Southern Housing (202433336)

Back to Top

 

Decision

Case ID

202433336

Decision type

Investigation

Landlord

Southern Housing

Landlord type

Housing Association

Occupancy

Shared Ownership

Date

17 March 2026

Background

  1. The resident lives in a flat on the seventh floor of a block. She raised concerns about the window mechanism which was preventing her windows from operating as they should. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response to these concerns.

What the complaint is about

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to windows.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

  1. We found:
    1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to windows.
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of repairs to windows

  1. The landlord’s approach to the resident’s concerns was fair and reasonable. It considered a number of different avenues to find a solution for her. However, its communication with her was not always good and impacted the handling of the concerns.

Handling of the complaint

  1. The landlord failed to recognise it had not responded at stage 1 within its policy timescales.

 

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

16 April 2026

2

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £250 made up as follows:

  • £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in handling of reports of repairs to the windows.
  • £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in handling the complaint.

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

16 October 2025

 

 

 

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date

What happened

January 2021 to August 2021

The resident reported the windows were not operating as they should. She said a metal piece had fallen out of the window frame.

8 December 2023

The resident raised a complaint following her email of 30 November 2023. She said the landlord previously accepted she did not break the windows. She said she raised the issue in the defect liability period. She said a window expert confirmed the issue was common in new builds where windows were installed quickly to meet deadlines. She said the landlord’s own contractor said it was misaligned but instead removed parts of the mechanism. She said a number of properties in the block were experiencing the same issue. She said she had not heard back from the head of aftercare and was concerned that the bedroom was not properly ventilated.

4 and 5 March 2024

The resident raised additional points to her complaint. She said she had not been able to use the window for 3 years and it was a health hazard as damp was building up. She said she had slept with the window open during “freezing cold” nights and with the window shut during heatwaves. She wanted the windows fixed and compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

25 April 2024

The landlord provided its stage 1 response and said:

  • It had informed the resident in December 2021 that it did not consider the issue to be a defect.
  • The window hinges were damaged. It had sought a second opinion from a glazing contractor who said the mechanism may have broken due to the weight of the window and not by the resident.
  • It passed this to contractors who confirmed the specification of the window to the weight and hinges was correct. Therefore, there was no design fault, and concluded the resident caused the damage.
  • It contacted the building warranty provider to start a claim, who could not help as there was no design fault.
  • It referred the case to its home ownership team who confirmed the resident was responsible for fixtures and fittings including hinges under the terms of the lease.
  • The original installers would only inspect the window after the hinges were repaired.
  • Its contractors had repaired the damaged plaster in May 2023.

9 May 2024

The resident escalated her complaint. She said the issue related to the handle, the metal at the bottom of the window and the window not fitting inside the frame, not the hinges. She said other residents had the same issue so felt it must be a defect. She said the original contractor was unlikely to accept it poorly installed it. She said a contractor removed parts and then another concluded she broke it without considering the full context. She wanted to know if the contractor was independent. She added that the landlord had previously accepted she did not break the window.

22 May 2024

The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said:

  • Residents did not know how to operate the window’s tilt and turn function and due to Covid-19 it had not been able to attend properties as it normally would have.
  • The contractor advised the handle had been removed by the resident and was damaged by not operating the window properly. This was supported by another contractor visit in March 2023. Therefore, it concluded it was not a defect. It was unable to repair and as a shared owner, the windows were her responsibility.

Referral to the Ombudsman

The resident referred her complaint to us in November 2024. She wanted the landlord to accept the error, fix the windows, apologise and compensate for the distress and inconvenience caused.

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 repairs to windows

Finding

Service failure

What we have not considered

  1. The resident disputes that she is liable for the cost of the repairs to the windows. We cannot make liability decisions or determine whether the landlord was responsible for repairing the windows. Matters of liability are best dealt with either by an insurance claim or through the courts. While we cannot determine liability, we have assessed whether the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns appropriately and in accordance with its policies, procedures and its legal obligations.

What we have considered

  1. The headlease is between the freeholder who is also the developer and the leaseholder who is the landlord. It states that the tenant must keep the premises in repair, including the windows. The shared ownership lease between the resident and the landlord states the resident must carry out the repair obligations stated in the headlease.
  2. The property is a new build development. It was subject to a defect liability period whereby the development contractor was liable to rectify defects. The landlord defines defects as faults or breakdowns caused by faulty design, workmanship or materials. Items damaged by the occupier or from general wear and tear are not covered.
  3. The resident raised various concerns with her window operation in January, April and August 2021. This was within the defect period. The windows are tilt and turn meaning they can be opened in two distinct ways. The issue reported was the window mechanism was preventing its closure. The landlord arranged for the developer to inspect the window after the resident submitted photos of the windows in October 2021. The inspection took place 5 months after the report made in August 2021. We see some of that delay was caused by waiting for photos and 2 months was attributable to the developer. We note the landlord was unable to control these delays and it also appropriately chased the developer for updates during these 2 months.
  4. The developer’s contractor attended on 7 December 2021 and reported the window had a broken mechanism preventing it from closing. They recommended that the windows be deglazed, stripped and mechanisms replaced. They said the windows had been operated out of position and the handle had been forced in order to close it. They concluded it was a user error and they would need to be instructed to repair before working on them.
  5. The landlord appropriately notified the resident of this on 13 December 2021. It said it would check with the home ownership team to establish if the cost of the repair would be covered by it under the lease agreement. This was a reasonable response demonstrating it was committed to establishing what the legal obligations were. In February 2022, it confirmed the lease said she was responsible for fixtures and fittings.
  6. The resident raised a claim with the warranty provider on or around April 2022. The landlord advised the warranty company that it was unable to deduct the cost of the window repair from the retention funds held, because the parties were disputing the cause of the fault. It asked the warranty company if it would be able to provide written confirmation that it was a valid defect for the purpose of taking the cost of repair out of the retention funds held back. It was reasonable for it to make such enquiries and showed it wanted to find a solution to the dispute. The warranty company confirmed it could not assist under its resolution service while retention funds were still available. Meaning only after the retention was exhausted or released would it consider getting involved. However, it is not clear if this was explained to the resident. As a result, she incurred time and trouble chasing the landlord for responses in May and June 2022.
  7. The landlord advised the resident in June 2022 it would instruct an independent contractor to review the window. This was a fair and reasonable action for it to take. It showed that despite the previous contractor’s assessment, it was listening to her concerns and was prepared to get a second opinion. The independent contractor attended in July 2022 and concluded it had not been damaged by the resident’s use. Instead, they said the weight of the tilt and turn window was adding pressure to the bottom keep. They recommended replacing removed parts and realignment.
  8. The landlord appropriately explained the next steps to the resident, which was to present these findings to the developer. It chased for a response from the developer in September 2022. The developer did not accept the independent contractor’s findings and maintained it preferred the evidence of its specialist contractor who was more familiar with the system. It also reviewed the technical specifications of the product to ensure its structural integrity. The landlord again asked the warranty provider if it could assist, which it could not due to the retention funds. This was a reasonable step and further demonstrated its commitment to finding a resolution. However, we cannot see that it updated the resident with these developments until she chased it for an update in December 2022 which was not appropriate and caused avoidable distress and inconvenience.
  9. The developer agreed to a meeting in 2023 and inspected the windows again in March 2023. It maintained its original position, that it was a user fault and no defect was detected. It is unclear if this was communicated with the resident as she asked the landlord to fix the window for her and continued to chase for a response. It was only in May 2023 that the landlord advised due to all the previous inspections, it was not liable for the repair.
  10. The evidence shows the landlord contacted the building warranty provider for a  third time to establish if it could be covered under the policy. During this period, the resident continued to chase the landlord to speak with it. It is positive that the landlord was continuing to liaise with the building warranty provider to reach a resolution. However, its lack of engagement with her to provide updates understandably caused worry, distress and inconvenience.
  11. The resident asked for a call back in October 2022. We cannot see that the landlord responded to this which was a further failing. This led to the resident expressing her dissatisfaction in November 2023 leading to her complaint.
  12. Overall, the landlord’s response to the window concerns was fair and reasonable as it:
    1. Contacted the developer who inspected the windows.
    2. Instructed an independent contractor to review the findings given the dispute.
    3. Considered the developer’s further investigation and inspections.
    4. Contacted the building warranty provider for assistance on 3 occasions.
  13. We understand it was a disappointing outcome for the resident, and she does not agree with the findings. However, the landlord showed it explored multiple avenues to seek a resolution. There was one report which supported the resident’s view, but given the additional inspections and further evidence, it was reasonable for it to rely on and attach weight to the reports presented as a whole.
  14. The overall communication with the resident was poor. We have identified instances where it did not keep her updated with its actions. This led to her incurring time and trouble chasing it. It also impacted the handling of the matter as the resident felt her concerns were not fully understood by staff. It understandably left her feeling that the landlord was not clear about the issues and that it was also not doing anything about it.
  15. Our remedies guidance sets out a payment range which is appropriate to put right failings where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. In ordering £100 compensation, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings.

 

Complaint

The handling of the complaint

Finding

Maladministration
  1. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) applicable from April 2024 was in use at the time. This sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a published complaints policy which aligns with the Code.
  2. The resident raised her dissatisfaction of the matter on 30 November 2023 and confirmed she wanted to raise a complaint on 8 December 2023. The landlord confirmed it had been raised as a complaint on 17 January 2024. However, the evidence shows it was not progressed which meant the resident had to chase it for an update. It took 81 working days to acknowledge the complaint which was significantly outside of its 5 day prescribed timescale. It took a further 14 working days to respond at stage 1 which was also not in accordance with the Code or its policy.
  3. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the resident’s escalation and provided its stage 2 response in line with the Code and its policy.
  4. Overall, the landlord failed to properly assess its handling of the complaint against the Code and its policy. Had it done so it would have identified the above failings. As such it also missed an opportunity to put things right. We have made a finding of maladministration and order it to pay £150 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failings that had an impact on the resident.

Learning

  1. The landlord demonstrated a holistic approach in its attempts to find a resolution.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

  1. The landlord’s record keeping was appropriate, and we have not identified any concerns.

Communication

  1. The landlord’s communication was not appropriate. This resulted in the resident having to chase it for updates and impacted the overall handling of the matter.