Southern Housing (202432188)

Decision
Case ID	202432188
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Southern Housing
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	24 November 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bed house with her daughter. In June 2024, the resident reported that her hot water coming out of the hot tap was too hot. The landlord arranged several contractor visits to resolve the issue, but the resident said that she was given conflicting advice. The landlord undertook several more appointments throughout the complaint process. The resident told us that this issue remains unresolved at the time of this investigation and that she has recently raised a new complaint regarding this in July 2025.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of issues with her boiler.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of issues with her boiler.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Boiler issues

5. The landlord completed reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns and paid appropriate compensation for its shortcomings. However, its inconsistent communication, and lack of evidence of learning from the complaint process, led to repeated appointments, conflicting advice, and avoidable inconvenience for the resident.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord failed to comply with its own complaint policy and the Code, including failing to give clear reasons for extensions or agree them with the resident, and not showing evidence of learning from the complaint process, despite offering compensation and an apology.

 

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 in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 22 December 2025
2	Learning order The landlord must undertake a review of this case and provide the outcome of the review to us. The review should aim to identify the root causes of the failures identified in this report. In particular: It must examine the reason for its contractors not applying its default heating standards consistently, regarding thermostat temperature. It must determine why the resident was given conflicting advice around legionella risk. How it can improve its contractors’ appointment timeliness and communication with residents. What changes might be required to its contractor management framework to ensure that learning is communicated and embedded in a timely way. Why its complaint extension request letter did not give a reason for the delay or seek the resident’s agreement with the extension. What actions it can take to prevent a reoccurrence in future. This may include staff training, process changes, alterations to its policies or other actions. How it will implement any learning in a reasonable period of time, both internally and with its contractors.	No later than 19 January 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should respond to the resident’s new complaint in line with its complaint policy.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
24 July 2024	The resident raised her formal complaint and reported multiple contractor visits where the water temperature had been reduced from 60 to 50 and then 40 degrees, each time the contractor had told her it was safe. She later learned 60 degrees was the minimum and the landlord told her it would reset the temperature. She complained about missed callbacks, several late morning appointments, and expressed concern about legionella risk. She was unhappy that a combination boiler or blending valves were refused despite being recommended by the contractor, and raised frustration over wasted time, repeated visits, and potential health and safety risks to her and her daughter.
20 August 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response and said the water temperature should have been 55–65 degrees and said it had set the water at 60 to avoid seasonal changes. Engineers lowered it to 40 degrees after the resident complained it was too hot, but the landlord noted the engineers should not have lowered it. The contractor warned of legionella risk, which the landlord said was incorrect. The landlord proposed that the resident mix the hot and cold water to achieve a suitable temperature and confirmed it would not change the boiler or install blending valves as the property was not in a vulnerable resident scheme. It apologised for five late visits and one missed appointment and offered £135 compensation (£120 for missed appointments and £15 for the misinformation the contractor gave).
21 August 2024	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She said that the landlord had not resolved the issue with the boiler and that she was unhappy that her request for a combination boiler to be fitted had been declined.
22 October 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response and confirmed that it could do nothing further to the boiler. It stated it had set the cylinder at the correct temperature, found no faults in the heating system, and scheduled the boiler for replacement in 2029, so it would remain on the planned programme. The landlord increased the stage 1 compensation by £50 for a delay in responding to the complaint, bringing the total offer to £185.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 28 February 2025 seeking an investigation and for the landlord to install a combination boiler.

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 response to the resident’s reports of issues with her boiler
Finding	Service failure

7. The resident first raised the issue of the water being too hot in June 2024. The landlord attended the following day and adjusted the cylinder thermostat. The landlord responded promptly and reasonably to the resident’s concerns. What followed was a series of appointments to lower the thermostat to 50 and then 40 degrees. The contractor’s notes indicate that the resident still felt this temperature was too hot.
8. The landlord told the resident that the thermostat should be set between 55 and 65 degrees. Usually this is set lower in the summer months and higher in the winter months. The landlord sets its thermostats at 60 degrees to avoid needing to change them seasonally.
9. The evidence shows the landlord identified that the contractor lowered the boiler thermostat during the complaint process. It is unclear why the landlord allowed the contractor to do this, given its position that the thermostat should not be altered below 60 degrees. It raised a works order for its contractor to attend and reset this to 60 degrees. When the contractor attended it only adjusted the value from 40 degrees to 52 degrees. The reasons for this are unclear and this was a contractor failing. The resident raised this with the landlord and it sent the contractor again to reset the value which it did on 30 July 2024.
10. The evidence suggests that this was a contractor decision, rather than at the instruction of the landlord. While this required another appointment to be booked, it was timely and showed positive contractor management by the landlord, given its contractor had not complied with the scope of the works order set. In its discussions with the resident, the landlord also noted that the contractor had contradicted its professional view and it felt this was inappropriate. There appears to have been a breakdown in communication and management between the landlord and its contractor, which led to differing professional views (and therefore works being undertaken). The resident was inconvenienced by needing to facilitate further appointments and chasing both parties for a resolution. This was a failing which caused the resident avoidable time, trouble and inconvenience in progressing this matter.
11. Within its correspondence with the resident, the landlord committed to taking her experience as feedback and learning to the contractor. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it did this in writing or through contractor management meetings, which was a missed opportunity to learn from the complaints process.
12. Alongside the initial response to the concerns about heat, the landlord’s contractors advised that a combination boiler would be one resolution to the issues being faced. The resident pursued this as part of her complaint and was told that this request had been denied by the landlord on 24 July 2024. The landlord’s reasons for this were:
    1. A contractor had attended the previous day and confirmed that there were not issues with the heating system.
    2. The resident’s boiler was not due to be upgraded until 2029 as part of planned works.
    3. It would normally replace boilers with a like-for-like system and would therefore not install a combination boiler unless there were specific recommendations as to why this was needed.
13. The landlord was entitled to rely on the professional view of its contractor as to the serviceability of the boiler at that time. It is also reasonable that boilers are replaced as part of ongoing planned works programmes, when they are not faulty. On this basis, the landlord responded to the resident’s request fairly and gave their response verbally and in writing, as she had requested. This was a reasonable response.
14. Another suggestion was for blending values (sometimes known as thermostatic mixing values) to be fitted. These devices mix water before it leaves the tap to ensure that it is a safe temperature. Commercial settings and locations with vulnerable people, such as care homes or hospitals, commonly use blending valves. The landlord told the resident that it would not consider installing blending values as her property was not part of a vulnerable resident’s scheme. It recommended running both taps at the same time to mix the water to a suitable temperature. This response was reasoned and proportionate given the resident’s concerns.
15. There is evidence throughout the contractor appointments and landlord complaint process of the resident receiving conflicting information about safe temperatures for her water. When the landlord’s contractor turned the thermostat down to 40 degrees it said that it had given her advice around legionella risk. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response said this was incorrect, as storing water at this temperature for a long time would cause a risk. This contradictory information from professionals caused the resident avoidable distress and concern for the health of her household. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage 1 complaint response and offered £15 for the misinformation the contractor gave. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
16. Throughout the appointments, there is evidence that the landlord’s contractor attended late on several occasions. The landlord’s complaint responses acknowledged this and noted that contractors had attended five appointments late and missed one altogether. This was a failing, that caused the resident additional and avoidable inconvenience, time and trouble in pursuing the matter to completion. The landlord apologised and offered £120 compensation for this. This was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s compensation matrix for missed appointments. There is little evidence that the landlord learnt from these appointments or provided feedback to its contractor regarding this, and this was a failing.
17. We understand from the resident that she considers that this matter is ongoing at the time of this investigation, as the landlord has not replaced her boiler. She raised a new complaint in July 2025 regarding this matter, however this is outside the scope of this investigation. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of this matter, she should exhaust the landlord’s complaint procedure to give it opportunity to consider the matters that have occurred since the landlord’s final response to her first complaint. She can consider referring the new complaint to us after this for consideration, if she remains dissatisfied.
18. Taking these factors together, the landlord has taken reasonable steps to address the resident’ concerns and to provide redress for the failures identified, including missed or late appointments, misinformation and repeated callouts. It has not demonstrated that it has learnt from the complaints process or implemented any wider process or policy changes to prevent a reoccurrence of these issues or strengthen its contractor management. For these reasons, there has been a service failure in the landlord’s handling of this element of the complaint.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

19. The Code sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement.
20. The records show that the landlord provided its formal responses in the following timescales:
    1. 20 working days at stage 1.
    2. 45 working days at stage 2.
21. This means that the landlord’s responses were delayed at both stages but significantly delayed at stage 2. There is evidence of the landlord requesting an extension to the deadlines at both stages:
    1. At stage 1 it said it was liaising with its staff and contractors and needed additional time to do this. It set a revised deadline of 21 August 2024 and met this deadline.
    2. At stage 2 it extended the deadline to 22 October 2024, but did not give any reason for this. It met this revised deadline.
22. The Code expects landlords to issue timely complaint responses, to avoid the resident being delayed in escalating their complaints. The Code also requires landlords to agree extensions (of up to 10 working days) with residents. While both complaint responses were issued within the revised deadlines, the stage 2 response did not give the reasons for the delay and was also extended beyond the 10 additional working days permitted by the Code. There is also no evidence that these extensions had been agreed mutually with the resident. These were failings.
23. It was positive to note that the landlord identified that its stage 2 response had been issued over timescale. The landlord apologised for this and offered £50 compensation in its stage 2 response for the delay, which was proportionate for the inconvenience this may have caused to the resident.
24. There has been no evidence provided that the landlord undertook any learning from these delays. It has not identified the reasons for the delay at stage 2, nor why the extension was over the timescale permitted. The landlord missed this opportunity to develop and improve its complaint handling and this was a failing.

Learning

25. We have made a learning order for the landlord to alter its policy, practices or training as a result of the findings of this determination.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. The landlord’s record in this case documented the complaint and repairs undertaken well. This included contact notes and completion records, which was positive to note. The landlord’s complaint extension letters were not well drafted, as the stage 2 extension did not document the reasons for the extension request, or whether the resident accepted this.

Communication

27. The landlord has already identified that conflicting information from its contractor’s and a lack of communication regarding late appointment has negatively impacted the resident in this case. In particular, the resident was left concerned for her health having received conflicting advice around legionella risk. There is also evidence that the landlord’s contractors were not aware of its standards (in leaving the thermostats set at 60 degrees) or were wilfully ignoring this. Proactive communication and contractor management are required to address this further.