Southern Housing (202329458)

Background

1. The resident has lived in the bedsit since 1994. She reported a roof leak which came through into the kitchen causing damp and internal damage.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak and the associated repairs.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the leak and associated repairs.
5. The landlord offered reasonable redress for the complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

6. In summary, we found the landlord:
   1. did not complete the repairs in line with its policies and procedures
   2. did not manage the repair effectively, take ownership, or communicate the delays to the resident
   3. offered appropriate compensation for the inconvenience caused by the delays in its complaint responses.

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.

Our investigation

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 has stated the leak started over 2 years. Based on the evidence seen by us, and when the resident complained in September 2023, this assessment will focus on events linked to the complaint between May 2023 and 6 August 2024, the date of the final complaint response.
8. The resident reported the roof leak on 10 May 2023. She said the walls and ceiling were damaged and there was damp. The landlord inspected the property on 26 May 2023, 12 working days later. A surveyor confirmed there was penetrative damp in the property and noted the repairs needed. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it would arrange an inspection within 10 working days of the initial report, inform the resident of the schedule for any temporary repairs, implement an action plan for the resolution, and aim to complete the works within 6 weeks of the initial report. There is no evidence the landlord did this. This was not appropriate as the landlord did not follow its policy.
9. On 24 July 2023 the landlord raised an inspection to identify what work was needed in the kitchen following the leak. Its records state this request was cancelled on 2 August 2024 as part of a data cleanse. There is no evidence to confirm this inspection took place, or any repairs raised. This is a record keeping failure and a failure by the landlord to meet its repair obligations.
10. On 25 September 2023 the resident contacted the landlord. She reported a hole in the roof, a problem with the bathroom taps and raised a complaint. The following day she told the landlord she believed she should be moved because of the leak and the damage to her home. On 27 September 2023 the landlord asked the contractor to attend as soon as possible to complete a mould wash until the roof repairs were completed on 30 October 2023. It informed the resident of the mould wash, the appointment for the roof repair, and confirmed it did not feel necessary to move her out of the property.
11. The contractor attended on 31 October 2023 and confirmed the cladding had worn away. It recorded the repair as completed on 10 November 2023, but on 13 November 2023 the resident told the landlord she was still waiting for the roof repair. Although she asked for an urgent call, there is no evidence it did this. It emailed her instead and advised her query had been passed to the relevant team. This was a communication failure.
12. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord outlined the repair history from 25 September 2023 to 10 November 2023. It said the contractor had fixed the roof, yet there was contact from the resident that disputed this. The landlord did not demonstrate it had full understanding of the situation and its poor management of the repair led to the continuation of the issue and inconvenience for the resident. This was not reasonable.
13. The landlord offered £150 compensation in recognition of the delays in the repairs, and the inconvenience. It did not evidence any further communication with the resident to provide an update, nor an indication as to when the internal repairs to the property would be completed. This was not reasonable and did not demonstrate an understanding of what was needed, or the impact on the resident who had limited living space.
14. On 12 and 17 December 2023 the resident had to spend more time and effort contacting the landlord. She said the roof was leaking and the repair was still outstanding. On 4 January 2024 she told the landlord the contractor had failed to attend on 23 December 2023. The landlord told her to contact the contractor stating it could not book or amend appointments. The landlord is responsible for the completion of repairs, regardless of whether these are conducted by a contractor, therefore it would have been reasonable for it to contact the contractor to confirm what was happening. Considering the time that had passed, it was not reasonable to direct the resident to the contractor as this did not offer a customer–focussed resolution.
15. The contractor informed the landlord it had tried calling the resident 3 times, each time leaving a message with no response. The landlord asked it to contact the resident to arrange a new appointment. This was reasonable but there is no evidence of any contact with the resident, or any appointments. The lack of communication, monitoring and progress from the landlord was not reasonable and led to further delays.
16. The landlord surveyed the property on 12 June 2024. It confirmed black mould in the bathroom, water staining on the plaster in the kitchen, and confirmed further work was required to the roof before any internal work was completed. The roof repairs were raised on 26 June 2024, and completed on 3 July 2024, 14 months from the first report. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with its policy timescales.
17. In its final complaint response, the landlord apologised for the ongoing delays with the roof repair, the damage caused, the lack of progress despite the repeated chases from the resident, and the inconvenience caused. It confirmed it would provide feedback so it could learn from the issues faced by the resident to prevent a recurrence. It increased the compensation offer to £215 in recognition of the failures. This was not proportionate for a failure spanning such a period.
18. Considering the above, we find maladministration with the landlord’s response to the leak and associated repairs. There were avoidable delays, poor communication throughout, a lack of understanding of the impact on the resident, and poor repair management from the landlord who failed to comply with its policies. An order has been made to the pay the resident £600 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for a finding of maladministration where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
19. There is evidence the landlord attended on 30 September 2025, however more time was needed to plaster the wall. A further appointment has been made to complete the plastering work on 28 October 2025 and then allowing time for the plaster to dry out, the landlord has said it will return on 30 October 2025 to complete the decorating work.

20. The resident complained to the landlord on 25 September 2023. It acknowledged receipt on 2 October 2023, when it confirmed the reasons for the complaint and the resident’s desired outcome. This was appropriate as it was in line with its complaint policy which states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days.
21. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 17 November 2023, 34 working days after the acknowledgement. There is no evidence it communicated or explained the delay to the resident, or that it provided a revised completion date. The landlord did not comply with its policy which states it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the acknowledgement date, and if there was a delay, it would contact the resident to explain.
22. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay in its stage 1 complaint response. It did not apologise or explain the reasons for the delay or offer any redress in relation to this. This was not reasonable as it meant it failed to highlight any potential impact on the resident and did not identify the service failure or any learning to prevent a recurrence.
23. The resident escalated her complaint on 26 June 2024. The landlord acknowledged it on 3 July 2024 and confirmed it would respond by 31 July 2024. This was appropriate as it was in line with its policy timescales.
24. The landlord contacted the resident on 26 July 2024 to confirm it had received the information it needed and would write the response and arrange the compensation. It provided its final complaint response on 6 August 2024, 24 working days from the acknowledgement. This was not in line with its policy timescale of 20 working days from the acknowledgement date. The response was delayed but it is unlikely to have had a detrimental impact on the resident or the outcome of the complaint, and there is evidence of the landlord contacting the resident in the interim.
25. The landlord acknowledged the delay in providing its complaint response and offered £65 compensation. This was appropriate and in line with its compensation policy which states it could award £50 for complaint handling and £15 for service failures. The landlord recognised the delays but did not identify any learning to prevent a recurrence.
26. The compensation offer was also in line with our remedies guidance for a finding of service failure where the failure was of minimal duration and did not have a significant impact on the resident or the outcome. As such a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate.

Learning

27. We expect landlords to complete repairs within a reasonable time. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances and the nature of the repair. Where there is a delay in completing repairs, we expect landlords to be proactive in communicating the cause of delays to residents and explaining what it intends to do about the delays.
28. Where the landlord has identified a service failure in its complaint handling, we would expect it to identify any learning to prevent a recurrence and to ensure it meets policy timescales in future cases.