Southern Housing (202427982)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom house with a storage heating system. The current landlord took over ownership of the property held by another housing provider in March 2023. The resident complained that the heating system did not heat her property enough and it is too cold in the winter. The resident asked us to investigate as she was not satisfied with the landlord’s response to her concerns.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of inadequate heating in her property.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of inadequate heating in her property.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

    The handling of the heating

5. The landlord delayed addressing heating concerns and failed to communicate effectively, following the stage 2 response. This was despite the resident’s ongoing issues. The landlord missed opportunities to put things right sooner.

The complaint handling

6. The landlord delayed responding to the complaint.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. The resident told the landlord she had been raising concerns about her heating for the past 6 years before making her formal complaint. These earlier concerns were reported to the previous landlord. We have only been provided with reports since November 2023. Therefore, to be fair, this investigation will only look at issues raised in the resident’s formal complaint and how the landlord dealt with them.
8. In the landlord’s responsive repairs policy it says if a repair is not an emergency, then it will arrange an appointment, for as soon as possible and at a time that suits the resident.
9. When the resident first reported the heating was inadequate in the property in November 2023, the landlord raised an inspection and attended in December 2023, in line with its policy.
10. However, when the resident received no further updates after the inspection, despite contacting the landlord, this caused frustration and inconvenience. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to keep her updated on the outcome of the inspection. Due to the lack of update, she raised a complaint on 24 May 2024. She told the landlord that her mental health was being affected, and that the ongoing issue was causing her distress, she did not want to be in the same position the following winter.
11. At stage 1, the landlord provided an overview of what had happened since the inspection and upheld the resident’s complaint. It was appropriate that it apologised for the lack of communication and delay in actioning any work following the inspection. The landlord also arranged for its contractor to attend and quote for additional heating. The contractor attended on 17 June 2024, when it also changed the fan heater in the kitchen. The apology and further inspection showed the landlord was taking the resident’s concerns seriously and explored ways it could improve the heating with responsive repairs before it could arrange additional heating.
12. The landlord’s compensation policy says it should offer fair and proportionate compensation where there is service failure, such as missed appointments, delays or unresolved repairs, have caused inconvenience, distress or financial loss to the resident.
13. Given the compensation details above, when the landlord offered a total of £210 compensation at stage 1, it showed that it had considered all the service failures in line with its compensation policy and provided fair redress.
14. However, the lack of communication and action continued which showed an absence of learning from its stage 1 by the landlord. By August 2024 the matter had not progressed. This was not appropriate as the landlord had confirmed in its stage 1 response the approval of cost could take up to 6 weeks. If there was a delay this should have been communicated to the resident. This caused frustration and inconvenience for the resident and resulted in her escalating her complaint.
15. Given 9 months had now passed from when the resident first reported the issue, she was understandably frustrated about the lack of action taken. She explained to the landlord that the property was not warm enough in the winter and she wanted a resolution before the temperature dropped.
16. In the stage 2 response on 2 October 2024, the landlord apologised for the delay in obtaining the quote. It was reasonable for it to explain the issues it had with its contractor and apologise for the inconvenience. It confirmed it needed to raise another inspection. It provided a timescale for the inspection to be raised and gave the resident the staff contact name overseeing the work. This provided reassurance to the resident that the work would be monitored, and she had a point of contact should she have any further queries.
17. The landlord also addressed the loft insulation in its response and confirmed that it met the required standard at the time of inspection. However, the resident later informed us that the insulation was replaced in June 2025, which understandably caused confusion given the earlier assurance. We found that the landlord had been discussing the insulation internally after its stage 2 response and had referred the matter to its retrofit team. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to communicate this to the resident, as doing so would have demonstrated that further consideration was being given to the issue.
18. When the landlord offered a total of £450 compensation at stage 2, it showed that it had considered all the service failures in line with its compensation policy, including its failure to progress the work since the stage 1 response. This amount was reasonable for the failings identified.
19. However, even though the landlord raised an inspection on the same day as its stage 2 response, there continued to be a delay with the work being completed. This was due to lack of internal coordination to get approval for the quote. The landlord did not communicate any further delays to the resident, which contributed to the distress and frustration she experienced. Its approach was unreasonable.
20. On 23 December 2024, the contractor replaced the panel heaters in the kitchen, lounge, and bedroom, and installed a towel rail in the bathroom. This work was completed 2 months after the landlord issued its stage 2 response, highlighting a continued failure to act promptly despite the delays and inconvenience the resident had already experienced. The landlord has not provided any reasonable explanation as to why there was this additional delay. It was unfair of the landlord not to provide updates or timeframes of when the work would be completed. Especially given that the matter was delayed and it recognised earlier failings in its approach.
21. The delay in completing the heating upgrades until late December meant the resident experienced the onset of winter with inadequate heating, which likely impacted her comfort and wellbeing during a particularly vulnerable time.
22. The landlord failed to learn from its previous mishandling of the issue and in doing so further weakened the landlord and resident relationship. Because of this, we have found maladministration and decided that additional compensation is appropriate. Taking the £660 already offered, the landlord should now pay an additional £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
23. The resident told us the upgrades completed still do not sufficiently heat the property and she would like gas central heating or an additional heater in the lounge like her neighbours. We acknowledge the resident’s preference, but in line with legislation, landlords are not required to install a specific type of heating system unless the existing system failed to meet legal standard or is unfit for purpose. In this case, the landlord has taken steps to improve the heating by upgrading the storage heaters, which shows a reasonable response to the concerns raised. However, we have included a recommendation in relation to the additional heater in the lounge for the landlord to consider.

24. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition (April 2024). Our findings are:
25. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
26. The landlord responded at stage 1 within 22 working days. This was outside its target timescale of 10 working days. The landlord contacted the resident to confirm it needed an extension to reply. It replied on 26 June 2024, within the allowed timescale after the extension.
27. The landlord responded at stage 2 within 38 days. This was outside its target timescale of 20 working days. The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 12 August 2024, and the landlord acknowledged this 10 days later. This was outside the target timescale of 5 working days.
28. The landlord contacted the resident to confirm it needed an extension to 2 October 2024. This was 2 days later than allowed under its complaints policy for confirming extensions This delay was not in line with the Code and is a minor service failure.
29. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 2 October 2024. This was within the additional 20 working day target from the extension.
30. There were some delays with the landlord’s responses which would have caused further frustration for the resident as she waited for a resolution. While it apologised in its extension request with the resident, it did not acknowledge this in its responses or offer any further redress which its policy allows. Therefore, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and made an order of compensation in line with its policy and the Code.

Learning

31. The landlord took steps to improve the heating provision by upgrading storage heaters and installing a towel rail. This showed a willingness to address the resident’s concerns.
32. Despite acknowledging its failings at stage 1, the landlord did not show learning or improvement in its handling of the issue at stage 2, leading to repeated service failures.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

33. The landlord should maintain accurate records of contractor appointments, quotes, and approvals to avoid delays and confusion. The lack of progress following the December 2023 inspection suggests gaps in tracking and follow-through.

Communication

34. The landlord could improve its communication with residents by providing timely updates on the progress of repairs and inspections. The resident experienced prolonged periods without updates, which contributed to distress and escalation of the complaint.
35. The landlord could improve internal communication between departments and contractors to ensure it can monitor agreed actions through to completion. The breakdown in communication following the stage 1 response led to further delays and weakened the resident’s trust in the landlord.