Southern Housing (202429762)

Background

1. The resident lives in a maisonette flat. In April 2024, the resident reported issues with her hot water, which the landlord attended on several occasions and completed on 24 May 2024. The resident raised concerns with the landlord about the length of time of the repair and requested compensation.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s request for hot water repairs.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress prior to the Ombudsman’s investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s request for hot water repairs satisfactorily.
4. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for hot water repairs

5. The landlord provided a response which acknowledged its failings we identified in this report, committed to improving the service provided by its contractors, and offered fair compensation. This was reasonable and consistent with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.

The complaint handling

6. The landlord handled the resident’s complaint in line with its own policies and procedures.

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.

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.

What we have not looked at

7. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are raised prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident has raised concerns with us that the property lost water pressure and power, which had caused her worry and stress due to perceived risk of fire. We have seen no evidence that the resident has raised these matters as a formal complaint with the landlord. Accordingly, these matters are not considered in this report, as it is important that the landlord has a chance to put things right prior to the Service’s investigation. Further, the resident’s concerns about risk of fire, and the worry and stress this caused her, would be more appropriately pursued as a personal injury claim via the courts.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for hot water repairs

8. The landlord’s repairs policy states that in response to a repair request, it will “confirm an appointment with [the resident] for as soon as possible.”
9. The resident first reported loss of hot water on 4 April 2024. We have seen no evidence of communication with the resident or action to resolve the repair until 30 April 2024. The landlord’s contractor contacted the resident to attempt to book repairs on 30 April and 7 May 2024. Following one cancellation by the resident, the landlord’s contractor attended on 13 May, 20 May, and 24 May 2025 to complete repairs. However, 2 appointments were also cancelled by the contractor during the repairs process.
10. It was unreasonable for the landlord to delay contacting the resident to book the repair for 26 days between 4 April and 30 April 2024, as this unnecessarily extended the time the resident went without hot water. While we can see regular attempts by the landlord’s contractor to book and complete repairs between 30 April and 24 May 2024, it caused time and trouble to the resident by failing to meet 2 repair appointments during this period.
11. The landlord acknowledged failures in its repairs process in its complaint responses to the resident, including:
    1. The resident had lost hot water for 43 days when the landlord acknowledged it should have completed the repair within 21 days.
    2. The resident had had to chase it to have the repairs completed.
    3. Its contractor had missed 2 appointments.
    4. Its contractor had attended numerous times before resolving the repair.
12. The landlord explained it was working with its contractor to improve issues with attendance, parts waiting, and repair diagnoses. Although this was the correct approach for it to take, we have not been provided with evidence of this. For this reason we have made a recommendation that it shares its learning from the repair and the complaint with its contractors, if it has not already done so. It also offered the resident £456.77 compensation for the inconvenience, time, and trouble it caused through its repair failures.
13. The landlord’s offer of £456.77 compensation for loss of facilities and the distress and inconvenience caused was proportionate to the effect the landlord’s failures had on the resident. It equates to over £10 per day while hot water was lost, which is in excess of the £54 per week the resident claimed she incurred to shower at a leisure centre. It also reflects to a finding of maladministration of moderate severity by the Service, which is appropriate considering the extended period the resident was left without hot water and the disruption caused by the missed appointments, as well as the absence of evidence of a permanent impact on the resident.

14. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s formal complaint on 11 June 2024. This was within 5 working days of her raising it on 4 June 2024, and in line with its complaint handling timescales. It provided its stage 1 complaint response on 19 June 2024, 6 working days later, and within the 10-working day timeframe of its complaints policy.
15. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 26 June 2024 and it responded on 16 July 2024. This was within its 20-working day timeframe for handling stage 2 complaints.

Learning

16. The landlord’s repair policy at the time did not provide a timescale for repairs to be completed. We have seen evidence on its website that the landlord has improved its repairs policy to remedy this. It is positive the landlord has identified this and made improvements.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

17. The landlord displayed good record keeping practice which allowed us to establish what went wrong and the measures required to put things right.

Communication

18. Although the communication in relation to the repairs was initially delayed the landlord demonstrated that it had improved this in providing its complaint responses in a timely manner.