Southern Housing (202515545)

Decision
Case ID	202515545
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Southern Housing
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	2 March 2026

Background

1. The resident said she experienced flooding at the property over several years. She reported a flood in February 2025 which affected both her flat and the communal areas of the block in which she lives. The resident complained about the landlord’s response to the flood and related damage. She told it she had several health conditions.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The flood and related damage.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to:
   1. The flood and related damage.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the flood and the related damage

4. The landlord acknowledged there were failures in its communication and planning and offered the resident compensation for these up to its stage 2 complaint response. However, it failed to fulfil the commitment it made in this response within a reasonable time and the level of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint at both stages of its complaint process within the timeframe in its complaint policy. It also failed to address the resident’s concerns about damp and mould.

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 £650 made up as follows: £550 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s reports of a flood and related damage £100 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint 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.	No later than 30 March 2026
2	Works The landlord must contact the managing agent and ask it to provide an updated plan of the outstanding work and when it will start and likely finish this by. The landlord must provide us and the resident with this no later than the due date. If it cannot provide this, it must explain to us, by the due date: the steps it has taken to contact the managing agent and obtain this and provide us with documentary evidence to support this by the due date whether suitable alternative accommodation is necessary and whether it will be made available to the resident	No later than 30 March 2026
3	Assessment of rent The landlord must consider if the resident’s property was fit for habitation following the flood by considering any evidence the resident provides and any other relevant information. It must provide us and the resident with its findings and a decision on whether it will pay a rent rebate for any period it assessed the property as unfit for habitation. It must provide this by the due date.	No later than 30 March 2026
4	Damp and mould  The landlord must contact the resident by the due date to see if she wishes to proceed with her complaint about damp and mould. If so, it must open a complaint.	No later than 30 March 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
10 March 2025	The resident complained about the landlord’s response to 2 flooding events in February 2025 and the damage this caused. She said it had provided incorrect insurance details and inadequate support, including limited temporary accommodation with no food included. She also complained about the freehold managing agent and the loss adjuster (insurance agent).
31 March 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response and said: it acknowledged the leak on 1 February 2025 and visited the property on the following 2 days after it it apologised for the misinformation it gave the resident about the insurer on 2 February 2025 the managing agent provided a dehumidifier, arranged a wet vax of the resident’s property, and made an insurance claim on behalf of all residents it sent 2 emails in February 2025 asking the resident to complete a survey the loss adjuster attended multiple times in February 2025 and visited the resident’s property, but a lack of access meant it was unable to fully assess the damage the loss adjuster agreed to accept late claims until the end of March 2025 if residents provided it with access it did not uphold the complaint as it followed the correct process
1 April 2025	The resident escalated her complaint and said that the landlord had not added her to a mailing list or sent her the emails in February 2025 regarding the survey. She also said she was unaware of the March 2025 deadline for late claims.
30 June 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response and said: it could not directly manage or fast track the insurance process or associated repairs as it was not the superior landlord, but the managing agent was responsible for this it accepted its communication could have been better it reiterated the involvement of the managing agent and the loss adjuster which it explained in its stage 1 complaint response and said the intercom repair was part of the outstanding insurance claim it accepted it owed the resident a duty of care while she was in temporary accommodation and apologised for the lack of planning and communication, and the absence of support provisions during this time it agreed to review its processes to ensure residents in future receive appropriate help it asked the managing agent to provide her with a clear update and timeline regarding the outstanding repairs and insurance claim, and it had followed up the outstanding work with the managing agent it awarded her £250 for inconvenience during the temporary move and the lack of communication
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident has told us that she would like us to investigate the landlord’s response to her report of a flood and related damage. She said the managing agent had completed some works, but she understood that it would not start any outstanding work until March 2026. There is uncertainty over what works are outstanding. The resident did not accept the landlord’s offer of £250 compensation and said she would like more compensation and for it to complete repairs.

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	The landlord’s response to the flood and related damage
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

6. The resident told the landlord on 10 March 2025 that she was “very susceptible to damp” and reported ongoing damp and mould. We can only look at complaints which a landlord has investigated and had a chance to put right first. As this aspect of the resident’s complaint has not exhausted its complaint procedure, we cannot assess it substantively. We have considered it in the context of the landlord’s complaint handling.
7. The resident referred to another leak on 28 August 2025 which also caused damp and mould and affected the car park and exterior wall. As she made this report after her complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint process, we have not investigated this. It is open to the resident to raise this as a new complaint with the landlord.
8. The resident complained about the actions of the managing agent acting for the freeholder and the loss adjuster. We cannot investigate the actions or omissions of a third party which the landlord has not appointed or control over. As it had not appointed the managing agent and loss adjuster, we cannot investigate their actions or omissions.
9. The resident told us the landlord’s response to the flood affected her health and caused trauma. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if it should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we have investigated

10. While the resident told us she experienced her first flood in 2011 the 2 flood incidents she complained about happened on 1 February 2025. In March 2025 she told the landlord that these floods had caused cold internal temperatures and damaged her internal doors, carpets, furniture, belongings, and flooring. She also told it the floods had damaged the intercom system, communal fire doors, communal lighting, and the stairwell. Our investigation will consider the landlord’s response to this up until its stage 2 complaint response and the commitments it made in this.

The landlord’s response to the flood and related damage

11. The landlord’s out of hours team was unable to provide immediate help in the early hours on 1 February 2025 when the flood occurred. However, it noted the managing agents attended which mitigated the impact on the resident. The records show either the management agent or emergency services had cut off the water and electricity and that water extraction had taken place following the flood. The landlord acted appropriately by attending the block on 2 February 2025. It provided the resident with 2 nights’ accommodation and said its resettlement team would be in touch. This initial response was appropriate as it was in line with the discretion in its replacement homes policy.
12. The landlord told the resident on 4 February 2025 that its home ownership team would make contact to discuss temporary accommodation. While its records show it called her on 4 and 6 February 2025 there are no details of what it said. This was a record keeping failure.
13. The landlord was under no duty to offer the resident additional accommodation or cover the resident’s food costs during a period of stay at temporary accommodation. However, under its replacement homes policy it needed to tell her of the process for claiming these costs. There was a delay in it providing her with the correct insurers details between 2 February 2025 and 17 February 2025 which was unacceptable as it was not in line with its homeowners policy.
14. Under the headlease between the freeholder and landlord, the freeholder was responsible for making an insurance claim for the damage caused by the flooding. The repairs were subject to the insurance claim. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy did not apply as the freeholder owned and managed the block of flats. In contrast, under the lease between the landlord and resident it was responsible for ensuring the freeholder complied with the insurance obligation and related repairs. This meant it had to monitor the progress of the claim to ensure the freeholder or their management agent completed the associated repairs in a timely way.
15. The landlord said that the loss adjuster could not attend before 10 February 2025 and that it was coordinating multiple visits, assessments, and working closely with the managing agent. However, it had not provided us with evidence of this and on the 21 March 2025 it told the resident to contact the loss adjuster directly for updates. We cannot be satisfied it acted reasonably to monitor the work and escalate delays in line with its lease obligations.
16. We also note the resident complained that the landlord had not effectively communicated with her and that she was unaware of the deadline of the end of March 2025 for loss adjuster claims. She was unaware of the timeframe for completing repairs during the complaint process and we have not seen evidence of the emails the landlord said it sent her in February 2025. While we can see it updated her on 21 March 2025, 11 April 2025, and 19 April 2025 it did not offer regular updates after this showing when the managing agent would complete work by.
17. The landlord accepted in its stage 2 complaint response its communication had been poor, and this had inconvenienced the resident. It offered the resident compensation of £250 and agreed to ask the management agent for a clear update and timeline for the insurance claim and associated repairs. It also agreed to review its internal processes to support residents in future where it is not responsible and to ensure residents offered temporary accommodation are supported. While this was appropriate and in line with our dispute resolution principles; be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes, it did not evidence it fulfilled these commitments in a timely way.
18. It was not until 31 October 2025 that the landlord told the resident of a timeline for repairs with dates. This was 123 calendar days after its stage 2 response. Without evidence of what efforts it made to obtain this information, we cannot conclude it acted reasonably. This delay likely caused her further distress. While it offered the resident £250 up to its stage 2 response this was not proportionate to the failings identified in this investigation. This amount did not include compensation for any additional distress or inconvenience caused by its failures to fulfil the commitments in its response in a reasonable time.
19. We have therefore awarded the resident £550 compensation in line with our remedies guidance and considered the resident’s vulnerabilities. This allows for payments of this amount where distress and inconvenience resulted from the landlord’s failures and where its compensation offer was not proportionate to the failings identified. The compensation award replaces the £250 it offered at stage 2 of the complaint process.
20. The resident understands that the managing agent has divided the repair work into several phases and that the agent is currently dealing with phase 2 and aims to start phase 3 in March 2026. However, the landlord said the phase 2 work had completed by 6 January 2026 with the agent due to complete the final works by February 2026. As it is unclear what work is currently outstanding and when the agent will complete the outstanding repairs, we have made an order to clarify this.
21. The resident told the landlord she successfully claimed on her household insurance for damage to her personal belongings, but this affected her premium and involved her in paying an excess. The resident was responsible for insuring her belongings and as the landlord was not responsible for the damage, we cannot say the landlord should cover these insurance related costs.
22. While the resident wanted reimbursement of food costs, laundry, and electricity the landlord was under no obligation to cover these. The resident’s lease allows for it to suspend the rent where the resident’s property is unfit for habitation. While she told it her property was unfit for habitation and requested it inspect it, we have not seen the landlord completed its own inspection to assess this point. This was a failure as it was not in line with its replacement homes policy. We have made an order for the landlord to consider this and whether it ought to offer any rebate for rent paid in line with the lease.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

23. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in our Complaint Handling Code (April 2024). The time scales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
24. While the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at both stages of its complaint process in line with its policy including requesting an extension at stage 2, we have found it took it:
    1. 6 working days to acknowledge the resident’s complaint on 18 March 2025, against a target of 5 working days.
    2. 25 working days to acknowledge the resident’s escalation request on 9 May 2025, against a target of 5 working days.
25. These delays were not in line with the landlord’s complaint policy. It also failed to address the resident’s concerns about damp and mould through the complaint process. This failure likely caused her distress. We have made an order for the landlord to contact the resident to see if she wishes to proceed with this complaint. We have also made an order for it to pay her £100 compensation for its complaint failures. This is in line with our remedies guidance which allows for payments of this amount where a failure has likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience, and it had not acknowledged this.

Learning

26. While the landlord was not responsible directly for the repairs or the damage it failed to show that it had sufficient engagement with the freeholder or its management agent. Landlords should be proactive in pursuing managing agents and freeholders and be clear about respective roles and responsibilities with residents from the outset. Our spotlight report on landlords’ engagement with private freeholders and managing agents contains several recommendations which are relevant to this complaint, for example recommendation 3 would assist the landlord’s learning.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord’s records of the calls it made on 4 and 6 February 2025 were lacking, and it also failed to provide evidence of regular updates after 19 April 2025 showing when the managing agent would complete work by. It did not provide records to show the efforts it made to monitor and escalate matters with the managing agent.
28. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate, and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. This is to allow it to evidence compliance with its policies and help identify and resolve issues in a timely way. In the absence of evidence to show what actions it completed we may be unable to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord complied with its obligations.

Communication

29. The quality of the landlord’s communications and updates were poor; this led to the resident feeling distressed and uncared for.