Southern Housing (202344440)

Decision
Case ID	202344440
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Southern Housing
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	29 January 2026

Background

The resident is a shared owner. The landlord is the leaseholder of the block. There is a separate freeholder and managing agent. The managing agent has responsibility for some services in the communal areas of the resident’s building and her estate. The resident complained that the landlord had failed to give her accurate service charge information in a timely manner.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s handling of:
1. Communal cleaning and the associated service charges.
2. The resident’s queries about service charges.
3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of communal cleaning and the associated service charges.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about service charges.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord fairly removed cleaning charges from residents’ accounts for a 4-month period. However, it failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about its communication.
There were delays in the landlord providing service charge information to residents. While this was partly outside of the landlord’s control, it could have been more proactive in getting the information. It failed to adequately respond to the resident’s concerns about the accuracy of the service charges. There were shortcomings in its record keeping.
The landlord acknowledged that it responded to the resident 1 day outside of its complaints policy timescale and offered compensation. The landlord did not complete the actions it agreed in its complaints responses.

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 provided by a director. 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 28 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £700 made up as follows: £500 for the impact of errors in its handling of the resident’s service charge queries. £100 for the impact of the landlord’s failure to fully address the resident’s concerns about its handling of communal cleaning. £100 for distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its complaints handling. 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 made.	No later than 28 February 2026
3	Legal advice order By the due date, the landlord must provide the Ombudsman with documentary evidence that it has sought legal advice on action it can take to ensure the managing agent provides necessary information, such as supporting information for service charge accounts, within the timescales set out in legislation. It must tell the resident and the Ombudsman if it intends to take legal action, setting out its reasons.	No later than 26 March 2026
4.	Service charge clarification order No later than the due date, the landlord must provide evidence that it has contacted the resident in a way that is convenient to her, to get an understanding of the issues, and given her a full written response. It must: Review the landlord and the managing agent’s roles and responsibilities in the resident’s block and ensure there are no duplicate charges. Investigate each of the individual charges that the resident has identified as inaccurate. It must give its position on each one. Where the resident has identified that there are missing invoices or receipts, it must state its position on each one. If the landlord cannot complete any part of this order by the due date it must give us the reasons and provide a revised timescale.	No later than 26 March 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If the landlord’s service charge review identifies any inaccuracies, including duplicate charges, it should consider a wider investigation of service charges across the development.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
26 July 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. She said: She queried the 2021-22 service charge accounts 14 months ago, but the landlord had not answered adequately. She did not receive a letter about the next service charge increase, or another letter about a rent amendment, although other residents did. She was aware that the letter gave a response deadline which had now passed. She was worried about the landlord contacting her about repayment. She was not legally obliged to pay the service charge increase until she had been given all the information. She wanted a full breakdown of the service charges from 2021-22 onwards, and the associated invoices, a full response from the landlord, and evidence it posted the letters to her.
11 August 2023	The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process, saying: The bills it sent were correct. They had been adjusted to reflect that she bought the property during the financial year. It had incorrectly told the resident that a charge on her rent account could be removed. It offered her £15 in compensation for this error. It had collated the invoices the resident requested. It would send them separately through an electronic link. Its records showed that the letters were posted to the resident twice. It was not required to keep proof of postage. It had already provided the resident with the 2021 service charges with explanatory notes. It had just received the 2022 end of year accounts, which it attached with the complaint. It had not received either set of supporting documents from the management agent. The resident could only legally withhold payment if it had not provided a summary of rights and obligations. It did send a summary, so payment was due. It offered £15 in compensation in recognition that it had responded to the resident’s complaint 1 day late. It awarded an additional £50 in compensation for the delay, time and trouble in providing the service charge accounts.
6 October 2023	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to the second stage of the complaints process, saying: She had been waiting 7 weeks for a response from the landlord. 11 days prior, she received a letter outlining issues with the charges, a section 20B notice, and a link for some of the invoices. The invoices and accounts were not complete and lacked transparency. The situation was causing her distress.
20 October 2023	The resident made a further complaint to the landlord. She said: She had asked the landlord for evidence of its inspections of the communal cleaning. The landlord had ignored her request, taking months to respond. Its inspections did not include all areas of the building. She asked the landlord to consider how its estates services and cleaning staff worked together. The communal areas were not cleaned for months so residents should not have to pay a service charge for this.
17 January 2024	The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process. It said: It had collated the invoices and would send them as a digital link, and post paper copies. It apologised that the resident did not receive these earlier. It agreed that the service charges for 2021-22 should be recalculated. It had appointed an analyst to do this. It would update the resident on 30 January 2024, and if there were any discrepancies it would notify all affected residents. It accepted the cleaning was not done for 4 months and had removed the related charges.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate her complaints. She said the landlord had not been honest about its communication with her, and she still did not have the invoices she asked for. She felt the landlord’s charges were inaccurate and had not been broken down as she requested.

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 has 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	Communal cleaning
Finding	Service Failure

The landlord’s contractor provides cleaning services to the resident’s block. It says it quality checks the standard of cleaning through monthly inspections.
The resident complained that the landlord had not cleaned the communal areas of her building adequately for several months, so residents should not be charged for the service. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord visited the property in person, with a supervisor, to assess the areas in question. This showed the landlord was taking the resident’s complaint seriously.
It found that the carpet was in good condition except for on 2 floors of the building. After it raised the issue with its cleaning contractor, it reinspected and recorded that the cleaning in the communal areas was exceptional. It was appropriate for it to reinspect the area, to ensure that the cleaning had improved. It agreed that it could not show that the carpets were adequately cleaned for 4 months. It removed the service charge for these months. This was a positive step to put things right for the resident.
However, the resident also complained about the landlord’s poor communication. She said the landlord did not respond to her concerns about the communal cleaning for 4 months. She also provided evidence that, after the landlord responded to her enquiry in August 2023, she emailed twice to request more information. These communication failures caused her time and trouble pursuing the matter. The landlord did not investigate this element of her concerns.
This amounted to service failure. It may have caused the resident frustration. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £100 in compensation for this failing. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available on our website, says that awards in this range are appropriate where there has been service failure by the landlord.
The resident told us she is still concerned that the communal areas of the building are not being cleaned adequately in line with the landlord’s service agreements with its contractor. Unless it has done so already, we recommend that the landlord contact the resident to take further details of her concerns. It should respond to these as a new stage 1 complaint.

Complaint	Response to queries about service charges
Finding	Maladministration

It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to investigate the level of service charges. We can investigate how the landlord responded to the resident’s queries about her service charge to assess whether its responses were reasonable and in line with its legal obligations. When the resident told it she was unhappy with the level of service charges, the landlord appropriately gave her information about how she can pursue her concerns with the First Tier Tribunal service, which considers disputes around service charges.
In this case, the resident has taken considerable time and trouble to follow up concerns about the service charge accounts. She told us, and the landlord, that this had a significant impact on her wellbeing.

Document postage

In June 2023, the landlord sent a letter to residents about their service charge accounts. After posting the letter, it realised that it had not amended the payment date it gave residents. It reissued the letter with amended dates in July 2023. It was reasonable for the landlord to reissue the letter, as a short payment deadline may have caused residents worry.
The resident told the landlord she did not receive the letter sent in June. She asked it to explain why there was a delay in it printing the letter, why she did not receive it, and provide evidence that it had posted the letters to her.
While the landlord did not explain the reason for the delay in posting the letter in June 2023, it was not required to do so. It was also correct in saying it was not required to keep proof of postage for all letters. It investigated the resident’s concern to the extent it was able to by confirming with its printing company that the letters were sent on 2 occasions, and it enclosed an additional copy with the complaint. This was reasonable. We also saw evidence that copies of correspondence were sent to the resident by email on several occasions.
There were no failures in the landlord’s handling of this issue. However, given that the resident has told it she has not received correspondence more than once, if it is able to, it should continue to send her correspondence by email as well as post in future.

Incorrect information about service charge liability

The landlord accepted that it told the resident incorrectly that she was not liable for all the charges in the 2021-22 accounts. In line with its policy, the landlord had already apportioned the rent charges in line with the date the resident purchased the property. The landlord awarded the resident £15 in compensation for this error. This was reasonable, as the error may have caused confusion, but it did not affect the overall outcome for the resident.

Delay in providing the accounts

The landlord must provide residents with the service charge accounts within 6 months of the end of the accounting period. As it was unable to send the final accounts within this timeframe, the landlord sent the resident a section 20B notice to inform her that a deficit would be due. This was in line with its legal requirements under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The landlord said it sent the 2021-22 accounts to residents in June 2023 (although the resident said she did not receive them until the landlords second letter in July 2023). This is a delay of around 8 months. It did not explain this delay, but apologised, accepting it was unreasonable and caused the resident inconvenience.

Delay in providing the supporting information

Residents have the right to request a written summary of the costs which make up the service charge. The landlord is legally required to provide the written summary of the service charge accounts within 1 month of a resident requesting the information, or 6 months of the end of the accounting period, whichever is later. If a resident then asks to see supporting documents for the accounts including receipts and invoices, within 6 months of receiving a written summary, the landlord must provide these within 1 month.
There was a 1-month delay in the landlord providing supporting information for the accounts. This was because the management agent did not provide the supporting evidence to the landlord promptly. As the landlord does not have a contractual relationship with the management agent, it is not responsible for its actions. However, it is our established approach that landlords should be proactive in engaging with management agents to make sure that account information is received in a timely manner. Providing information late causes residents uncertainty about the charges they are liable for and hinders the ability to challenge the charges due to the time passed.
We saw evidence that the landlord requested the relevant supporting information from the management agent on several occasions, and escalated the concern through its management structure when it did not receive a response. While these actions were appropriate, they were part of a wider issue of delayed information sharing by the management agent, resulting in a 10-month cumulative delay in it providing accounts information. As such it should have gone further to resolve the issue.
Our spotlight report on management agents (available on our website) says that ‘Landlords should … be clear at what point they would consider legal enforcement of contract or lease terms and ensure they openly and transparently communicate this to all relevant parties, in particular their residents’. As such, the landlord has been ordered to get legal advice on its options to resolve the situation. This is discussed further in the orders section of the report.
While it was asking the management agent for information, we saw evidence that the landlord told the resident she was could chase the management agent for updates. This was not reasonable, as contacting the management agent will have caused the resident time and trouble. It is our view that signposting in this context is inappropriate. We expect landlords to proactively pursue resolution on residents’ behalf.
In addition, the landlord told the resident that it anticipated delays in the management agent providing supporting information for the 2022-23 accounts, as there were delays in providing the 2021-22 accounts. This did not demonstrate that it was taking a proactive approach to the issue.
When the landlord received the supporting information, it noted that some information was missing, including invoices for electricity charges. While it said it would follow this up and update residents by 6 October 2023, its records do not show if it did so. This was a record keeping failure.
The landlord shared the information with the residents using a secure online file sharing service. However, security measures on the files meant that the resident could not access the files initially. This will have caused the resident avoidable frustration, time and trouble.
The landlord also agreed to send the resident paper copies of the invoices. Its records do no show if it did this. Given the number of invoices and receipts provided for service charge accounts, providing paper copies may not always be a cost-effective or convenient option. If this was the case, the landlord should have communicated this to the resident clearly, but there is no evidence it did so. The landlord should consider how it shares supporting information like invoices in future. If it sends information electronically, it should ensure that it is both secure, and accessible to residents.
The resident said that the supporting information for the 2021-22 accounts was incomplete, with broken links and missing invoices and receipts. The landlord accepted there were issues with the supporting evidence, and agreed to investigate. However, the resident told us there are still gaps in the information provided. As we did not see evidence of the outcome of its investigation, we accept the resident’s account. The landlord should have raised any issues it could not explain with the managing agent to clarify the charges.

Accuracy of the accounts provided

It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place.
In July 2023 the landlord’s accountant reviewed the accounts provided by the management agent for 2021-22. While it did not do a full audit, it checked whether the account statement was extracted correctly from the accounts the landlord held. It also checked a sample of entries to see if the accounts were supported by invoices and receipts. It was satisfied the accounts were accurate.
The resident was not satisfied that the accounts information, including the supporting documents, provided by the landlord were accurate. During meetings in October 2023 and April 2024, the landlord accepted that there were inaccuracies in the figures. For example, it noted that it was not charging residents for communal cleaning, a service it delivered. It also accepted that the first line of a document it had provided was mathematically incorrect. It agreed to recalculate the service charge accounts.
It told us it arranged 2 reviews of the service charges, using different service charge analysts. It found that all the charges were still applicable. These actions by the landlord were positive, showing a commitment to putting things right for the resident. However, we have not seen contemporaneous evidence of how it reviewed the charges, or what it considered. It should have asked the resident for details of her concerns and responded to each one, as well as reviewing the accounts as a whole.
The landlord’s communication and record keeping around the issue was inadequate. For example:
1. The landlord has not provided evidence of how it shared the outcome of its service charge reviews with the resident.
2. While it was positive that the landlord met with the resident to discuss her concerns. It has not provided minutes or contemporaneous notes of its complaint review meeting on 27 November 2023, meetings with residents on 25 October 2023, and 11 April 2024, or a meeting it said it held on 3 October 2024. These were record keeping failures.
3. It has not provided evidence to show it did the actions it agreed during these meetings, or if it has, how these were communicated. For example, it agreed to send out a letter to residents of the development explaining that they could make a longer-term repayment plan for deficit charges. The resident says it did not do this. As there is no evidence to contradict this, we accept the resident’s account.
4. The landlord’s records do not explain its position on specific accuracy concerns raised by the resident, including inaccuracies it accepted.
The resident still disputes the accuracy of the charges, and the landlord has not evidenced that it has responded to the specific concerns raised. As such, it has been ordered to meet with the resident to discuss each specific concern the resident has about the accuracy of the service charge accounts. This has been discussed further in the orders section of the report.
Cumulatively, there was a delay of around 10 months in providing the 2021-22 accounts and supporting information. This delay was not wholly within the landlord’s control, but it did not do enough to pursue the information. The landlord did not adequately address the resident’s concerns about the completeness and accuracy of the accounts provided. This has caused the resident inconvenience, time and trouble, over an extended period, as the issue is not resolved 3 years on.
The landlord’s failings in this case amount to maladministration. It offered the resident £50 in compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its handling of the service charge accounts. This did not reflect the impact on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay £500 in compensation for the errors in its handling of the service charges. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available in our website, says awards in this range are appropriate where the landlord’s offer is not proportionate to the failings found by our investigation.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complied with the definition of a complaint in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (April 2024).The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code
At stage 1 of the complaints process, the landlord acknowledged that it had responded to the resident 1 day after its complaints’ policy timescale. As the delay was not excessive, the landlord’s offer of £15 in compensation was sufficient to recognise the delay.
At the second stage of the complaints process, the landlord exceeded its complaints policy timescale by around 3 weeks. The landlord informed the resident that it needed an extension twice, which will have helped to manage her expectations. Still, the delay will have caused her frustration and inconvenience.
Overall, the tone of the landlord’s complaints was customer-friendly. It defined the resident’s complaint, broke down her concerns into sections, and explained its service charge calculations clearly. It also identified its next steps and told the resident who would update her and when. This was an example of good practice by the landlord.
However, it did not complete all the actions when it agreed to. For example, although it said it would send out the invoices at the same time as the response, and internal miscommunication led to a 4-day delay. While the delay was not excessive, it caused the resident inconvenience as she had to chase the landlord for the information.
In addition, it said a named member of staff would update the resident on progress recalculating the service charge figures on 30 January 2024. While the member of staff contacted the resident before the 30 January 2024, we saw no evidence they updated her on the service charge recalculation.
In the circumstances of the case, where the resident had lost trust in the landlord, these shortcomings amounted to service failure. To put things right, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £100 in compensation for the impact this had on her, including the £15 it had already offered in compensation.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Landlords should ensure they keep complete accurate records all interactions with residents, including minutes of meetings. The landlord may wish to review its record keeping practices to ensure it is satisfied it has robust evidence of its actions and decision making.

Communication

In this case, the relationship between the landlord and the management agent does not function effectively, which affected service delivery. The landlord should consider how it can improve this relationship, to help it provide the best service to residents.