Southern Housing (202336186)

Decision
Case ID	202336186
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Southern Housing
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	24 April 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a top floor flat. In 2022, he reported a roof leak and a repair to the bin store door. The resident later complained that the leak had caused staining and water marks to the ceiling and walls as well as a large ceiling crack. He also complained that the bin store doors were poorly installed, and that the bike shed lock was changed resulting in only one key for all residents. From July 2023, there were further reports of roof leaks and he subsequently complained about delays in completing roof works and poor communication.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about:
   1. Roof leaks.
   2. Bin store repairs.
   3. The bike shed.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the:
   1. The resident’s concerns about roof leaks.
   2. Complaint.
5. We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about:
   1. Bin store repairs.
   2. The bike shed.

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

Summary of reasons

Concerns about roof leaks

6. Despite lengthy delays in resolving the roof leak, the landlord acknowledged its failings, apologised, carried out a roof replacement, reimbursed the insurance excess, and paid compensation in line with our guidance.

Concerns about bike shed

7. The landlord did not give a clear or reasonable explanation for not issuing individual bike shed keys, despite accepting the resident could have one. Instead, it relied on a shared system that potentially risked access issues and unfairly placed responsibility on the resident to obtain his own key.

Concerns about bin store repairs

8. Following its final response, the landlord took a further 4 months to replace the bin store door, completing the works in August 2024. This was well outside the timescales set out in its responsive repairs policy, and there is no evidence that the landlord sought to put this additional delay right.

Complaint handling

9. While there was a delay in sending its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord recognised its errors and offered appropriate remedies that put matters 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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Compensation order   The landlord must pay the resident a further £150 made up of:   £75 for the inconvenience and frustration caused by its handling of his concerns about the bin store repairs.    £75 for the inconvenience and frustration caused by its handling of his concerns about the bike shed.    This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 22 May 2026
2	Bike shed key   The landlord must either provide the resident with a key to the bike shed or set out a clear and rational explanation for why it is unable to do so.	No later than 22 May 2026

 

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
21 April 2023	The resident complained about internal damage caused by a roof leak. He reported stains and water marks running down the wall and a large crack in the ceiling. He also complained the bin store doors were fixed but had not been measured correctly so no longer shut, and that the bike shed lock was changed but only one key left for all residents.
16 May 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It accepted there was a service failure due to delays and missed appointments in repairing the roof leak. It confirmed that contractors raised the work in November 2022 and completed roof repairs in March 2023. It explained that internal damage was the resident’s responsibility and advised him to claim on the building insurance, offering £350 to cover the excess. With regard to the bin store and bike shed, it accepted service failures noting contractors missed appointments and delayed repairs. It confirmed that new doors were fitted to the bin store and a new lock installed on the bike shed in February 2023, however, an outstanding repair was rebooked for May 2023.
31 October 2023	The resident escalated the complaint. He said there were continued delays and little progress in resolving the roof leak. He reported receiving no clear updates or contact from contractors and confirmed water was still dripping through the ceiling. He asked the landlord to review its compensation offer, citing ongoing distress.
14 March 2024	After contact from the resident, we asked it to escalate the complaint including the resident’s concerns about the roof, bin store and bike shed.
8 April 2024	The landlord issued its final stage 2 response. It apologised for  significant delays in repairing the roof and handling the complaint. It accepted repairs were slow, poorly recorded, and incomplete, despite multiple works orders. It explained that a full roof replacement had started and committed to ongoing updates. The landlord upheld the complaint, acknowledged poor service, identified learning and increased its compensation to £1,055.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us that although the roof was now fixed, he was unhappy with the length of time taken to repair this and felt it had offered insufficient compensation. He was unhappy with its handling of matters, telling us in July 2024 that the bin store door was still outstanding. As an outcome the resident wanted further 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	Concerns about roof leaks
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we’ve not considered

10. From March 2024 the resident and landlord exchanged a number of emails concerning the cost of the roof works and whether it was reasonable the landlord sought dispensation from the consultation requirement. The resident mentioned these concerns to us as part of his referral.
11. We do not investigate complaints where it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the court, tribunal or other procedure. In this case, his concerns about this issue has already been determined by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and we cannot revisit matters already decided by a tribunal. For these reasons, we have decided not to investigate this aspect of the complaint.

What we’ve considered

12. The resident complained about a long‑standing roof leak that caused internal water damage, with ongoing dripping and no meaningful contractor contact despite repeated reports. The landlord accepted there were significant delays, poor record keeping, and multiple failed or incomplete repair attempts. It confirmed the roof required full replacement, advised works were progressing, and offered compensation including reimbursing an insurance excess for internal damage.
13. Under the lease and the landlord’s homeowner policy, the landlord was responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the property, including the roof. This included managing the block effectively, inspecting defects, and acting promptly where repairs presented a health or safety risk, such as water ingress.
14. The resident first reported the leak in November 2022. The landlord attended in March 2023 and applied aqua‑poling to parts of the roof. In his initial complaint, the resident raised concerns about internal damage. The landlord appropriately acknowledged this 4‑month delay and apologised.
15. The landlord advised the resident he could claim under the building insurance, but this information was not given until January 2024. This was a minor shortcoming, as the resident said he would not pursue a claim until the leak was fully resolved
16. Further internal leak reports were made to the landlord in July and September 2023. The evidence shows the resident repeatedly chased the landlord for updates in October and November 2023, with little progress. Contractors attended in October and incorrectly marked the work as complete, there was a further inspection in November, but roof inspections were not done until January 2024. Nothing in the evidence clearly explains this limited activity by the landlord over this period.
17. The resident remained concerned that delayed action caused internal damage and led to unnecessary deterioration, resulting in a costly full roof replacement charged to leaseholders. From March and April 2024, the landlord’s homeownership team engaged well with the resident’s requests for information, particularly regarding costs and Section 20 implications, and explained that consultation would otherwise delay works by a further 3 months.
18. Although the resident described the issue as 2 small leaks which indicated the overall impact was minimal, there were clear delays in addressing this issue. The landlord’s final response appropriately acknowledged the prolonged delays, poor oversight, and record keeping failures. The landlord replaced the roof around April and May 2024. In September 2024, it paid £1,055 in total compensation, including £600 for inconvenience and time and trouble, and reimbursed the £350 insurance excess.
19. While the landlord did not specify how much of the £600 compensation related solely to the roof works, when considered alongside the £350, the total award was consistent with our guidance. Taken together with the landlord’s identified learning, this appropriately remedied the complaint.

Complaint	Concerns about bin store repairs
Finding	Service failure

20. As part of his complaint, the resident raised concerns about the standard of repairs to the communal bin store doors. He said the doors had been poorly fitted, were not measured correctly, and no longer shut properly. He also reported that the original doors had been replaced with only a basic replacement and that a handle had been pulled off. The landlord acknowledged delays, missed appointments, and multiple failed contractor attendances, and confirmed it had raised further works orders to address the issue.
21. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy did not set clear service timescales for non-emergency repairs. It said these repairs would be completed as soon as possible, with appointments arranged to suit residents and an aim to complete repairs in one visit. Despite this, the evidence showed repeated delays and failed attendances over a prolonged period.
22. The landlord was aware of the bin store repairs as early as March 2022. However, appointments were missed and rebooked in August 2022, and a further works order was not raised until January 2023. An operative attended in February 2023 to fit a new door and returned on 28 February 2023 to make adjustments. Yet these actions did not result in an effective and lasting repair.
23. The resident reported ongoing problems in April 2023. An appointment was booked for 18 May 2023, but it is unclear whether this took place. In its final response, the landlord confirmed another works order was raised on 6 November 2023 because the door still did not close or lock. There is no evidence of other repairs between May and November 2023. An appointment in December 2023 identified that a new door was required, but the landlord could not confirm whether follow on works had taken place.
24. The landlord committed in its April 2024 final response to provide updates as regards a rebooked job to replace the bin store doors as originally reported. However, it did not take any action until August 2024, and only after the resident chased in June 2024.
25. Overall, despite promising to complete the work and offering compensation at stage 2, the landlord did not complete the repair until around 8 months later. The further delays after the final response were not put right. While the impact on the resident’s living conditions was limited, the prolonged delays caused frustration and inconvenience through repeated chasing.
26. A compensation order has been made to address the landlord’s further delays. The amount is in line with our compensation guidance for failings of the scale and nature in this case.

Complaint	Concerns about the bike shed
Finding	Service failure

27. On 17 February 2023, the landlord secured the bike shed with a new lock. It placed a key in a key safe and displayed the access code on the noticeboard inside the block. The resident’s complaint centred around that the bike shed lock had been changed which resulted in only one key in the key safe between all residents.
28. The landlord explained in its final response that it could not provide individual keys to all residents and instead installed a key safe containing a single key near the bike shed. However, it did not explain why it was unable to issue keys to all users. This was a significant omission, particularly as the landlord accepted that the resident could have a key. It did not therefore follow why the landlord could not supply one directly.
29. The landlord’s chosen arrangement was also poorly considered. While the key safe was presented as a solution for access and security, it relied on one shared key being returned after each use. This system was inherently open to breakdown if the key was not replaced, leaving other residents unable to access the bike shed. Good practice would typically be to issue keys to those who require access.
30. The landlord further confirmed that the replacement lock could be opened with a readily available key and offered £5 for the resident to purchase one himself. If this was a simple and low cost option, it is unclear why the landlord did not provide keys to all users or, at the very least, give a clear and reasoned explanation for not doing so.
31. By placing the responsibility on the resident to resolve access by obtaining his own key, the landlord did not properly address the central issue of his complaint. Its response lacked adequate explanation and unfairly shifted responsibility to the resident. This was not an appropriate or reasonable approach. Orders have therefore been made to put matters right.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

32. At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a 2-stage complaints policy. The landlord’s definition of a complaint and its response timescales were in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code)
33. The resident complained on 21 April 2023, and the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 16 May 2023, in line with its policy timescales. In October 2023, the resident contacted the landlord again and described the service he had received as “awful”. Although he did not expressly request escalation, his comments clearly showed dissatisfaction. In January 2024, he reiterated that he was getting nowhere, remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling, and said its contractors had not contacted him. The landlord did not take any complaint handling action following these contacts.
34. The landlord’s complaints policy stated that escalation requests should normally be made within 20 working days of the stage 1 response, but it also allowed discretion to accept later requests. The Code does not set a strict time limit for escalation. As the resident’s concerns related to the same issue, a roof leak affecting the same area, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to treat his continued dissatisfaction as a request to escalate. By failing to do so, the landlord missed the opportunity to address these concerns promptly through its complaints process.
35. Although we asked the landlord to provide its final response by 21 March 2024, it did not do so. It only acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 20 March 2024, promised a response by 5 April 2024, and then missed this deadline, issuing its response on 8 April 2024.
36. Nevertheless, in its final response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged both these complaint handling failures. It apologised and offered £100 compensation, which aligned with our compensation guidance and reasonably reflected the detriment caused by the delay. The landlord also identified learning and explained that it had restructured its team and recruited additional staff. While the delay was frustrating and contrary to its policy and the Code, the landlord took reasonable steps to recognise its errors and put matters right.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

37. In this case, the landlord’s record keeping was unsatisfactory. It repair record did not show completion dates for works or a sufficient narrative for completed or next actions while investigating and resolving the issue.

Communication

38. The landlord’s communications with the resident about the roof and bin store works was not always clear. As it seeks to improve its service the landlord should consider our Spotlight report on Attitudes, Respect and Rights, for further guidance on how to effectively communicate with residents in the future.