Southern Housing (202330774)

Background

1. The resident tenancy began in February 2023, and he lives in a 2-bedroom ground-floor flat with his carer. The property is located in a block of 8 homes. The ground floor flats have been adapted for disabled tenants or those who require the use of a wheelchair, and entry for residents is provided by a communal entrance door. The resident is disabled and uses an electric mobility vehicle to support his independence. In September 2023, he complained about the length of time it was taking the landlord to remedy his reported problems with the use of the communal entrance door. The landlord responded in February 2024 and provided it’s final response in March 2024. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s responses and later brought his complaint to us.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported difficulty entering and exiting the block.
3. The handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported difficulty entering and exiting the block.
5. We have found Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The handing of the resident’s reported difficulty entering and exiting the block

6. The landlord was aware that the resident’s disabilities and his need for support and aids and adaptations to leave his home safely, indeed the landlord has advised all ground floor properties had been adapted for disabled occupancy prior to the resident’s occupancy. Despite early professional advice and multiple requests, the landlord did not correctly assess and communicate decisions to the resident. Therefore, the landlord’s actions resulted in unreasonable delays, poor coordination between teams. As a result, the resident experienced avoidable uncertainty and distress.

The complaint handling

7. There were avoidable and prolonged delays at each stage of the complaints process. The landlord demonstrated poor and inconsistent communication, and this forced the resident to continuously chase for updates. Although the landlord acknowledged some of its failings and offered compensation, the responses did not fully resolve the issues raised. Therefore, the redress offered did not adequately reflect the cumulative impact on the resident and could not but have undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s complaint process.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we did not investigate and why?

8. We recognise that this has been a difficult experience for the resident and that he provided detailed documentation about the impact of the delays. However, this Service cannot assess or reach a legally binding determination of the level of health impacts reported by the resident. This is best determined by means of an insurance claim or in court.
9. We can however consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports and whether it took account of vulnerabilities included within the Equality Act 2010 and suitably adjusted its practices. If the resident wishes for the impacts to his mental health to be investigated, this would be more suitable to be assessed by legal proceedings.

What we did investigate

10. It is not the role of this Service to assess whether the fire safety legislation was followed. However, we can consider where the landlord’s actions took proper account of the resident’s vulnerabilities and the resident’s reported safety risk concerns.
11. On 1 September 2023, we have seen a communication log between the Fire Service personnel and the resident. The Fire Services told the resident that they would “follow-up with a fire safety audit” and that they would be in contact with the landlord.
12. The evidence seen demonstrates the landlord has not refreshed its risk assessment around the time the resident reported their evacuation concerns. Although this Service was provided a copy of the resident’s Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan (PEEP) it is only dated by the year, 2024, and as such it is unclear whether this was a sufficiently timed reassessment in response to the resident surfacing their concerns.
13. The landlord has told this Service that this property is under the ‘Stay Put’ fire strategy in the event of a fire, unless there is risk of smoke inhalation or burning. Or if the resident wishes to evacuate. The resident has told us that he was worried that in the event of a fire, he would be “trapped” within his property, and he found this particularly distressing. The Fire Service supported this view, when they conducted their own risk assessment in September 2023, and concluded that there was a risk of “trapping.”
14. Whilst the carer also lives in the property, she does have periods of respite, and it is during those times where the resident told us he felt vulnerable. Internal communications seen show the landlord escalated the case to its Head of Contracts in September 2023. Although the safety risk did not materialise, the landlord did not act with urgency to remove or mitigate such risk.
15. Soon after the resident moved into the property, the landlord was aware that the resident would require aids and adaptations to the property to support independent daily living. With the help of the Occupational Therapist (OT), the resident applied for grants through the local authority in order to fit a wet room. It was at this time the resident raised concerns relating to his ability to use the communal door safely and independently. The OT’s recommendations made in April 2023 and the landlord’s own internal communications support this.
16. Despite this, and despite professional input raising concerns about the communal entrance door and the need for an external access route, the landlord did not progress the matter with the appropriate urgency.
17. The internal communication logs seen shows prolonged periods of inactivity due to a lack of clear ownership. We can see the resident repeatedly chasing between May 2023 and March 2024. Evidence seen shows that he called to progress matters 12 times. Also, we see unnecessary administrative errors, which could not but have delayed progress further.
18. The landlord did not progress the matter in a timely manner or a coordinated way. Responsibility for the communal door passed between different teams and third parties without effective oversight. Internal communications show the landlord recognised the issues remained unresolved and “overdue” in July 2023.
19. The landlord’s approach resulted in unclear decision-making and insufficient explanation to the resident, which could not but have caused him frustration and distress. In particular, earlier records accepted concerns about the communal door and the potential risk, while later responses described the door as having “no current defects” or “no defect,” without clear evidential explanation of what had changed or how the landlord had considered the resident’s specific needs.
20. We have also seen evidence that the developer’s Aftercare team said it would not action repairs due to “tenant misuse.” The Aftercare team did not elaborate on what that “misuse” was. There are later reports of the resident using a heavy object to keep the door open so he could use it without assistance. While we make no judgement on whether these reports are true, or whether doing so was safe, the evidence indicates that prolonged inaction could lead a resident to resort to unsafe measures to manage access.
21. From the evidence we have seen, the landlord was aware of the need for aids and adaptations to the property with the applications to the Local Authority’s Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). The resident has told us that they then fitted a wet room in the property with little delay.
22. Overall, the evidence seen demonstrates that the landlord failed to adequately consider the resident’s vulnerabilities when managing repairs to the communal door. It did not provide clear and consistent communication from the outset.
23. Despite repeated efforts from the resident and professional input supporting his concerns, the landlord did not progress the matter with appropriate urgency, provide a clear and consistent explanation of its decisions, or adapt its communication to the needs of the resident in line with its published policy. It is beyond doubt that the landlord’s handling of this case was characterised by administrative errors, prolonged delays and poor coordination between teams and third parties.
24. We therefore find Maladministration, and we have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £450. This payment is to reflect the impact of unnecessary and avoidable distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble caused by the landlord’s delayed actions.

25. The evidence seen shows avoidable and prolonged delays at every stage of the complaints process. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint in September 2023. However, it took 105 days to issue stage 1 response with no clear explanation for the delay.
26. After the resident asked to escalate the complaint in February 2024, it took 19 days to acknowledge the request. It then took 25 days in total to issue the stage 2 response. Although the landlord met the timescale it set within its escalation acknowledgement, this response was still outside the timescales in its published policy.
27. In its stage 2 response, the landlord accepted failings had occurred and confirmed that it had completed the path works. However, this response did not fully resolve the resident’s complaint or provide clear reassurance.
28. Within its stage 2 response, the landlord stated that the communal door was “fixed and in working order” and that it had “no current defects”. However, it did not explain how it had addressed earlier concerns. Earlier records described door as “heavy,” “swinging shut quickly” and posing a “risk to vulnerable residents.” This was particularly relevant given the resident’s disability. The stage 2 response did not explain what had changed between these earlier assessments and the later conclusion.
29. The landlord also stated that it had instructed an independent contractor to conduct a further survey. But the landlord presented this as a future action. The stage 2 response did not confirm that it had resolved the resident’s concerns. The purpose of the complaints process to resolve the complaint or provide a plan on how and when the landlord will resolve concerns or issues.
30. Where issues remain unresolved, or further time is needed, we expect landlord to clearly explain this to resident’s. This can include direct contact to explain what remains outstanding and why an extension is required. This approach would have been helpful here and could have provided the resident with greater clarity.
31. The landlord confirmed that the path works had been completed. However, the resident’s complaint was about safe and independent access overall. It was not limited to completing one element in isolation. The stage 2 response did not clearly explain how to landlord assessed whether the combined works and decisions made fully addressed the resident’s broader access concerns.
32. The landlord acknowledged delays and communication failures within its stage 2 response. But it did not provide enough assurance that it had resolved the underlying access issues in line with the Code.
33. The landlord offered compensation at both stage 1 and stage 2. This shows it recognised service failures had occurred. However, we have considered whether the redress offered was reasonable, proportionate and reflective of the impact on the resident.
34. At stage 1, the landlord offered £120 compensation. Of this, £95 was attributed to the complaint-handling failures. These included the resident having to repeatedly chase for updates, miscommunication and failure to follow process or policy, and unsatisfactory complaint handling. This showed the landlord considered the complaint-handling failures did impact the resident.
35. At stage 2, the landlord increased the total compensation to £170. It provided a detailed breakdown across multiple categories. However, the landlord did not explain why it appeared to reduce the level of compensation attributed to the complaint-handling failures. This is despite the complaint continuing over a longer period and additional delays occurring. The impact of poor complaint handling does not reset or reduce simply because a complaint is escalated.
36. While the landlord’s compensation offers acknowledged some inconvenience and frustration, it did not adequately reflect the prolonged nature of the failures, the cumulative impact of repeated delays and chasing, or the resident’s circumstances. The evidence seen shows that the landlord did not apply a consistent or impact-based compensation framework across the stages.
37. Communication with the resident was also inconsistent. Throughout the complaints process, the resident was required to repeatedly chase for updates and explanations. The landlord did not sufficiently adapt its communication approach in light of the resident’s stated communication needs. This Service also had to chase the landlord for contact during our case assessment stage.
38. The resident has told this Service that the landlord has arranged for contractors to fix the outstanding issues with the communal door in January 2026.
39. Cumulatively, these failings demonstrate the landlord did not manage the complaint in an initiative-taking, transparent, or resident-focused way. We therefore find Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and order the landlord to pay the resident £150 in recognition of the impact.

Learning

40. This case highlighted the importance of accurately registering resident’s reasonable adjustments and to effectively adapt the ways in which landlords communicate with customers.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

This investigation surfaced failings in documentation management.

Communication

41. The overall communication was poor and there were unreasonable delays throughout. The resident chased the landlord for a progress update on at least 12 separate occasions. In addition, there were inconsistencies in its communication, for example the variance in the level of compensation offered for its poor complaint handling.