Southern Housing (202432006)

Decision
Case ID	202432006
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Southern Housing
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	15 December 2025

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bed house. She moved into the property through a mutual exchange in 2024. She raised concerns about the property condition after she moved in, saying that she felt the landlord had not picked up on several issues. The landlord is aware that she has carpal tunnel syndrome.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues following a mutual exchange, including repairs and leftover belongings.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues following a mutual exchange, including repairs and leftover belongings.
2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s reports of issues following a mutual exchange

We found that the landlord delayed unreasonably in completing repairs to the kitchen cupboards and door frame. It failed to adhere to the targets it set out in its complaint responses with regards to those repairs. It did not adequately put things right for the resident.

Complaint handling

We found that the landlord recognised several failures in its complaint handling at stage 1 and put things right. The redress it offered was proportionate to the level of impact.

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 12 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £300 to recognise any distress and inconvenience caused to her by the failures in its handling of her reports of issues following a mutual exchange, including repairs and leftover belongings. The landlord may deduct the £135 it has already offered if this has been paid. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 12 January 2026
3	Works order The landlord must take all steps to ensure the door frame repair is started no later than the due date. If the landlord cannot start the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: why it cannot start the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will start and finish the works; or the steps it has taken to start the works and provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to ensure the works were started by the due date. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot.	No later than 12 January 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The finding of reasonable redress for complaint handling has been made on the basis that the £75 offered at stage 2 has been paid. It is recommended that the landlord pays this amount to the resident if it has not already done so, or evidences that the payment has been made.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
18 April 2024	The resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She said she felt the landlord had lied to her about the property condition before she moved in. She said she had found issues including holes in the wall and a missing living room door frame, and the previous resident had left lots of belongings in the loft. She said that she reported the repair issues and was told that they were her responsibility, which did not align with her tenancy agreement.
16 May 2024 – 18 June 2024	The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 May and said it was extending the deadline for its stage 1 response to 7 June as it needed additional information. It then wrote again on 18 June 2024 and requested a further extension of 3 days.
20 June 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It said: it was upholding the complaint as it agreed that the loft should have been checked before the resident moved in it apologised for any inconvenience caused the resident had reported 5 repairs since the mutual exchange in February it had raised all of the repairs internally it had set out an action plan with completion dates it was not authorised to remove the leftover belongings, and the resident should contact the outgoing resident to discuss removal it had offered the resident £50 discretionary compensation for the delayed stage 1 response.
23 – 24 July 2024	The resident emailed the landlord. She said since the stage 1 decision, pests had infested the loft and she had paid for private pest control. She said the £50 compensation offered by the landlord was not enough to cover the cost of her clearing the loft, and she could not do it herself due to her carpal tunnel syndrome. She also said the bedroom door frame had still not been fixed, and she was waiting for a surveyor inspection. The landlord called the resident following her email and confirmed she wished to escalate her complaint.
27 August 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said it: had completed all repairs except to the kitchen cupboards a surveyor attended to inspect the kitchen on 26 July 2024 and recommended several repairs, which it had booked for 10 and 11 September 2024 had agreed to remove the leftover items it needed to follow some legal obligations before disposing of the items and would write to the other resident to issue a TORT would arrange for its pest control contractor to visit and check the loft for any issues once it had been cleared was sorry that it had previously provided the wrong information about the doorframe, and it would contact the resident to confirm the next steps once it had followed up with its repairs team had offered a total of £200 compensation, comprised of: – £75 for impact, inconvenience, time and trouble – £60 for its failure to carry out repairs in a timely manner – £50 for poor complaint handling at stage 1 – £15 for miscommunication at stage 1 about the loft clearance.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate the complaint. She said the repairs to the doorframe were still outstanding and she was awaiting a kitchen replacement. She said she felt that the landlord’s compensation offer did not adequately reflect the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused.
November 2025	The resident informed us that the landlord had removed the items from the loft, but the door frame repair remained outstanding.

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 the resident’s reports of issues following a mutual exchange, including repairs and leftover belongings
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord completed an inspection of the property 2 months prior to the mutual exchange taking place, which was in line with its mutual exchange policy. It noted repairs to an extractor fan, light fitting, and areas of a ceiling. The repairs the resident reported in her complaint dated 18 April 2024 did not include these. It is unclear whether the repairs reported by the resident were present when the landlord inspected the property.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed it had raised the necessary repairs to the holes in the wall, missing bedroom door frame, kitchen units, bedroom light, and trickle vents. It set out a clear action plan with target completion dates for each repair.
However, the target dates provided from 24 June to 23 July 2024 were not compliant with the landlord’s responsive repairs policy, which says it will aim to complete routine repairs within 20 working days. Given that the landlord had been put on notice of the issues in April 2024, it took too long to book the necessary repairs. The landlord did not acknowledge the delays in its repairs service in its stage 1 response, nor did it apologise. The landlord’s delayed stage 1 response likely contributed to delays in the repairs being raised.
In relation to the leftover belongings, the landlord explained that it was not authorised to remove the belongings and recommended that the resident contact her exchange partner. The landlord agreed that the loft should have been checked during the inspection and apologised for this oversight. The landlord’s advice was in line with its mutual exchange policy, which says that it is not responsible for the removal of any items left behind during an exchange. It therefore acted reasonably in the circumstances.
The landlord’s stage 1 response clearly set out that it would attend a repair visit for the door frame by 12 July 2024. The landlord explained in its stage 2 response that its contractor had inspected the door frame on 12 July 2024, but the follow-on work had been cancelled due to an admin error. It was reasonable for the landlord to apologise for the errors relating to the door frame and follow up with its internal repairs team. The landlord also shared that it had provided additional training to the staff member responsible for the admin error, which showed the landlord attempting to prevent similar future issues.
In its stage 2 response, it said it had booked repairs to the kitchen cupboards for 10 and 11 September 2024. The landlord confirmed it had inspected the kitchen cupboards on 23 and 26 July 2024 to inform the repairs. While it was reasonable for the landlord to do so, it is unclear why it could then not complete the repairs for a further 33 working days. It was, however, reasonable for the landlord to apologise for this delay in its stage 2 response and offer the resident £60 compensation. This showed the landlord attempting to put things right for the resident.
It was reasonable for the landlord to agree to act with regards to the leftover belongings once it was made aware that the resident was unable to get in touch with her mutual exchange partner. The landlord clearly explained the steps it would take to address the issue in its stage 2 response. The outlined steps fell outside of the landlord’s mutual exchange policy, showing it was going above and beyond to rectify the issue for the resident. Its commitment to reviewing its mutual exchange checklist to include lofts was positive.
On 13 September 2024 the resident emailed the landlord and said that the kitchen repairs were outstanding as she was not available on 10 September and nobody had turned up on 11 September as planned. The resident emailed the landlord again on 18 December 2024 and said this issue was still outstanding, alongside the door frame and loft removal. The landlord failed to follow through with the commitments set out in its complaint responses and caused unnecessary time and effort to the resident, who had to chase updates.
Given the further delays and the additional failures identified in this report, the £135 compensation offered by the landlord cannot be considered reasonable redress. Our remedies guidance suggests awards of between £100 and £600 for failures that adversely affected the resident with no permanent impact. The landlord’s awarded figure is within this range but does not adequately recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the identified failures.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £300 in recognition of these failures. This amount reflects the distress, inconvenience, and time and effort caused to the resident by the delays in resolving the reported issues and the landlord’s failure to appropriately consider her vulnerabilities.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 2024 edition sets out that landlords should acknowledge all complaints within 5 working days, respond within 10 working days at stage 1, and within 20 working days at stage 2. Any extensions should be agreed with the resident. The landlord’s policy is compliant with the provisions set out in the Code.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 5 working days, which was appropriate. It then wrote to the resident on 16 May 2024 requesting an extension. It explained the reason and provided our contact details, which was reasonable.
In its extension request, the landlord set a new response deadline of 7 June 2024. It did not provide its response by this date, nor did it update the resident on any progress. This caused her to contact the landlord on 11 June 2024 requesting an update and expressing distress. It was unreasonable for the landlord to then take a further 6 working days to update her further. However, the landlord did acknowledge and apologise for this oversight in its stage 1 response, and its offer of £50 compensation was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint within 5 working days of her escalation request, which was appropriate. It responded within the timeframes set out in its policy and the Code.
The landlord’s complaint responses were clear and thorough, which was positive. The landlord felt that it should have provided further information to the resident at stage 1 regarding her loft clearance, and it was reasonable for it to offer £15 compensation at stage 2 in recognition of this.

Learning

The landlord’s complaint handling was positive and highlighted learning it had taken from the complaint. The landlord set out practical action points, committing to reviewing its mutual exchange checklist and its repairs process.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s record keeping was generally positive. However, the landlord did not provide repair records to confirm dates of attendance or detail the outcome of works completed. While this did not largely impact our ability to assess its actions, doing so would have been appropriate in the circumstances.

Communication

Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance recommends that landlords provide residents with a clear schedule for repair visits. While it was positive that the landlord did this in its complaint responses, it then failed to adhere to some of the dates it had set out. There is no evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident to explain why it did not attend. This may have avoided any time, trouble or frustration caused to the resident if the landlord had communicated effectively with her about this.