Southern Housing (202430043)

Decision
Case ID	202430043
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Southern Housing
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy with licence for tempoary accomodation
Date	10 December 2025

Background

1. The resident is the assured tenant of a property owned by the landlord. Following a fire in June 2023, extensive work was required to the property, so she was given a licence for temporary accommodation (TA), a 5th floor flat, from May 2024.
2. The resident has poliomyelitis which affects her mobility. An Occupational Therapist (OT) assessed the suitability of the TA before she moved in. They recommended wet room adaptations and drainage repairs. The resident asked for further adaptations and went on to report issues with the wet room, heating system and intercom.

What the complaint is about

3. The landlord’s handling of repairs and modifications in the TA, to the:
   1. Wet room.
   2. Heating system.
   3. Intercom.
4. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs and modifications to the:
   1. Wet room.
   2. Heating system.
   3. Intercom.
6. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

7. The landlord did not deal with the repairs in line with its policy and did not progress them with sufficient urgency.
8. The landlord dealt with the complaint in line with its policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure the apology is meaningful, empathetic and has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 07 January 2026
2	Compensation order   The landlord must provide evidence that it has paid directly to the resident £1,000 (inclusive of the £535 already awarded) made up of: £400 for failures handling wet room repairs £400 for failures handling heating system repairs £200 for failures handling intercom repairs	No later than 07 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
30 July 2024	The resident complained that, in the TA: her intercom did not work despite a previous repair water from the wet room shower did not drain properly the landlord had not fitted a towel rail and shelf after she took a full day off work it took 2 months to obtain a part for the heating system. She said she was disabled and unable to use the shower. She disagreed she did not need a shower screen.
20 August 2024	The landlord’s stage 1 response said: it was unable to install adaptations on 30 July 2024 as it did not have the required materials it needed to approve follow on work for the wet room floor and adaptations as the resident requested a Saturday appointment the resident would not need a shower screen once it had resolved the drainage issue it would update the resident on follow up heating system repairs the resident would need to report the intercom repair it had accommodated the resident’s request for Saturday appointments but could not gain access. The landlord apologised for poor communication and initially awarded £205 compensation but increased this to £265 the next day.
4 September 2024	The resident escalated her complaint and reiterated repairs remained outstanding. She disputed operatives attended appointments and said she took time off work unnecessarily for incomplete repairs. She described the difficulties of allowing visitor access without an intercom while using crutches. She said she was showering at an acquaintances house and asked the landlord to rehouse her in an accessible flat, replace the heating system, and increase the compensation.
2 October 2024	The landlord reiterated the contents of its previous reply in its stage 2 response. It apologised for missing an appointment on 31 August 2024 and went on to say: it had booked wet room work for 5 and 18 October 2024 it would update the resident on the intercom by 25 October 2024 following an inspection on 18 July 2024 it did not know if it could repair the heating system or whether it needed a new Heat Interface Unit (HIU) the resident would need an OT recommendation for alternative accommodation but it offered to discuss this with her. The landlord acknowledged delays, communication failures and that it failed to follow its process and missed appointments. It increased its compensation to £535 in recognition of this.
September 2025	The resident moved out of the TA and into an alternative property.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said: she spent a winter without heating before the landlord fixed it repairs to the wet room and intercom were outstanding before she left. She described the impact of this and said she had to use a mop and bucket to clear excess water which prevented her from showering as often as she would like she was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint handling.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of repairs to the wet room
Finding	Maladministration

9. The landlord’s repair policy at the time of the complaint said it aimed to carry out reactive repairs (non-emergency) as soon as possible and in one visit. It is difficult to assess the landlord’s handling of repairs without a measurable time frame. Its updated policy of October 2025 refers to such repairs as ‘routine repairs’. It is positive that it now specifies a time frame of 20 working days to complete them. We have used this reasonable timeframe to assess the landlord’s handling of the repairs. It has provided sufficient records to enable us to do so.
10. The resident reported that the OT’s recommendation to improve wet room drainage (replace the drainage cap) was outstanding on 16 May 2024. The landlord inspected it on 19 June 2024 and found a broken shower waste system and noted parts were on order.
11. The resident also asked the landlord to install a towel rail, storage cupboards, shower screen and wall shelf. The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy says residents who have a disability can apply for an adaptation that would improve their quality of life. It says it can approve minor adaptations without an OT referral. While the OT did not recommend these aids or adaptations, it is positive the landlord agreed to install most of them, later confirming it would do so on 30 July 2024 when it planned to repair the wet room drainage.
12. The landlord’s decision not to install the shower screen was reasonable. The resident asked for this as her existing shower curtain did not contain the excess water caused by the ineffective drainage. The landlord’s belief that the drainage repair would resolve the issue was logical. It explained this to the resident shortly after and confirmed it in its complaint response.
13. However, the landlord was unable to complete the planned works during the appointment of 30 July 2024. Therefore, the resident asked it to carry out future repairs on a Saturday, when she was not at work. Although the landlord’s repair policy did not have provision for weekend appointments, we understand why the resident asked for this.
14. The landlord should have carried out drainage repairs before the resident moved into the TA. It was now 77 working days since the OT’s recommendation. This was unreasonable and a failure in service. Further, while the landlord’s repair policy says it aims to complete repairs in one visit, the resident had already facilitated 2 visits that did not resolve the issue. We understand her frustration at the prospect of taking more time off work for repairs. It is positive the landlord accommodated her request for a weekend appointment. It would have been helpful if it had obtained authorisation and a future repair date before it issued its stage 1 response.
15. The landlord arranged follow up work for 10 and 13 August 2024 but could not gain access. We have not seen that the resident was notified of, or agreed to, these appointments. The landlord’s repair policy says it aims to arrange appointments that suit the resident wherever possible.  
16. We know the landlord notified the resident of a further weekday appointment of 16 August 2024, but it is unclear if this went ahead. The landlord’s complaint response said the resident did not allow access for repairs on 17 August 2024 but, again, we have not seen that she had agreed to this appointment. The stage 2 response said an appointment scheduled for 31 August 2024 could not go ahead as the operative was on leave. This meant planned follow-on work of 7 September 2024 also could not go ahead.
17. The resident contacted the landlord on the day of the stage 2 response and said the appointment of 5 October 2024 was not suitable. Despite this, the landlord still attended that day and understandably could not gain access. This delayed matters and frustrated the resident further.
18. The landlord inspected the wet room on 19 October 2024. While previous records show it intended to adjust the floor to stop excess water pooling, the inspection found the issue was due to the drainage. The inspector noted he resolved this by cleaning and unblocking the drain and associated parts.
19. This was 6 months after the OT’s recommendation and 4 months since the landlord first inspected the floor. This was an unreasonable amount of time and amounts to maladministration. The landlord should have been more proactive in progressing the repair, particularly as the resident had reported mobility issues and that she was unable to shower in the TA as often as she would like to.
20. The landlord installed the shelf but was unable to install the towel rail as it did not have the right fixtures. Again, this was unreasonable as it was more than 2 months after it first attended to carry out the work. It should have been aware what fixtures were needed. We have not seen when the landlord installed the remaining adaptations but it told us there were no further repairs after June 2025.
21. It is positive the landlord acknowledged delays, poor communication and missed appointments in its complaint responses. Its decision not to provide further alternative accommodation was reasonable. Its letting policy allows a management move to a specially adapted home when a home is inaccessible or unusable for those with medical needs. However, an OT had confirmed the TA was suitable, subject to recommendations that the landlord carried out (albeit it should have repaired the drainage issues much sooner). It is positive the landlord offered to discuss this matter with the resident further.
22. However, wet room repairs and adaptations were outstanding at the time of the stage 2 response. The landlord has not acknowledged this. It has therefore missed an opportunity to put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles.
23. While the landlord awarded a total of £535 compensation, it has not provided a breakdown of how this sum addressed each of the issues raised. We have, therefore, allocated £200 of this offer to its handling of the wet room repairs. This does not recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident while she lived with outstanding repairs and adaptations to the wet room for an unnecessary amount of time. It is not appropriate remedy for the failures that affected her enjoyment of the TA and her use of the wet room facility, in addition to the time and trouble taken to progress the repairs and facilitate those that did not resolve the issue.
24. We order the landlord to apologise for the identified failings and pay the resident £400 compensation (inclusive of the £200 already awarded). Our guidance says this is appropriate redress for failures that adversely affected the resident when the landlord’s remedy did not address the detriment caused.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of heating system repairs
Finding	Maladministration

25. Evidence suggests a district heating system (where multiple properties share a central heat source) heated the TA. A HIU is a key component of this system. It acts as a bridge between the central heat system and the individual property.
26. We do not know when the resident first reported having no heating or hot water. Therefore, we cannot assess if the landlord attended within its 6-hour emergency repair target. However, it did attend the day after she moved in so its initial response was appropriate. The engineer restored hot water but not the heating as the system needed a new pump.
27. The resident chased the repair on 10 and 24 June and 10 July 2024. She said the TA was constantly cold and she bought 2 electric heaters for warmth. She said the issue affected the circulation in her legs and feet. The landlord apologised for the delay on 11 July 2024, and followed up on 16 July 2024 when it said there was a delay obtaining parts. It said it was trying to get parts sooner from another supplier.
28. The landlord fitted the new pump and restored the heating on 30 July 2024. While this was outside its 20–day repair target, its overall response was reasonable. Records show the were problems obtaining parts. It was proactive in trying to resolve the issue at the earliest opportunity and records show the resident had hot water and the use of electric heaters at that time.
29. However, the engineer recommended replacing the HIU. They noted it was not regulating the hot water temperature as it should and there were cold spots. They believed there would be further problems during increased winter demand. It is positive the landlord approved this work. It confirmed this with the resident on 7 August 2024 and said there was a 6 to 8 week timeframe for made to order parts but it would try to arrange it sooner.
30. The resident later complained that the heating system needed to be replaced. On 13 September 2024 the landlord told her it would investigate why the new pump had not improved heating and if a new HIU was ‘genuinely required’. It said repairing the existing HIU may resolve the issue sooner. It said a contractor would contact her and arrange a suitable appointment and reiterated its position in its stage 2 response.
31. This response was inappropriate, given that a previous engineer recommended replacing the HIU. If the landlord wanted a second opinion it should have arranged this sooner. It was 33 working days after the engineer’s initial recommendations and outside the 20-working day target to complete planned repairs.
32. We have not seen evidence of any follow-on work after this. The resident reported there was no heating or hot water again on 29 November 2024. Again, we do not know what action the landlord took with this, other than delivering portable heaters that day.
33. The resident commenced the pre-action protocol for a disrepair claim regarding this issue in April 2025. The landlord told us the claim was not issued, but it did complete a disrepair survey on 12 May 2025. This said the landlord fixed the heating system at the time of the complaint but it later broke and was not repaired until 3 June 2025. This supports the resident’s report that the landlord fixed the heating system shortly before she moved out, but not before she spent a winter without it.
34. The landlord may have avoided subsequent heating system issues if it had proactively repaired or replaced the HIU. Its failures in dealing with repairs to the heating system amount to maladministration. It has not acknowledged these failures and again missed an opportunity to put things right.
35. The resident said the issue affected her health, particularly her circulation. We are not medical experts. We cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health. The resident could seek independent advice regarding this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance or the courts. However, we have considered the impact of any landlord failings, including any distress and inconvenience caused. With that in mind, we have attributed £200 of the landlord’s overall compensation offer to this issue.
36. Again, this does not recognise the distress and inconvenience caused when the resident lived without heating for a prolonged and unnecessary amount of time. This was aggravated by difficulties moving portable heaters from room to room due to mobility issues. It also affected her enjoyment of the TA. We therefore order the landlord to pay £400 for this issue (inclusive of the £200 already offered). This is in line with our remedies guidance when the landlord has failed to address the detriment and adverse impact on the resident caused by maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of intercom repairs
Finding	Maladministration

37. We do not know when the resident first reported the internal intercom was not working. However, during the complaint process she told the landlord the images on her intercom were not clear and an inspection of 19 June 2024 had not resolved the issue. 

38. The landlord’s stage 1 response said the managing agent inspected the external intercom at some point and found it to be working correctly. It included an extract of communication in which the managing agent explained they only dealt with the external intercom system and asked for clarification of the issue.
39. It appears this prompted the landlord’s request for the resident to report the repair again. This was inappropriate. The resident had already explained that the issue involved the internal intercom system. The landlord should have arranged for someone to repair it as it was already 16 working days since the resident complained about the issue. This is particularly the case given she had explained the impact of not having an intercom system and that she had to allow visitor access manually using crutches.
40. While the landlord promised to update the resident in its stage 2 response (albeit with conflicting dates of 18 and 25 October 2024) we have not seen evidence that it did. It should have obtained the status of the repair and when it expected it to be carried out before it issued the stage 2 response. This would have enabled it to assess the full extent of any failings and put them right before it signposted the resident to us.
41. The disrepair survey in May 2025 found the intercom was still not working. This was a year after the resident moved in and more than 10 months after she complained about it. While records of 20 August 2025 show the landlord contacted the resident to install a new handset, understandably she declined as she was shortly due to move out. This far exceeded the landlord’s timeframe to carry out repairs and this amounts to maladministration.
42. The landlord has not recognised the full extent of its failings repairing the intercom. We have allocated £135 of the landlord’s overall compensation offer to this issue. This is insufficient redress to remedy the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident while she was unable to use the intercom and had mobility issues. We therefore order the landlord to pay the resident £200 (inclusive of the £135 already awarded). Our guidance says this is appropriate redress for failures that adversely affected the resident and the landlord’s remedy was not proportionate to the failings identified in our investigation.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	No maladministration

43. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint policy. It aims to acknowledge all complaints within 5 working days. It then aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. The landlord responded to the complaint within its policy timeframes and in accordance with the Code. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

44. While the landlord’s inclusion of a time bound ‘Action Plan’ in its complaint policy was good practice, we have not seen it reviewed this when it could not meet the action timeframe.
45. The landlord was responsive to the resident’s contacts, but we have not seen it provided a clear schedule of work for planned repairs outside of the complaint process.
46. Our spotlight report on ‘Repairing Trust’ explains that landlords can avoid failures when they: 
    1. Let residents know what to expect regarding repairs and provide a clear schedule for repair visits. 
    2. Gather feedback from residents and conduct inspections to ensure work is satisfactory.