Southern Housing (202339307)

Decision
Case ID	202339307
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Southern Housing
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	15 December 2025

Background

The resident complained about multiple communal repairs. These included the entrance doors, front door of her flat, communal gate and bin storage doors. She reported concerns about the “exorbitant service charge”, standard of cleaning, gardening and management of communal services and charges. She also complained about the landlord’s handling of her complaint.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of communal repairs.
2. Concerns about the management of communal services and charges.
3. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of communal repairs.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the residents concerns about the management of communal services and charges.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of communal repairs

The landlord acknowledged its failings, apologised and offered proportionate compensation. It has also completed the repairs raised within the complaint.

Management of communal services and charges

The landlord failed to respond to the residents concerns about service charges. While it addressed some of the concerns about the management of the property, it did not provide a comprehensive response.

Associated complaint

The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint and escalation request multiple times. It failed to address all points raised. While it acknowledged some failings and offered redress, it was not reflective of the delays she experienced or missed opportunities to resolve the issues.

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 20 January 2026
	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £280 made up as follows: • £100 for time and trouble for its failure in the handling of the residents concerns about service charges. • £180 for its complaint handling failures. This includes £80 offered in its complaint responses for complaint handling, missed communications and failure to respond to emails. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 20 January 2026
	The landlord must contact the resident to discuss her concerns about the reasonableness and level of service charge in writing and provide a copy to us. It should also provide a breakdown of costs, service charge budget and statement.	No later than 20 January 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £90 offered in its complaint response. This is £75 for time, trouble and inconvenience offered in its stage 1 complaint response and £15 for repeat visits offered in its stage 2 response. Our finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of communal repairs is made on the basis that this compensation is paid to the resident.
The landlord should contact the resident to confirm if she wants to make a new complaint about cleaning and gardening.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
15 December 2023	The resident complained to the landlord about outstanding communal repairs. She said it had shown no accountability and felt unclear about who managed the property. She requested confirmation and contact details. She raised concern about the service charges she pays and the services received. She chased the landlord 3 times for a response.
11 March 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
25 March 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It confirmed that it had completed repairs to the communal front and rear doors, the communal gate, and the communal bin store doors. It acknowledged that some repairs were not completed within its policy timeframes and apologised. It stated that it could not locate the original complaint and could not confirm whether the resident had submitted it. It advised her to use its complaint email address in the future. It offered £90 to recognise the inconvenience, time, and trouble, as well as its failure to respond to written communications.
3 April 2024	The resident responded to the landlord, accepted the compensation, and advised that issues remained unresolved. She also raised concerns about communal cleaning and gardening. She asked for an estate management plan with a maintenance and inspection schedule, but the landlord did not provide it. She asked for contact details for those responsible for property management and repairs. She expressed concern that service charge payments were not being used effectively.
25 April 2024 and 9 May 2024	The resident chased the landlord for a response and asked to escalate her complaint.
31 May 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
27 June 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, apologising for the delay. It acknowledged the lack of regular property manager visits but noted maintenance teams were on site to report issues. The resident was advised to report repairs via the service centre, not to individual staff. It discussed plans to resume regular visits, provided the next date, invited her to attend, and outlined responsibilities. It clarified that repeat visits are logged as recalls which were not recharged to leaseholders. Dates for remaining communal door repairs were given. The landlord apologised and offered an additional £80 for poor complaint handling, repeat visits, and failure to respond to emails, bringing its total offer to £170.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s final response and brought the complaint to us. She confirmed that repairs have since been completed but the complaint responses did not address all the issues she raised. She wants the landlord to provide clarity on how her service charge is spent.

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 communal repairs
Finding	Reasonable redress

It is not disputed that there were delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of communal repairs. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and offer to complete repairs) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The resident reported multiple repairs as set out above. She stated that the landlord had not responded to her repair requests. In its stage 1 complaint response, it confirmed it completed the repairs in February and March 2024. It acknowledged the delay in resolving these issues and offered £75 for the time and trouble caused. This was reasonable and in line with its compensation policy.
The resident sought clarity on the repairs, noting that the doors had stopped swelling before the scheduled date due to dry weather. She was unsure what work was done. She highlighted other repairs that she had raised but were not addressed. She also expressed concerns about repeat visits and potential charges.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord confirmed that repeat visits were not recharged because they were not considered new repairs. It gave dates for repairing the communal gates, which required a specialist. It said it would return to fix the communal entrance doors and bin store doors but did not confirm when. It offered a further £15 to recognise the repeat visits for repairs. It would have been good practice to have confirmed dates for all repairs to keep the resident informed.
The resident confirmed that the repairs have since been completed. The landlord’s policy states that it aims to complete communal repairs as quickly as possible and in one visit. Although the repairs took multiple visits, it acknowledged the delays, apologised and offered redress.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the management of communal services and charges.
Finding	Service failure

What we did not investigate

The resident raised concerns about the level of service charge. We cannot consider complaints about the level of service charge or the amount of any increase. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First Tier Tribunal. She may wish to seek further advice on this issue from the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE). We can, however, look at how the landlord responded to her concerns.

What we did investigate

The resident referred to an ‘exorbitant service charge’ and stated she does not feel she receives value for money. The landlord’s service charge policy confirms it issues estimated costs for the year ahead and applies a management fee to cover property management services. Its complaints policy explains that queries about service charges, such as the standard of services delivered, can be addressed through the complaints process. It’s service charge dispute resolution policy states issues relating to clarity and transparency of information, the frequency and standard of services are handled under the complaints policy. While the resident does not dispute receiving the annual estimated costs, she reported that she has not received any breakdown of services and charges. We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to her concerns about this matter.
The resident complained about the property management, stating there was no oversight or accountability from the landlord and that the property manager’s role was unclear. She requested an estate management plan, contact details for specific areas, and information on regular inspections, repair monitoring, and maintenance.
In the landlord’s response, it acknowledged that the property manager had not carried out regular site visits and said it relied on maintenance teams and residents to report repairs. While this approach may be reasonable for reporting repairs, it is unclear whether maintenance teams were reporting issues. It advised the resident to report repairs to the service centre rather than to individuals which was appropriate.
The landlord proposed reintroducing regular site visits and arranged a date, inviting the resident to attend. It did not state how it was going to arrange for regular site visits moving forward. Its estate services and homeowners policies state that site inspections should be conducted regularly and findings shared with contractors monthly. These measures should already have been in place, which would help resolve communal repair issues promptly and manage expectations around cleaning and maintenance. However, the policy does not specify timeframes for inspections or visits. Including clear timelines for visits would provide residents with greater clarity and the opportunity to meet with the property manager.
During the escalation request, the resident raised concerns about communal cleaning and gardening. She complained about the standard of cleaning in communal areas, stating that although cleaning had occurred, it did not meet her expectations. She also requested the removal of bamboo in the communal garden. The landlord addressed these issues in a separate email rather than its formal response. This was reasonable as it was unrelated to the original complaint. The Code states that additional issues can be included in the stage 1 response if it has not been sent. Otherwise, the landlord should consider opening a new complaint. It is unclear whether a new complaint was opened, but the landlord did respond. It confirmed what cleaning was completed, arranged for an industrial carpet cleaner, and advised that an external managing agent was responsible for the bamboo and had been contacted.
In summary, the landlord failed to respond to the residents concerns about service charges. While it provided a response in relation to property management, it failed to adhere to its policies or provide a clear structure for reintroducing regular site visits. As such, we have found service failure in its handling of the resident’s reports about the management of communal services and charges.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. This is compliant with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The landlord issued both complaint responses in line with its policy after acknowledging the complaints. It stated it had no record of the original complaint and provided a complaints email address to prevent future issues. Its policy allows residents to raise complaints through various channels, including the website, portal, live chat, phone, letter, and email. It should have systems to monitor and process complaints effectively and ensure staff are trained to record and escalate complaints accurately across departments.
While the landlord acknowledged some failings, apologised, and offered £80 redress, its actions did not reflect the extent of delays or missed opportunities to resolve issues. The resident asked to raise a complaint 3 times, asked to escalate it 3 times, and sought help from her local MP. The landlord took 3 months to acknowledge the complaint, 2 months to acknowledge the escalation request, and failed to respond to all points raised. It did not address concerns about property management at stage 1 or service charges in either response. Good practice requires landlords to identify clear learning points when it recognises failings. In this case, although it acknowledged its failings, it did not specify actions to prevent similar issues in the future.

Learning

Training should be provided for staff in all departments to recognise where a resident is asking to raise a complaint, and how to escalate appropriately.
Outstanding repairs must be tracked and completed promptly, with clear updates provided to residents.
Policies are unclear and should provide specific timeframes for service delivery such as site inspections and maintenance.

Communication

Overall, the landlord’s communication was poor. The resident often did not receive responses to emails, update requests, complaints, or escalation requests. Effective communication is essential to reassure residents that their concerns are being considered and addressed.