Southern Housing (202338859)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202338859

Southern Housing

30 September 2025

 

Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this.

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the personal impact she experienced as a result of communal repair issues.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. In the summer of 2023, the resident lived at the property as an assured tenant of the landlord. This was a flat in a block owned by the landlord. In September 2023, she was assaulted by an intruder inside her property. She reports that a police officer told her that a broken security light outside her property was a security risk that may have contributed to her risk of assault. The officer reported the issue to the landlord and it repaired the light.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 30 November 2023. She said the landlord had failed to respond to her reports of a broken light outside her property for over 2 years and had also failed to repair a lock on a communal door and the intercom for the block which had also been broken for a long time.
  3. The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response on 29 December 2023. It said it had repaired the intercom not long before the attack. It said the other issues had not been reported until November 2023 and it had dealt with them promptly. However, it accepted it had communicated poorly. It upheld the complaint and offered the resident £80 for its “unsatisfactory service”.
  4. The resident wrote to the landlord the same day to say that she would not accept £80 after being assaulted. She set out the effects the assault had had on her including feeling scared in the property, inability to sleep, and suicidal thoughts.
  5. The landlord sent a stage 2 response on 31 January 2024. It said, “Your complaint is better dealt with outside our complaints process”. It asked her to approach its legal team to investigate the matter.
  6. The resident asked us to investigate. She said she did not believe the landlord had adequately recognised the impact the assault had had on her. She had, by this time, left the property and lived elsewhere.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 42.f of the Scheme states that we may not consider complaints where, the Ombudsman “considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”.
  2. The landlord offered the resident £80 after it recognised a failure to progress repairs adequately. The resident says, in effect, that the landlord’s failure to keep the security light in working order increased the risk of an assault. She says, because of this, £80 was insufficient.
  3. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord refused to consider this element of her complaint. It said that, instead, she should contact its legal team and discuss the matter with them.
  4. In our view, the landlord acted legitimately and in accordance with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in reaching this position. Section 2 of the Code says that a landlord must accept complaints unless it has a valid reason not to do so. Its complaint policy must set out the reasons for not investigating. If it decides that a complaint fits one of these reasons, it must explain this to the complainant.
  5. In this case, the landlord’s complaints policy said that there are some issues better dealt with outside the complaints process. It said, These include matters such as personal injury claims which would be better referred to its or the resident’s insurers. This complies with the Code.
  6. The landlord’s told the resident in its stage 2 response that it had decided that it would not consider this element of the complaint through the complaints process. It advised the resident to contact its legal department. Given its policy, this was an appropriate way to deal with this issue. It applied this policy fairly and informed the resident as required.
  7. Further, the question the resident has asked us to address is, in effect, not whether the landlord should have repaired the light but whether its failure to do so caused or contributed to the risk of an assault.
  8. This is not a housing issue and therefore is not a matter best decided by this Ombudsman. It is a question which should be examined by lawyers with relevant experience. If necessary, a judge who would be able to make a proper decision could assess the evidence and make a decision on the merits of the case.
  9. For that reason, we will not investigate.