We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Southern Housing (202415124)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202415124

Southern Housing

29 July 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 which we have 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. The resident’s reports about cracks to the bedroom ceiling.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 3-bedroom house, owned by the landlord.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 November 2023 to report ceiling cracks in one of the bedrooms. Its contractor inspected the ceiling 2 weeks later and said the landlord should arrange an asbestos survey before it started any works.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 11 January 2024 as he had not heard anything since the contractor’s visit.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 6 February 2024. It apologised for the delay and offered the resident £80 in compensation.
  5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint as he was unhappy with its compensation decision and said the landlord had still not done the work.
  6. The landlord repaired the ceiling on 7 May 2024 and issued its stage 2 response the same day. The landlord apologised again and increased its total compensation offer to £415.71.
  7. Following its stage 2 response, the landlord reviewed its compensation offer again on 30 September 2024. It increased its total offer to £680.71. The resident declined this and referred his complaint to us in January 2025.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports about cracks to the bedroom ceiling

  1. The resident contacted the landlord to report cracks to his child’s bedroom ceiling on 7 November 2023. Its contractor inspected the ceiling on 23 November 2023 and said there may be asbestos present. The landlord therefore told the resident it needed to conduct an asbestos check before it could start any works. This action was in line with the landlord’s asbestos management plan, which requires staff and contractors to request a survey if there is a risk they may disturb asbestos.
  2. There is no evidence to show what the landlord did next, until the resident called it on 9 January 2024 to chase for an update. According to the landlord’s call notes, it had arranged an asbestos specialist but had given them the wrong contact number for the resident. As a result, the resident had not received their texts or calls. The landlord corrected its records during the call. It then arranged for the specialist to contact the resident to make an appointment for the check. The failure to record the correct contact information in the first instance led to an avoidable delay in the timeline of the repair.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord about the delay on 11 January 2024. He explained he was redecorating the bedroom but had put this on hold pending the ceiling repairs. He said he had moved all the furniture into another bedroom and had therefore lost the use of both rooms. He asked the landlord to compensate him for the loss of the rooms and repair the ceiling without delay.
  4. The asbestos specialist visited the property on 16 January 2024 and took a sample of the ceiling material for testing. The landlord emailed its contractor on 23 January 2024 to ask their opinion on whether the bedroom was usable, based on their visit in November 2023. The contractor replied to say the room was empty when they visited and the resident had taken up the flooring. They did not say the room was unusable for any other reason.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 6 February 2024. It said it would arrange the necessary works once it received the asbestos report. It apologised for the delay caused by the mistake with his contact number. The landlord offered £80 in compensation for its service failures. It declined to compensate him for the loss of the rooms as it said he could have continued with the flooring and decorating while he waited for the ceiling works. It added it could protect furniture and flooring in the affected room if it did need to remove the ceiling.
  6. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on its contractor’s professional opinion, as they had seen the room and assessed the risk. While the landlord’s stage 1 response did not give a clear timescale for its next steps, this was also reasonable as it was waiting for a report from an independent contractor. However, the landlord did not explain how it would monitor the situation. Given the delays to this point, the landlord missed a valuable opportunity to rebuild its relationship with the resident.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord 3 times in February 2024 as he was unhappy with its stage 1 response. There are no records to show it returned his calls. The resident called again on 29 February 2024 to confirm he wanted to escalate his complaint. He said the landlord should not have expected him to complete the decorating, or ask his child to use the room, given the possible asbestos and ceiling removal.
  8. The landlord received the specialist’s report on 1 March 2024 which confirmed the presence of asbestos. This meant it needed to remove and reinstate the ceiling entirely. It completed this work on 7 May 2024. Internal email records show this was the soonest date available.
  9. The landlord’s repairs policy states: “We aim to complete all repairs in one visit and certainly want it to take as little time as possible. For this reason, we measure the amount of time it takes from the day you report a repair through to its completion date, even if it involves more than one trade.”
  10. The evidence shows the landlord took 6 months to complete the repair. It needed to arrange the asbestos check then replace the ceiling, which were unavoidable factors in the delay. However, the landlord’s service failures increased the time it took to complete the repair.
  11. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 7 May 2024. It apologised for not returning the resident’s calls. It said this was due to a high workload and a shortage of staff. The landlord said it had since recruited more staff to address this problem. In its response, the landlord also said it had assessed that both bedrooms had remained usable, but said it understood the resident’s concerns. The landlord made a discretionary offer to compensate the resident for the loss of one room. It increased its total offer of compensation for the resident’s substantive complaint to £365.71. A summary of how the landlord broke down the compensation was as follows:
    1. £220.71 for the loss a room, at 10% of the resident’s daily rent for 120 days.
    2. £145 for time and trouble and poor communication.
  12. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will only compensate for the loss of a room if a qualified person confirms the room was uninhabitable. In this case the landlord offered compensation for the loss of a room despite a lack of expert evidence to confirm the room was unusable. However, the landlord did not keep the resident updated about the safety of the room. The landlord’s offer to compensate for the loss of one room balanced out across the circumstances was therefore reasonable.
  13. The landlord’s policy states it will calculate compensation for the loss of a room at 10% of the daily rent. Analysis of the landlord’s offer shows the corresponding amount of compensation offered was not a true reflection of the time taken to complete the works, as it appears to have based this on the number of working days rather than calendar days.
  14. The landlord reviewed its decision on 30 September 2024, as the resident had contacted it again to explain he was still unhappy with its stage 2 offer. It increased its compensation offer for the substantive issues to £580.71. We understand the resident declined this offer.
  15. When a landlord identifies a failure, as in this case, our role is to consider whether it offered redress to put things right and resolve the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  16. The evidence shows the landlord made an offer of compensation for the loss of a room which was outside of its compensation policy. In addition, it apologised and offered further compensation for its service failures. The landlord completed the works and offered a total of £365.71 as redress for its failures. This amount was in line with what would be calculated using our remedies guidance where an issue has adversely affected a resident but had no permanent impact.
  17. In addition, the landlord increased its compensation offer in September 2024. It is concerning the landlord did not offer this amount of compensation at stage 2 of its complaint’s process if it considered it a reasonable amount. However, irrespective of the landlord’s post complaint process offer, its stage 2 offer was fair. This leads to a determination of reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of cracks to the bedroom ceiling.

The associated complaint

  1. The landlord adhered to its policy in its handling of the resident’s complaint at stage 1.
  2. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 29 February 2024. It acknowledged his request on the same day and said it would respond at stage 2 by 9 April 2024.
  3. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code of 2022 (the Code), which applied at the time, states a landlord must respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of a resident’s escalation request. The landlord gave a response target of 26 working days later, which was therefore outside of the response timescale the Code requires.
  4. The resident chased the landlord for a responseon 23 April 2024.The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 7 May 2024.This was 45 working days after it received his escalation request. The landlord’s response was therefore beyond the timescales set out in its policy and the Code. This resulted in an unreasonable delay to the process.
  5. In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered £50 in compensation for its complaint handling failures. When the landlord reviewed its decision on 30 September 2024, it offered a further £50 for its complaint handling, bringing the total to £100.
  6. This amount is in line with what would be calculated using our remedies guidance where a situation may not have significantly affected the overall outcome, but it has still caused inconvenience for the resident.
  7. We encourage landlords to take resolution focussed action, irrespective of the stage of the case. However, a landlord should always focus on providing a fair resolution during its internal complaints process. The landlord did not increase its compensation offer until after the resident told it he planned to refer his complaint to us. Although this did indicate a willingness to learn, in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles, it should have considered appropriate redress as part of the internal complaints procedure. A referral to the Ombudsman is not meant as another opportunity for the landlord to consider its handling of the complaint.
  8. The landlord’s failure to make an appropriate offer of compensation as part of its complaints process leads to a finding of maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay the £100 compensation which it offered.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about cracks to the bedroom ceiling.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders 

  1. We order the landlord to pay the resident £100 for the complaint handling failures identified in this report. The landlord must pay this directly to the resident and not offset this against a rent or service charge account. If the landlord already paid this amount it does not need to pay this again, but it must provide us with evidence of this.
  2. The landlord must provide us with evidence it has complied with the above order within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

  1. We recommended the landlord pay the resident the £365.71 it offered at stage 2. However, it in the interest of maintaining a strong, healthy and respectful relationship with the resident, the landlord should consider paying its increased offer of £580.71.