Southern Housing (202331028)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331028

Southern Housing

2 July 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
1. A leak in the communal hallway outside her front door.
2. Issues with the temperature of the property.
3. Repair issues with the flooring and skirting causing transference of smells.
4. Gaps under the internal doors and her request that the doors be repainted.
5. Noise from the kitchen extractor fan.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She lives in a 1 bed, second-floor flat. The flat is within a period property (1800s) which the landlord renovated in 2020 to form 16 flats.
The resident has several physical and mental health diagnoses including obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD).
On 11 November 2022 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. She said she was unhappy because:
1. Her bedroom was too hot in the summer and too cold in the winter.
2. Issues with the acoustic flooring and gaps under the skirting boards were allowing the smell of cannabis to enter her property from the flat below.
3. The kitchen flooring did not extend to the wall and the gap between the flooring and the units had not been caulked. The bathroom flooring did not extend under the bath.
4. There were large gaps under all internal doors.
5. She had arranged for a contractor to paint 2 of her internal doors. She asked if the landlord could repaint the doors as she had had an allergic reaction to the paint used. She said she would pay for this.
6. The kitchen extractor fan was noisy.
On 16 November 2022 the resident also raised concerns about There was an ongoing leak in the communal area above her front door.
The landlord requested an extension to the complaint response timeframe on 1 December 2022 so it could collate the relevant information. It provided its stage 1 complaint response on 21 December 2022. It said:
1. It had submitted a defect report to the developer regarding the water ingress and would update her.
2. It would ask the developer to investigate the temperature variances.
3. No repairs were necessary in relation to the gaps under the skirting or the kitchen extractor fan.
4. The caulking in the kitchen was a decorative issue which she was responsible for.
5. It offered her compensation of £150. This included £125 for the length of time the water ingress had been left unresolved, £15 for poor communication, and £10 for complaint handling delays.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 8 January 2023. She said:
1. The temperature in the property ranged from 13°C to 30°C.
2. It had drilled holes in the acoustic flooring during defect works. This and the gap between the skirting and carpet allowed smells to enter her property.
3. The kitchen and bathroom flooring were “incomplete”. This was a hygiene issue.
4. The smell of cannabis was entering her property. This was affecting her mental health as, due to her OCD, she was having to constantly clean.
5. There were gaps of over 1 inch under the internal fire doors.
6. The noise from the fan was impacting her health.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 7 March 2023. It said:
1. The developer had denied liability for the leak.
2. Its contractor would investigate the leak and check the level of insulation in the loft and size of the radiators. It would also assess the flooring, the gaps under the doors, and the kitchen fan.
3. It would write to all resident’s and remind them not to use illegal substances in their homes.
4. It upheld the stage 1 compensation offer of £150.
On 26 September 2023 the landlord issued an updated final complaint response. It said:
1. It removed the underlay to resolve uneven flooring. This was unlikely to have had an impact on smells from the property below but it would inspect the flooring and fit new underlay or carpet.
2. It was common practice for floor coverings not to extend under baths and kitchen cupboards. It would not extend them.
3. It had repainted 2 internal doors as requested. It would inspect and replace the internal doors.
4. It increased its compensation offer to £515.
The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman as she stated the repair issues remained outstanding. The complaint became one we could consider in June 2024.

Assessment and findings

A leak in the communal hallway outside her front door.

In December 2021 the resident reported a leak in the communal hallway above the entrance to her flat. The evidence shows the landlord carried out an inspection of the roof in January 2022 and found that the guttering was blocked.
The resident chased the landlord for updates in March 2022 and June 2022 but did not receive a response. This was unreasonable.
In August 2022 the landlord carried out a further inspection of the roof. It identified cracked render and that water was entering where the roof felt overlapped.
The resident continued to chase the landlord for an update between September 2022 and November 2022. In December 2022 she reported that the leak was worsening. We have not seen evidence that the landlord replied to her repeated emails requesting an update. This was unreasonable and an example of poor communication. This caused the resident additional unnecessary frustration.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said it had referred the issue to the developer as a latent defect. It said it would update her by mid-January 2023. The resident contacted the landlord in February 2023 as it had not provided an update as agreed. We have not seen evidence that the landlord responded. This is a further example of inadequate communication.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord advised the resident that the developer had denied liability for the roof leak. It cleared the gutters in February 2023 to resolve the issue. It is not clear whether it also carried out the repairs it identified in August 2022. The resident confirms that she has not experienced further leaks in the area since. The landlord decorated the water-stained area in November 2023.
This far exceeds the timeframe of 20 working days for routine repairs outlined in its repairs policy. We acknowledge that in some circumstances the cause of a repair issue will not be clear and that investigations will need to be carried out to identify the cause. However, in the absence of evidence showing any extenuating circumstances, we do not consider 14 months to be an acceptable timeframe.
The landlord acknowledged failings in its handling of the roof leak and offered the resident compensation of £125 in its stage 1 complaint response. It did not increase its offer in its stage 2 response.
The landlord’s offer was not proportionate to the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble experienced by the resident. We have ordered the landlord to replace its offer in relation to its response to the leak with compensation of £300. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failings which had a prolonged impact on the resident.
Overall, it took the landlord an unreasonable period to resolve the leak outside the resident’s front door. It then took a further unreasonable timeframe to make good the damage to the decoration. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience which was worsened by the landlord’s poor communication. We therefore find maladministration in its response to the resident’s report of the leak.

Issues with the temperature of the property.

The resident has complained to the landlord about “excessive” cold and heat in the property. She kept a log of temperatures in the property ranging from 13°C in winter to 30°C in summer.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to identify potential risks and hazards to health and safety in homes. Such hazards include excess cold and excess heat. Landlords are responsible for keeping their properties free from category 1 hazards.
Guidance accompanying the HHSRS states a “healthy” indoor temperature is around 21°C. It also states that temperatures below 16°C or over 25°C may pose serious health risks.
We cannot corroborate the resident’s temperature recordings. However, the temperatures she reported to the landlord were within what the HHSRS would define as a potential hazard. We have seen no evidence that the landlord took its own measurements of the temperature in the property. It therefore failed to satisfy itself that the property was free from a category 1 hazard. This was a significant failing.
The HHSRS guidance suggests that in cases of excess cold or heat landlords could consider carrying out a heat assessment, and investigating insulation levels, installing shutters or blinds. It also suggests assessing whether there is appropriate ventilation (such as properly sized and openable windows, working extractor fans, or air conditioning).
We acknowledge that the landlord provided residents with blinds at the start of their tenancy. This was positive. We also acknowledge that it investigated the levels of insulation in the property. This showed sufficient insulation was present.
A report from the landlord’s contractor in May 2023 suggested that the temperatures were likely to be a result of the property having very large south facing windows. It suggested that the landlord could fit solar film to alleviate the issue. By this time the resident had already installed “reflective wrap” to the windows. However, she continued to report excessive heat and cold. We would therefore have expected the landlord to consider the options outlined in the HHSRS guidance. That it did not do so was a failing.
The resident advised the landlord on several occasions that she suffered physical health conditions, and the temperatures in the property were having a detrimental impact on her physical and mental wellbeing. The resident is still living with excess cold and heat in the property, causing her significant distress and inconvenience.
The landlord did not acknowledge any failings in relation to its response to her concerns about the temperature of the property. It did however acknowledge delays in resolving holes made during its investigation of the level of insulation and offered £60 for this. It was unreasonable that it did not offer further compensation for the other failings identified by our investigation.
We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £500 in relation to distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its response to her concerns. This is in line with our remedies guidance when the impact on the resident was significant and prolonged.
Overall, the landlord has failed to carry out sufficient investigations to satisfy itself whether the temperatures in the property may be a category 1 hazard. It has also failed to demonstrate that it has considered options to address the temperature issues. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of issues with the temperature of the property.

Repair issues with the flooring and skirting causing transference of smells from the property below.

The resident started reporting the smell of cannabis entering her property from the flat below in early 2022. She told the landlord in September 2022 that the smells were entering the property through gaps between the flooring and skirting boards, holes drilled in the flooring and underlay removed during defect works, and because the flooring did not continue under the kitchen cabinets and bath.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord stated there were “no repairs necessary” to the gap between the flooring and skirting. It did not explain why. That it did not provide an explanation for this statement was unreasonable.
The landlord also stated in its stage 1 response that a lack of caulking between the flooring and kitchen cupboards was a decorative issue and therefore the resident’s responsibility.
We acknowledge that caulking is generally considered to be decorative and the tenancy agreement and the landlord’s policy state decoration is the responsibility of the resident. However, the resident pointed out in her stage 2 complaint that the issue was not only that there was not caulking and that therefore it was not a decorative issue. She said the flooring was “incomplete” as it did not continue under the kitchen cupboards and bath. She argued that this was a hygiene issue and that there was no physical barrier to heat loss, odour, and sound. The landlord did not respond to these specific concerns. This was unreasonable.
The resident explained to the landlord that she had OCD and that due to the smell of cannabis she was having to “constantly” clean her property. This was causing her evident distress. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord has responded to the resident’s reports regarding her vulnerabilities or the impact this issue has been having on her as a result. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge her comments and signpost her for support. The landlord failed to show due regard to its duties set out in the Equality Act 2010. This was inappropriate.
In February 2023 the landlord instructed its contractor to investigate the flooring issues. In May 2023 the contractor reported that there may have been an issue with the sealing of the gaps between the original floorboards and around the edges of the room where the overboard was not installed flush to the wall. It said there was no over boarding on top of the existing floorboards under the bath. It explained that the lack of sealing to the existing floorboards could cause smells to travel up through the floor from the flat below.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said it would write to all residents reminding them they should not use illicit drugs in their properties. The landlord sent a letter to residents 5 weeks later after the resident advised nothing had been sent. That the resident had to chase the landlord to carry out an action it agreed to complete was unreasonable and caused her avoidable time and trouble.
We note that there is no evidence that the landlord opened an antisocial behaviour case at this time to investigate the resident’s reports of cannabis use. It would have been appropriate to have done so. However, this was not part of the complaint which we have considered here. The resident did subsequently make a complaint about this issue and the Ombudsman will investigate this separately.
In late June 2023 the resident contacted the landlord as she had not been contacted following the contractor’s inspection and report. She asked what action the landlord would take. We have not seen evidence that it responded until almost 2 months later. This was an unreasonable delay and the poor communication added to the resident’s distress.
In its final updated complaint response the landlord told the resident it would not extend the flooring under the cupboards and bath. It made no mention of its contractor’s advice that the lack of over boarding could be allowing smells to travel. It would be reasonable for the landlord to relay this advice to the resident and explain why it had decided not to act on it. That it did not was therefore inappropriate.
The landlord did however state that it would inspect the flooring and fit new underlay and/or carpet. It said it would do this by 1 December 2023. At the time of this report it has not replaced the flooring. We have ordered it to do so.
The landlord has not acknowledged any failings in its response to the resident’s concerns about the flooring and skirting. It agreed to replace the carpet but has failed to do so and has not offered any compensation in relation to its handling of the issue. This was unreasonable.
We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £500 in relation to distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its response to her concerns. The impact on the resident was serious and protracted and was exacerbated by her mental ill-health.
Overall, the landlord failed to adequately address the concerns raised by the resident. It also failed to implement the expert recommendations of its contractor which stated that a lack of over boarding and sealing to the existing floorboards could be causing smells to travel into the property. The landlord is under no obligation to overboard. It should however reasonably have considered its contractor’s advice. The landlord agreed to install new carpet however it has not yet completed this. It should reasonably have fulfilled its agreement to do so.
The distress caused by the landlord’s failings were exacerbated by the resident’s vulnerabilities. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of issues with the flooring.

Gaps under the internal doors and her request that the doors be repainted.

As part of her stage 1 complaint the resident has complained that there are large gaps under her internal doors.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said she had not raised this issue after the defect works. It did not however address the resident’s concerns or advise whether it intended to carry out any works to remedy the issue. This was unreasonable.
In her complaint escalation the resident highlighted that the doors had fire door stickers on. She said that there was a gap of over 1 inch under the doors and she was concerned they would not stop the spread of fire or smoke.
Regulatory requirements for fire doors are contained in the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, as amended by the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022. Specific guidance regarding fire doors is contained in Building Regulation ‘Approved Document B’. These state that if a flat is above 4.5 metres in height, it requires FD30 rated doors internally between all habitable rooms. FD30 doors are designed to resist fire for at least 30 minutes. Guidance that accompanies the fire safety regulations states that the gaps under fire doors should be “as small as practicable”.
While it is on the second floor, it is not clear whether the resident’s property is over 4.5 metres high. The resident has however provided photographs of stickers on the internal doors which show they are FD30 doors.
We cannot confirm whether the doors in the property should be fire doors in order to comply with fire safety regulations. The landlord should however have reasonably explained to the resident what its obligations were in relation to the doors in the property. If there was no requirement for them to be fire doors it should have explained this.
We have not seen evidence that the landlord confirmed that the internal doors were fire doors. Nor did it respond to her concerns that the gaps underneath them would cause them to be ineffective. This was inappropriate.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord told the resident it would inspect the doors. The evidence shows its contractor did so at the end of March 2023. The landlord did not update the resident in relation to its findings until August 2023, the reason for this delay is unclear and was therefore unreasonable.
In May 2023 the landlord’s contractor reported that there were “excessive” gaps beneath the internal doors. It said it was “likely that these doors no longer comply with Building Regulations as the gaps are in excess of 20mm”. It recommended that the landlord replace the doors.
In September 2023 the landlord said it would replace the doors by 1 December 2023. At the time of this report it has not done so. This is a significant failing.
The resident has explained that she hired a decorator to paint 2 of her internal doors. The decorator used external oil-based paint and she had an allergic reaction to it. She therefore asked the landlord if she could pay its contractor to strip and repaint the door. The landlord agreed to this and provided the resident with a quote from its contractor. It then set up a rent sub-account for the resident to make payment. The evidence suggests the landlord’s contractor redecorated the doors in September 2023.
We acknowledge that the landlord was not obliged to assist the resident in relation to the doors. However, as it agreed to do so and recharged her for this, it should then have ensured the work was completed promptly. That it did not was a failing.
The landlord has not acknowledged any failings in relation to its response to the resident’s concerns about gaps under the internal doors. Nor has it offered any compensation in relation to this issue. It did however offer her £15 for delays in repainting her doors.
The landlord’s offer did not provide satisfactory redress for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble experienced by the resident. We have therefore ordered it to pay her £500 in relation to this issue. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance.
Overall, the landlord has failed to respond to the resident’s significant concerns that the doors in her property do not adhere to fire safety requirements. Despite being warned by its contractor more than 2 years ago that the property likely did not comply with Building Regulations, it has still not replaced the doors. We therefore find maladministration in its response to the resident’s reports of gaps under the internal doors.

Noise from the kitchen extractor fan.

The resident reported concerns about noise from the kitchen extractor fan in September 2022. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord stated that there were no repairs required to the fan. It did not provide any further discussion or explanation of this decision. This was unreasonable.
In her stage 2 complaint escalation the resident explained that the noise was intrusive and was echoing round the property. She said this was causing her “stress and agitation”. That the landlord did not acknowledge this impact within its communications with the resident was inappropriate.
In May 2023 the landlord’s contractor reported that the extractor fan did not appear to be faulty. It however stated that “a high pitch noise is continuously emanating from the fan, even when not in use”. It explained that this was due to it being designed to run at low speeds to provide continuous ventilation. The contractor advised that the issue with the fan would not be considered a defect. However, it said that the noise was “irritating” to the resident, it could therefore consider replacing the fan with one that did not provide background ventilation.
In its updated final complaint response in September 2023 the landlord said it would check the noise from the fan. It did not do so until February 2024, this was an unreasonable delay. It confirmed following this visit that the fan was “working as it should”.
We acknowledge that as the fan was working as designed, the landlord was not obliged to replace it. This would be considered an improvement and not a repair. However, we would expect the landlord to explain its decision to the resident. It did not do so and this was unreasonable.
The landlord has not acknowledged its failings in relation to the resident’s concerns about the fan. Nor has it offered any financial redress. This is unreasonable. We have ordered it to pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its handling of the issue. This is in line with our remedies guidance.
Overall, the landlord was not obliged to replace the fan as this would be considered an improvement and not a repair. However, it failed to explain its decision to the resident and there were unreasonable delays in it carrying out the inspections of the fan. We therefore find service failure in its response to the resident’s reports of noise from the kitchen extractor fan.

Complaint handling

It took the landlord 7 working days to acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint. This is outside the 5 working day timeframe outlined in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and the landlord’s own policy.
The landlord advised the resident on 1 December 2022 that it needed to extend its complaint response timeframe. It did not request an extension until after the response was due. This was unreasonable and not in keeping with the Code.
While the landlord told the resident it needed the extension to allow it to gather evidence, it is unclear why it could not have done this within the original timeframe. We accept that sometimes there are extenuating circumstances that mean an extension is reasonable. The landlord should however explain its reasons when this is the case.
Within its stage 1 response the landlord offered the resident £10 for the complaint handling delay. This was not unreasonable. It also offered £15 for “poor communication”. It is not clear whether this related to a particular issue of complaint or was for its general communication on the complaint. The landlord could improve its future responses by being clearer when providing a breakdown of compensation.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response did not adequately address all of the resident’s issues of complaint. It advised her that no repairs were required to the skirting or kitchen extractor fan. It did not however explain why this was the case. This was unreasonable.
It took the landlord 17 working days to acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 complaint. This was not in line with the Code. It then took 42 working days to provide its stage 2 response. This vastly exceeds the 20-working day timeframe outlined in the Code and was unreasonable.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord agreed to complete further inspections of the repair issues. It did not however provide any timescales for this. This was unreasonable and a missed opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations.
The landlord provided an updated final complaint response 6 months later. In this letter it accepted that several works were required. It said it would make good the damage caused by the leak, replace the internal doors, and fit new underlay and carpet. It said it would complete the work by 1 December 2023 however, more than 18 months later, these works remain outstanding. This is inappropriate and a failure to manage the resident’s expectations.
In its final response the landlord offered the resident £515 compensation. While is provided a breakdown of this figure, it is not clear which aspect of the complaint some of the figures relate to. For example it offered £275 for the “impact the situation had” on the resident. It is unclear if this relates to all issues of complaint or only to its handling of some elements. As previously suggested, the landlord could improve its complaint handling by being more specific.
We have ordered the landlord to pay £150 compensation in relation to its complaint handling. This is due to the time and trouble caused to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak in the communal hallway outside her front door.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of issues with the temperature of the property.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repair issues with the flooring and skirting causing transference of smells from the property below.
4. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of gaps under the internal doors and her request that the doors be repainted.
5. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise from the kitchen extractor fan.
6. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident £2,050 compensation which comprises:
  1. £300 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble in relation to its response to the resident’s reports of a leak in the communal hallway outside her front door.
  2. £500 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble in relation to its response to the resident’s reports of issues with the temperature of the property.
  3. £500 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble in relation to its response to the resident’s reports of repair issues with the flooring and skirting causing transference of smells from the property below.
  4. £500 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble in relation to its response to the resident’s reports of gaps under the internal doors and her request that the doors be repainted.
  5. £100 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble in relation to its response to the resident’s reports of noise from the kitchen extractor fan.
  6. £150 for time and trouble in relation to its complaint handling.
  7. The amount ordered replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £515.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Replace all the internal doors in the property where the gap underneath is more than 20mm to ensure the property complies with regulatory requirements. Two of the replacement doors should be white.
2. Replace the resident’s flooring as agreed in its final complaint response.
3. Carry out its own investigation of the temperatures in the property to satisfy itself of whether there is a category 1 hazard. It should also carry out a full assessment of the heating and ventilation in the property. A suitably qualified person must complete these assessments. It must report the findings of its investigations to the Ombudsman and provide the resident with an action plan based on the recommendations within 2 weeks of completing its investigations.