carried out work to the property in response to a previous complaint the resident had raised about water leaks. On 22 August 2023 the resident told the landlord there was another water leak in a bedroom. On 16 October 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to advise that since an inspection on 12 September 2023, no further work had been carried out. The resident said water leaks were now also occurring in the 2nd floor bedroom. She requested urgent attention be given to the matter.
  3. On 24 July 2024 the resident raised a complaint. She said the work that had been carried out had not resolved the leak. The resident said walls on the detached side of the property were damp, mouldy and water stained. She said this was a reoccurring problem that had been reported for two decades. The resident said communication with the landlord and contractors had been “appalling”. She stated she had needed to chase to get the repairs progressed. The resident said the household had needed to take a lot of time off work, experienced disruption, health problems and costs. She requested £3,000 in compensation.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 17 December 2024. It apologised for its delay in issuing its response. It acknowledged the leaks had been an ongoing problem. The landlord said this had caused damp and mould which it had addressed with mould washes. It said an inspection had taken place in October 2024. This found the living room leak had been repaired but there was still damp in a bedroom. The bedroom leak was coming from the chimney breast.
  5. The landlord said no works had been raised after the inspection. It said a contractor had been asked to do the repairs. The landlord apologised for the delay in carrying out the work. It stated the target completion date for the work was January 2025. The landlord awarded £240 compensation for inconvenience, chasing, miscommunication, missed appointments, repeat visits and complaint handling.
  6. On 8 January 2025 the resident escalated her complaint. She said the contractors had only contacted her once and the leaks remained unresolved. The resident reiterated the length of time the leaks had been occurring and how the household had been affected.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 12 February 2025. It stated the resident raised a complaint in 2022. After which the leak appeared resolved and the property redecorated. It said another leak occurred several months later. The landlord regretted that the issue had persisted, and that the resident had needed to chase. It advised the current works were delayed due to needing access for scaffolding via a neighbour’s property. The landlord said it would provide an update about the scaffolding by 26 February 2025. The landlord acknowledged how the household had been affected by the water leaks. It increased the compensation awarded to £1,190.
  8. On 17 February 2025 the resident contacted the Ombudsman. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. The resident wanted the repairs completed and £5,000 in compensation. On 18 September 2025 the resident told the Ombudsman that the work was completed in April 2025. She said new leaks had appeared since, but these had not been reported to the landlord. The resident remained dissatisfied with the compensation the landlord had awarded. She advised she had not received this payment as she had not accepted the amount offered.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident told the Ombudsman that the water leaks had affected her and her household’s health and wellbeing. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit, however, to establish whether there is a direct link between the actions or inaction of the landlord and the effect on the household’s health. Such matters are better suited to a court and therefore we have not sought to make this determination in our investigation.
  2. The resident advised the Ombudsman that reoccurring water leaks had been a problem for two decades. The Ombudsman has noted the resident previously made a complaint about water leaks in 2022. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise formal complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, normally within 12 months of the issue arising.
  3. Similarly, the Ombudsman would not normally consider events that have happened more than 12 months prior to them being raised formally with the landlord. Therefore, this investigation will consider evidence going back to August 2023. This is because it is 12 months before the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s handling of water leaks into the property

  1. The tenancy agreement states it is responsible to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property. This includes outside walls, the roof and the chimney. The landlord also has these repair obligations under section 11 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  2. On 22 August 2023 the resident told the landlord there was a leak coming into a bedroom. She said due to the water leak, paint was bubbling and peeling. The resident said there was also brown smudges on the wall. She requested a surveyor that had previously inspected water leaks at the property attended again to find a solution to the problem.
  3. The landlord replied on 25 August 2023. It said the surveyor that the resident had requested was on annual leave and would be returning on 31 August 2023. The landlord said it would speak to the surveyor on his return and arrange an inspection. As there were only 3 working days until the requested surveyor returned from leave, this was a reasonable response from the landlord. However, it would have been good practice to have checked the problem had not escalated. The landlord could also have appropriately signposted the resident in case the leak got worse over the bank holiday weekend.
  4. The evidence showed the landlord contacted the resident on 8 September 2023 to arrange an inspection. The inspection took place on 12 September 2023. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy in place at the time of the resident’s report of the leak did not state a timeframe for a response to this problem. The Ombudsman deemed the timeframe of the landlord’s response and appointment was appropriate and reasonable. This is because the inspection took place 14 working days after the resident contacted the landlord. This was within 20 working days which is often the timescale specified by landlords for inspections and non-emergency repairs.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 16 October 2023 as repairs identified at the inspection had not been carried out. She also reported that a leak was now affecting a second bedroom. The evidence shows that the delays in the work being carried out was due to the work order for the repairs not being raised after the inspection. The work order was raised on 24 October 2023 as a result of the resident’s chase-up email. It was not clear why the work order was not raised after the inspection. Not raising the work order delayed the resident getting the repairs carried out.
  6. There was no evidence provided by either party of any subsequent events in the case until 9 May 2024. On this date the resident contacted the landlord to query the internal redecoration in the living room. This was because the living room was wallpapered. If the landlord was removing the wallpaper from the affected wall, the resident wanted all the wallpaper in the living room removed. This was so the room could then be painted instead.
  7. On 10 May 2024 the landlord asked the contractor if the leaks had been resolved. It asked the contractor to remove the wallpaper and carry out full redecoration to the affected rooms. The contractor replied to say an appointment had been booked for a supervisor to attend on 13 May 2024. This was because the contractor said the resident wanted the same wallpaper to be put back up.
  8. There appeared to have been some misunderstanding as this was not what the resident had stated in her email. She also reiterated the reason she wanted the wallpaper removed in an email to the landlord on 29 May 2024. The resident said removing all the wallpaper would mean that there was no need to look for matching wallpaper as the room could just be painted. She also explained that a painted wall would be easier and cheaper for the landlord to maintain should further leaks occur. This was a reasonable suggestion which the landlord agreed to on 21 June 2024.
  9. It was reasonable of the landlord to agree to this request. However, the resident had to chase up the landlord again on 11 June 2024 to progress this matter. It was not appropriate or reasonable that the resident continued to have to chase the landlord for answers and to progress matters.
  10. The evidence showed that during June 2024 the landlord removed the wallpaper, plastered, carried out a mould wash and completed internal redecorations.
  11. The resident made a complaint on 24 July 2024. She said despite the work that had been carried out, the root cause of the leaks had not been identified. The resident stated the walls on the detached side of the property were damp, mouldy and water stained.
  12. As a result of the resident’s complaint, another inspection of the property was carried out in October 2024. The evidence showed conflicting information about what date this inspection was carried out. Both 18 October 2024 and 22 October 2024 were referenced. The landlord acknowledged the “confusion” and “misinformation” about the date of the inspection in its stage 1 response. It was appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged this. It was unclear why it had taken the landlord until 18 October 2024 or 22 October 2024 to carry out another inspection. This was 3 months after the resident had raised her concerns in her complaint dated 24 July 2024. This was an unreasonable length of time for the resident to have to wait for an inspection.
  13. The October 2024 inspection found the leak in the living room was repaired but that there was a leak in a bedroom. The chimney breast in the bedroom was damp. It was thought the leak was coming from the chimney breast or was a pointing issue. The inspection found further work was needed. The report said scaffolding would need to be put up and external render repairs carried out.
  14. The resident experienced further delays as the evidence showed a job for these works was not raised until 26 November 2024. This was over a month after the inspection was carried out. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response that works had not been added after the inspection. It was appropriate of the landlord to address this matter in its complaint response.
  15. In the stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed the work had been issued to a contractor. It said the work was on the chimney stack and internal repairs to the living room and a bedroom. The landlord said this work had a “completion target date” of January 2025. This did not manage the resident’s expectations as it was not clear when in January 2025 the work would be completed. The landlord should have provided the resident with a more specific timescale.
  16. Following on from issuing its stage 1 response, the landlord contacted the resident again on 17 December 2024. It said the contractor had advised it had been trying to contact the resident to arrange a date for a roofer to attend. The landlord told the resident the contractor had tried to call and text her 4 times between 17 November 2024 and 7 December 2024. It also said the contractor had sent a letter dated 12 December 2024 asking her to call to arrange an appointment. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of these calls and the letter.
  17. The resident escalated her complaint on 8 January 2025. She said she had not received any texts or letters from the contractor. The resident said she had received one voicemail from the contractor on 27 November 2024. It was unclear from the evidence if the resident had returned this call. Any delays to the work being carried out due to the resident not responding to this voicemail are reasonable.
  18. In her escalation email, the resident reiterated the length of time the leaks had been occurring and that the leak was still unresolved. She explained how the household had been affected. The resident said her and her household had experienced distress, inconvenience and disruption over a long period of time. She said they had needed to take time off work which had affected them financially. The resident also stated how the household’s health had been affected by living with “damp, mouldy, water-stained walls”.
  19. When the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 12 February 2025, the repair works were still outstanding. The landlord said this was because it was having problems arranging access for the scaffolding. It said access was needed via a neighbour’s property. Landlord internal emails showed the neighbour’s property was privately owned. The evidence showed the contractor had tried to contact the neighbour on several occasions. The neighbour reported being on holiday for two periods of time. There was also a problem with the neighbour’s car which needed to be fixed and was blocking the access needed.
  20. There was no evidence to show the resident had been told about the access issues. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised if the resident had not been told about this cause of the delay. It was appropriate for the landlord to have apologised for this. The resident should have been kept updated by the landlord about any delays throughout the repairs process.
  21. The landlord said it would update the resident about the scaffolding by 26 February 2025. It was appropriate to provide a date to the resident by which she would receive an update. It was unclear from the evidence whether the landlord provided the update in line with the date stated.
  22. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged the frustration that would have been caused by another delay. It apologised for the continued inconvenience. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the effect the situation was having on the household’s health. It said it was sorry for the distress, worry and discomfort caused. It was appropriate for the landlord to have apologised.
  23. The evidence showed that the repair work was completed in April 2025. The work included repointing, work to the chimney and soffit, repairs around the door and window frame, and render repairs. Two coats of masonry paint were applied to the walls and 2 coats of waterproofing compound applied to the roof. A landlord internal email dated 19 June 2025 stated the water leaks into the property had occurred due to the chimney stack, render and brickwork being defective.
  24. On 18 September 2025 the resident advised the Ombudsman that the water leak had occurred again in a bedroom. She told the Ombudsman that she had not reported this to the landlord. The resident said the last time she had reported water leaks to the landlord was during the complaint process. It was reasonable that the landlord had not carried out any further investigations or repairs, if it was unaware that the water leaks had reoccurred.
  25. In her initial complaint, the resident requested £3,000 compensation from the landlord. When referring the case to the Ombudsman the resident advised that she thought £5,000 was appropriate compensation. The landlord explained in its stage 2 response that its compensation policy did not allow it to address loss of earnings. It said health-related claims were considered personal injury matters. The landlord said personal injury fell outside the scope of what it could compensate for. This was reasonable and appropriate, in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.
  26. In its stage 1 response the landlord awarded the resident £190 compensation for the matters relating to the water leaks. It awarded £125 for inconvenience. £15 as the resident had to chase the landlord. £15 for miscommunication. £20 for a missed appointment and £15 for repeat visits.
  27. The landlord reviewed its compensation offer in its stage 2 response and increased this to £1,140. It awarded £1,000 for inconvenience. £15 as the resident had to chase the landlord. £15 for miscommunication. £20 for a missed appointment. £15 for repeat visits and £60 for failure to repair. The resident advised the Ombudsman that she had not received the compensation. This was because she had not accepted the landlord’s offer as she did not think it was sufficient.
  28. The compensation the landlord awarded was in line with its compensation policy and discretionary compensation matrix. The compensation awarded by the landlord was also in line with the upper range of the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
  29. Considering the above, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord made an offer of redress which was satisfactory in resolving the resident’s complaint about water leaks into the property. This was because the landlord apologised for the delays, distress and inconvenienced caused. It had carried out remedial work which it believed to have resolved the water leaks. The landlord had also awarded the resident £1,140 compensation which was in line with its compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. It is recommended this compensation be paid to the resident.
  30. It is recommended the landlord carry out another inspection of the property for potential water leaks. This is because the resident has advised us that new water leaks have occurred.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states there are 2 stages to its complaints process. The policy states the landlord will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. The resident made her complaint on 24 July 2024. It was clear this was a complaint as she stated her dissatisfaction and requested compensation. However, the landlord did not log and acknowledge this complaint in line with its policy and the Code. The resident did not receive a response.
  3. On 20 August 2024, 20 working days later, the resident chased up the landlord. She said it had been 4 weeks since her complaint and request for compensation but there had been no response. The resident asked for a response and how the complaint would be progressed.
  4. A landlord internal email dated 29 August 2024 stated the resident’s initial complaint had not been replied to. It stated this was unintentional and had been due to a heavy workload.  Despite the landlord identifying this mistake, the evidence did not show the resident got a response to this complaint email either.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord again on 23 September 2024. This was 43 working days from her initial complaint sent on 24 July 2024. The resident should not have needed to have sent 3 emails to the landlord to raise a complaint. The first complaint email should have been logged and acknowledged.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 30 September 2024. It said the resident would receive a stage 1 response by 14 October 2024. However, the resident did not receive a stage 1 response until 17 December 2024. This was 56 working days after the resident’s complaint was acknowledged. This considerably exceeded the 10 working days stated in the landlord’s policy and the Code.
  7. The landlord advised the resident 3 times that it needed to extend the stage 1 response deadline. The first extension was to 12 November 2024. This was followed by an extension to 26 November 2024 and another to 17 December 2024. The landlord provided reasons for the extensions which is required under the Code. However, the Code states extensions must be no more than 10 working days without good reason.
  8. The reasons the landlord gave the resident for the extensions included sick leave, annual leave and waiting for information. While these may have been valid reasons for one extension, the resident should not have needed to wait 56 working days for a stage 1 response. This was an inappropriate and unreasonable delay.
  9. The considerable delay in logging and acknowledging the resident’s complaint, resulted in the resident being delayed in progressing the matter through the landlord’s complaint procedure.
  10. The landlord awarded the resident £50 compensation for complaint handling. It was appropriate to award the resident compensation for the delays. However, £50 was not proportionate for the considerable delay in logging and acknowledging the complaint, followed by the number of extensions and length of delay the resident experienced at stage 1.
  11. Considering the above, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This was because the resident had to contact the landlord 3 times before it logged and acknowledged her complaint. The resident also experienced long delays to receive a stage 1 response.
  12. To reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint, the landlord should award the resident £100 in compensation. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance. This is in addition to the £50 the landlord awarded the resident during the complaints process which the resident did not accept.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its handling of water leaks into the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must pay compensation of £150 to the resident for its complaint handling failures. This includes the £50 that the landlord awarded the resident in its complaint responses. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not applied to her rent account. The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with this order within 4 weeks of the date of this report by submitting a copy of the remittance advice, or equivalent document, to us.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended the landlord pay the resident the £1,140 compensation offered in its stage 2 response for the water leaks into the property.
  2. It is recommended the landlord carry out another inspection of the property for potential water leaks.