Southern Housing (202445176)

Background

1. The resident lives in a ground floor flat. He suffers from frequent seizures and has multiple disabilities. He is largely bed bound and requires 24/7 clinical care. He complains that the landlord delayed unreasonably in upgrading the intercom system which he uses to admit his carers and emergency services to his property. He further complains that the upgraded system then continued to function incorrectly.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about how the landlord has handled the resident’s reports of:
   1. A faulty intercom system.
   2. Damage to the communal entrance.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a faulty intercom system.
   2. The complaint about damage to the communal entrance is not within our jurisdiction.
   3. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Intercom system

5. The landlord delayed unreasonably in addressing the resident’s reports of a faulty intercom system from August 2024 to March 2025. It then failed to suitably address his reports of ongoing issues following the installation of a new system in March 2025.

Damage to the communal entrance

6. Our Scheme states that we may not investigate complaints which have not been brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint. The resident complains that the landlord damaged some brickwork of the communal entrance when it installed the new intercom system in March 2025. However, he has not raised this issue as a formal complaint with the landlord. Therefore, this complaint is not within our jurisdiction to investigate.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord delayed slightly in addressing the resident’s complaints at both stages. However, it has already paid an appropriate sum of compensation to put this right.

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.

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.

8. The resident first reported that his intercom system was faulty on 15 August 2024. We can also see that the landlord was aware of his disabilities at this stage. Given this, we would expect the landlord to have prioritised this repair. However, it delayed in raising works to install a new “speech module” until 19 December 2024, despite first identifying that it needed to do so on 21 August 2024. It then delayed in completing any kind of repair until 13 January 2025. This delay was unreasonable, and likely caused the resident significant distress.
9. In its stage 2 response of 30 January 2025 the landlord apologised for this and advised that the intercom had been fixed around 13 January 2025. We note that the resident has advised us that the landlord attended and installed the new speech module on 13 January 2025.
10. However, there is no evidence of this repair in the landlord’s records. We also note a works order from the landlord’s contractor on 16 January 2025 for the installation of a “replacement speech module.” It is therefore unclear whether the landlord needed to install an additional speech module, or whether this relates to the original order raised on 19 December 2024. We note repair records from 29 January 2025 in which the resident reported ongoing issues with the intercom during a recent seizure which meant the fire brigade had to attend and force entry to the property. The landlord’s corroborate this account. We further note an email the resident’s community engagement officer sent the landlord on 23 January 2025 imploring it to fix the intercom and emphasizing the impact the issues were having on the resident’s access to necessary medical care.
11. Therefore, the landlord was incorrect when it stated in its stage 2 response that it had resolved the issue given the same problems first reported in August 2024 were ongoing, and that it had raised further works post-13 January 2025. We consider this miscommunication was likely frustrating and distressing for the resident. It also indicates a lack of understanding on the landlord’s part as to the progress of the repairs.
12. The landlord attended the property and installed a new front panel on the external intercom system on 3 February 2025. However, the resident reported the following day that he was currently unable to buzz anyone in. The landlord did well to attend the property 10 days later and raise works to install an entirely new video entry system. On the same day the resident reported that he was unable to hear visitors at the intercom and vice versa.
13. Emails from the contractor indicate it attended and installed new handsets on 12 March 2025, and then the new video entry system on 13 March 2025. The emails note that the contractors tested the functionality of the handsets and video system and were satisfied both were functioning appropriately. Shortly after this the resident began complaining that the volume of the handsets was still insufficient which was causing the same issues with communication.
14. The resident has explained that the new system continues to function poorly and temperamentally, and that the new handsets are too small for him to operate correctly due to his neurological conditions. We have seen a video he filmed demonstrating his difficulties using the handsets, and he clearly appears to struggle to operate them. The records indicate the landlord attended the property on 9 April 2025 and completed unspecified repairs. Due to the lack of detail in the records, we are unable to assess what the landlord did at this visit or what, if any, impact it had.
15. The resident did not report any further issues until 9 July 2025, and the landlord appropriately raised works to inspect these on 18 July 2025. However, there is no evidence that it did not followed up on this, and so the issues appear to remain outstanding.
16. In summary then, the landlord delayed unreasonably in completing repairs on the intercom system from August 2024 until January 2025. It then incorrectly advised the resident in its stage 2 response that the works were completed on 13 January 2025 although works were outstanding. It installed a new system in March 2025, but the resident has continued to experience problems with this system.
17. The £350 the landlord offered the resident for distress and inconvenience was only related to delays from August 2024 to January 2025. Therefore, we will order the landlord pays further compensation to put right the impact of its omissions which followed its final response.
18. In calculating the appropriate sum of compensation we have considered the resident’s multiple vulnerabilities, how the landlord was aware of these, and how they likely caused him to experience much greater distress than the same failings would cause someone without his disabilities. We have considered how he continues the report the same issues with the intercom system over 16 months after his initial report. We have also considered the inconvenience he incurred in having to repeatedly chase repairs. However, we have balanced this against the positive efforts the landlord made to upgrade and then replace the system from January to March 2025.
19. With all this in mind, we will order the landlord pays a further £350.

20. The landlord addressed the resident’s stage 1 complaint 8 working days past its timescales. However, we can see it contacted him and explained that it needed to extend the deadline. It did well to manage his expectations in this way. It was then 5 working days late in addressing his stage 2 complaint. However, we can see it paid the resident £50 for general complaint handling delays. This correlates with our compensation guidance which sets out that minor sums like this are typically appropriate to put right frustration caused by minor delays. Therefore, we consider the landlord has done enough to put these delays right.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord’s record keeping related to repairs was poor. It repeatedly failed to record actions it took to address the intercom issues. We would encourage the landlord to reflect on this, and how it might have more promptly resolved these issues with more detailed and accurate audit trails of its contractors actions.

Communication

22. The landlord’s communication was poor throughout the period in question. For instance, it failed to accurately explain the progress and status of works related to the intercom system in its final response. We can also see the resident was forced to repeatedly chase it for updates. We would encourage the landlord to reflect on the importance of good communication and how this might have better mitigated the impact of ongoing delays on the resident.