Southern Housing (202519494)

Decision
Case ID	202519494
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Southern Housing
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	24 February 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat on the fourth floor. She has mobility issues and has undergone operations impacting her mobility further. She told the landlord the communal lift was regularly out of service, forcing her to use the stairs. She struggled with the stairs and reported multiple falls. She said the lift had been out of service for weeks and whenever it was repaired, it broke again shortly afterwards.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a broken lift and subsequent repairs.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a broken lift and subsequent repairs.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of a broken lift and subsequent repairs

4. The landlord took positive initial action, but it did not resolve the substantive issue. It communicated poorly, kept limited records of repair reports, failed to consider alternative options, and did not address all points raised.

Associated complaint

5. The landlord provided its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses within its policy timeframe.

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 24 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £500 made up as follows: £100 for inconvenience, time and trouble offered in its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses £100 for lift failure over 8 weeks offered in its stage 2 complaint response £300 for distress and inconvenience for the continued delay in resolving the substantive issue 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 24 March 2026
3	The landlord must clearly advise the resident of the steps it intends to take to repair the lift, including specific actions, and proposed timescales. The landlord must explain what long‑term measures it will put in place to prevent recurring faults and ensure the lift remains reliable. It must provide the resident with a clear plan for achieving a lasting solution.	No later than 24 March 2026
4	The landlord must provide the resident with a written response about her concerns that the lift had been purposefully damaged and must explain how it intends to address the issue.	No later than 24 March 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
13 June 2025	The resident told the landlord that the lift was repeatedly in and out of service for a year. She said it had been completely out of service for the past 6 weeks and nothing had been done. She said when she called to report the issue, the repairs team said someone would attend or they were waiting for approval for the works. She informed it she was due to undergo surgery and would be unable to use the stairs during her recovery. She said she wanted a permanent solution for the lift or an alternative option for residents with mobility issues.
19 June 2025	The landlord acknowledged the complaint.
24 June 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the ongoing problems and said it had liaised with the relevant team. It confirmed the lift had been out of service since 9 May 2025. It listed several dates when technicians had attended and identified parts that needed replacing. It said the replacement part quote was approved on 19 June 2026 and it was waiting for the parts to be delivered.   The landlord added it could not provide an estimated installation date. It acknowledged the situation was not ideal. It advised her to speak with her housing officer about temporary accommodation until the lift became fully operational. It apologised for the time taken to resolve the complaint and offered £50 for the inconvenience, time, and trouble.
9 July 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the lift remained out of service and whenever it was repaired, it broke again the next day. She said the neighbour caused damage to the lift and police had been involved but took no action. She said the police had been involved, but no action had been taken. She said a solicitor advised her to request a management move on medical grounds. She highlighted her upcoming operation, existing medical issues, and multiple falls she had on the stairs. She said she wanted compensation that reflected the situation.
10 July 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request.
4 August 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns and request for compensation. It said that parts could take time to be sourced but had advised contractors of the urgency. It provided further dates technicians attended with parts ordered on 24 July 2025. It apologised for the inconvenience and delays. It reviewed its compensation of £50 at stage 1 and offered a further £150, totalling £200. This comprised of:   • £100 for lift failure over 8 weeks. • £100 for inconvenience, time and trouble.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought the complaint to us because she was unhappy with the landlord’s final response. She said it did not address her main concern that the lift remained broken, and the compensation did not reflect the impact on her. She wants a permanent fix to the lift and proportionate compensation.

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	Reports of a broken lift and subsequent handling of repairs
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not considered

6. The resident raised concerns about the impact of the situation on her health and risk of injury. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an illness or injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this element of the complaint is better dealt with via the court.  We can, however, consider whether the landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience in line with our remedies guidance.

What we have considered

7. The resident reported multiple lift failures before submitting a complaint. The landlord attended to address the faults and carried out repairs where possible. When it could not fix the issue, it left the lift out of service while awaiting parts. It apologised in both its stage 1 and 2 responses and offered a total of £200 compensation. It arranged temporary accommodation for her while she recovered from surgery, as the lift remained out of service. This was a positive approach and attempt to address the issue and support her needs at the time. While it offered some redress, its compensation offer was not proportionate to the delays and detriment she experienced.
8. While the landlord took some positive steps, it showed limited proactive communication with the resident. She said she frequently chased for updates on lift repairs and the progress of temporary accommodation, which likely caused her frustration. It should have maintained regular contact, provided updates, and offered timescales where possible. It must track outstanding repairs and complete them promptly, while keeping her informed of any progress. Although supporting her in accessing temporary accommodation was positive, it could have arranged this earlier and communicated with her throughout.
9. The landlord attended to carry out repairs, but it provided limited repair records. It supplied a list of dates showing work orders, delays, and quotes for parts, along with a lift breakdown history containing 9 entries. These records show the lift was out of service several times, including a period lasting 168 days. One operative’s note stated they were unsure whether anyone had attended since their previous visit, which demonstrates poor record keeping and tracking of repairs.
10. Although we reviewed the landlord’s records, the limited information makes it difficult to determine whether it attended within its repair policy timeframes or how frequently faults were reported. Its policy states that emergency repairs should be made safe within 6 hours, with further appointments arranged if needed. However, the available evidence does not show it met this standard, and the policy does not explain what “make safe” means. It also states that communal repairs should be completed quickly but does not specify a timeframe. It would be good practice for it to set clearer definitions and timescales in its repair policy. It should maintain comprehensive repair records that document reports, attendance, actions taken, and when repairs are complete.
11. The landlord did not demonstrate that it considered options beyond day‑to‑day repairs, given the frequency of the faults, the difficulty in sourcing obsolete parts, and the extended periods when the lift was out of service. It could have reviewed its planned programme to determine whether the lift was due for refurbishment or replacement. Assessing this and communicating its findings to the resident would have demonstrated its efforts to resolve the issue and prevent ongoing disruption. It would be good practice for it to review the regularity of required repairs and consider alternative long‑term solutions.
12. The resident raised concerns in her escalation request that another resident was deliberately damaging the lift. She reported there had been several incidents and confirmed the police had been involved. The landlord was aware of these concerns, as it issued a letter in March 2025 stating it had received reports of deliberate vandalism. She also said she wanted to speak with it about a management move after receiving advice from her solicitor. However, it did not address these points in its complaint response. It should have acknowledged her concerns and explained how it intended to deal with the issue.
13. The landlord took some positive steps attending repairs, providing temporary accommodation, apologising, and offering compensation. Although these actions can be said to have put things right, it failed to resolve the substantive issue and its compensation offer was not proportionate the to identified failings.
14. The resident has told us that the lift continues to break down and no lasting solution has been found. With consideration of our remedies guidance, we have made orders for it to apologise and pay additional compensation for the identified failings. This is in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair and put things right.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

15. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint within the Code (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
16. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and issued its stage 1 and 2 responses within its policy timeframes.

Learning

General

17. The landlord should give clearer explanations and details about any repair delays to keep residents informed and manage expectations.
18. The landlord should provide more detailed and thorough complaint responses to address resident’s concerns.
19. The landlord should identify potential issues affecting vulnerable residents sooner and provide any necessary support.
20. The landlord should include clearer and more detailed timeframes within its repairs policy.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord should maintain comprehensive records of repair reports and actions.

Communication

22. Overall, the landlord communicated poorly. Effective communication reassures residents that the landlord is considering and addressing their concerns.