Southern Housing (202402025)

Background

1. The resident reported leaks affecting his kitchen in 2022 and 2024.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks to the kitchen and subsequent repairs.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks to the kitchen and subsequent repairs.
5. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord failed to investigate, follow up and resolve leaks within policy timescales and did not maintain effective oversight of repairs. Poor communication led to delays, missed or refused appointments, and prolonged distress. The compensation offered did not adequately reflect the impact on the resident.
7. The landlord significantly delayed its initial complaint response but later acknowledged the failings and offered compensation in line with our guidance. It demonstrated clear improvements in complaint handling times and investigation quality following internal changes.

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.

Recommendations

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

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’ve not investigated

8. The resident has referred to how his living conditions impacted his health and wellbeing. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for him 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 a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience and whether it adequately considered the household vulnerabilities.

Assessment

9. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will make safe emergency repairs within 6 hours and complete routine repairs within 20 working days. It says it will usually repair rather than replace components of a home. It will use its discretion to replace if it would be better value for money or a repair would be ineffective. It would not replace all kitchen cupboard doors because one needed replacing but would make a reasonable match to replace one. It says it will call and leave a card for any appointment if it cannot gain access.

Leak under the sink

10. The landlord attended an emergency leak in August 2022 and raised a repair to investigate a leak under the sink from a solder fitting. The resident chased this repair in October 2022, saying an emergency plumber had attended the leak on 11 August 2022 but was unable to fix it and reported this. He said the 8 weeks of a continued leak had wrecked the kitchen and he asked the landlord to fix this. The landlord responded and told him to contact the repairs team directly. This was unreasonable and not in line with its repairs policy which allows residents to report repairs in a number of ways.
11. The landlord raised a repair to investigate the damaged kitchen units 3 weeks later in October 2022. The contractor rescheduled this 3 times with no completion date recorded. It did not action any repairs to the leak which the resident had confirmed was outstanding. This shows a lack of oversight in the repairs process. The resident complained in November 2022 confirming there had been a missed appointment to inspect the kitchen units, and a second missed appointment a week later. The next day he said a contractor attended but had not informed him they had booked an appointment. This shows poor communication.
12. The landlord responded in December 2022, offering £50 for the missed appointments and asking if the repair under the sink was now complete. The resident confirmed it was not. The resident chased the landlord in January 2023, and it raised a repair to replace the kitchen sink unit. It completed an inspection in January 2023 rather than a replacement with no follow on works booked or communication to the resident. This was inappropriate and meant it failed to meet the deadlines from its repairs policy.
13. The resident continued to chase the repairs in March 2023, and the landlord raised a further works order to replace the damaged kitchen unit in May 2023. This again reflected a significant delay in its repairs timeframe, outside of its 20 working day policy. The job notes say the resident refused the work as he believed it was going to replace all the kitchen drawers, door fronts and worktops and did not want the work partially completed. The contractor told the landlord the kitchen was in good condition and did not warrant further replacements. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the contractor’s inspection and in line with its policy not to carry out unnecessary replacements. However, it did not appropriately communicate this to the resident. It also did not identify that the leak was ongoing.
14. In September 2023 the resident refused access to the contractor as he said they attended for the wrong job. He said the sink cabinet, worktops and end panel needed replacing. The landlord arranged a surveyor appointment in the same month. This was a reasonable step to clarify the required work. It recorded this as a no access appointment, but the resident disputed this as he said he did not receive a call or a card in line with the repairs policy guidance on missed appointments.
15. The resident continued to chase the repairs in October 2023. The contractor told the landlord they referred the repair back in June 2023 as the resident refused work and the kitchen did not require replacement. The landlord’s lack of awareness of this and failure to communicate with the resident showed continued poor oversight of the required repairs.
16. The landlord’s stage 1 response in November 2023 offered compensation of £100 and said it had resolved the issue. This was despite recent confirmation from the contractor and the resident on what the outstanding matters were. This was an inappropriate response, and the offer of compensation didn’t take into account the continued inconvenience caused by its poor communication and oversight of repairs. The resident confirmed it had not resolved the work, escalated the complaint and continued to chase the repairs.
17. The landlord’s stage 2 response in January 2024 apologised for the delay in replacing the kitchen cupboards and said it had asked the contractor to arrange an appointment. It offered compensation of £250 for its handling of repairs. This response failed to set clear expectations with the resident about what work it would and would not do. It also failed to address the ongoing leak. The compensation was not sufficient given the leak was outstanding since late 2022. The landlord’s poor communication exacerbated the delay in resolving the repairs. It eventually resolved the leak in May 2024, when attending the separate report of a leak from above.

The leak from above

18. In March 2024 the resident reported a leak from the flat above into his kitchen. The landlord attended within its emergency repair timeframe and noted the leak may be from the boiler and it needed a heating contractor. In April 2024 the resident chased the landlord as the leak was ongoing. He raised a complaint that it hadn’t sufficiently investigated or fixed the leak, so he had visited the flat upstairs himself after a week to resolve the leak himself. He asked for the landlord to decorate and replace the kitchen.
19. In April 2024 the landlord raised repairs for plastering the ceiling and plumbing. It attended on 7 May 2024 and resolved the leak under the sink from 2022. The resident had resolved the leak from above himself by this point. The landlord failed to address the leak from above within it repairs policy timeframes as this was outstanding for a week. It later acknowledged this was due to an internal communication failure.
20. The landlord visited to assess the ceiling on 26 April 2024 but completed the repairs in June 2024. Though this was outside of its routine repairs timeframe, the delay was reasonable as it had to arrange the appointment around the resident’s holiday. However, the landlord’s records from July 2024 and the resident’s communications since show it failed to complete all remedial works and some are potentially still outstanding
21. The landlord initially said it could not consider reimbursing the resident for the damage to his floating shelf from the leak. This was inappropriate as its compensation policy says it can consider compensation for personal items when its service failure directly causes damage. It was positive that the landlord later reflected on this and offered a sum for a new floating shelf. It was resolution focussed for the landlord to reconsider its ability to cover the cost of the resident’s damaged goods.
22. The landlord offered £80 compensation across the May-June 2024 complaints responses. That amount is within the range that our compensation guidance recommends where there was a failing of a short duration that had a low impact. This was not sufficient to take into account the distress and inconvenience the leak from above (and related follow on repairs) caused the resident over a few months.

Summary

23. The landlord failed to fix a kitchen pipework leak for 19 months. It continued to raise remedial repairs without clearly communicating what work it intended to complete with the resident. This resulted in refused access, distress and inconvenience. It then failed to repair an emergency leak from above and did not have sufficient oversight of its contractors to follow this up. It repeatedly failed to manage its repairs processes, raise follow on works and communicate adequately with the resident.
24. The total compensation offer across both complaints of £330 is not sufficient and we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £500 in line with our compensation guidance for failings that had an adverse effect. We have also ordered the landlord to carry out a survey of the kitchen and provide written confirmation to the resident of what work it will be completing and what the timeframes for this work will be.

25. Landlords must handle complaints as per their own policies and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code say landlords should have a 2 stage complaint process and respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord’s policies mirror these timescales.
26. The landlord sent its first stage 1 response (in November 2023) a year after the resident’s complaint. During this time, the resident repeatedly chased the response and asked to escalate but the landlord told him it could not escalate without a stage 1, with no evidence it chased this internally. Its response was generic with no evidence of an investigation or recognised failings.
27. The landlord sent its January 2024 stage 2 response 29 days after the escalation request. It recognised the delays in its complaint handling and offered compensation of £150. The landlord has explained it was undergoing a merger at the time of the complaint which affected its staffing levels and complaint handling. The landlord has confirmed it has taken positive internal action to address these delays going forwards.
28. Following the resident’s second complaint in early 2024, the landlord sent its stage 1 response 2 days late. Though it missed the opportunity to apologise for the delay, this was minimal and it also raised relevant repairs after receiving the complaint. This likely mitigated any effect the delay may have had. It sent its stage 2 response within 6 working days of the complaint escalation.
29. Overall, the landlord significantly delayed its first complaint response but recognised this and offered compensation in line with our compensation guidance for complaint handling failings with a significant impact. It also showed substantial improvements in its investigations and response times following internal changes.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. The landlord’s records were generally comprehensive, demonstrating that it captured and maintained relevant information. However, this information was not consistently utilised to inform follow‑on actions or shape responses to the resident, resulting in missed opportunities to provide coherent and well‑evidenced decision‑making. This highlights a learning point around knowledge and information management as effective record‑keeping should directly support service delivery and complaint handling. The landlord should ensure that it actively reviews recorded information and uses it to guide actions, responses and communication, enabling more consistent, informed and accountable outcomes.

Communication

31. The landlord demonstrated poor communication throughout the handling of the complaint, both internally and in its engagement with the resident. A lack of clear and timely information contributed to confusion and frustration. While there were improvements evident during the handling of the most recent complaint, the landlord should build on this to ensure it embeds this into everyday practice. It should ensure it consistently focuses on clear and proactive communication, with effective information sharing between teams and regular, meaningful updates to residents.