Southern Housing (202428073)

Background

1. The resident held a shared ownership lease with the landlord from September 2019, when the property was completed as a new build. The property is a 1‑bedroom ground‑floor flat. The resident has not reported any additional needs. In October 2023, the resident complained about the landlord’s failure to resolve a noise issue caused by the communal water pipes. In July 2024, he raised a further complaint that the landlord had given incorrect and inconsistent information about repair responsibility between itself and the managing agent. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s responses and brought his complaint to this Service.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise from the communal plumbing.
3. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise from the communal plumbing.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise from the communal plumbing.

5. There were delays in completing the repairs needed to address the noise from the communal pipework. The landlord did not progress the repairs within a reasonable timeframe, and the resident experienced prolonged inconvenience. There was inconsistent communication about which organisation was responsible for progressing the repair, along with shortcomings in coordination and oversight, which contributed to delay.

Complaint Handling

6. The landlord did not follow its complaint policy or the requirements of the Complaint Handling Code because it did not provide its responses within the expected timescales and incorrectly introduced an additional stage. Its complaint management did not maintain effective oversight of the repairs, which meant it missed an opportunity to resolve the complaint at an earlier stage. The landlord relied on the resident to chase progress rather than providing clear and proactive updates. This Service saw no evidence that it reflected on the issues or took steps to learn from them. These failings delayed resolution and caused the resident avoidable time and trouble.

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.

7. We have considered both complaints within a single investigation because the issues raised were closely linked. The matters involved the same property and related to the landlord’s handling of connected events.
8. It is not in dispute that, under the terms of the lease, the landlord is responsible for service media located outside the premises, which includes the communal pipework.
9. The landlord’s repair policy sets a target timescale of 20 working days for routine repairs. It also states that, where the landlord is responsible for repairs to communal areas and shared facilities, it aims to complete these works “as quickly as possible.”
10. This Service’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information management (May 2023) states that landlords should have effective systems in place to ensure staff can easily access the information they require. This includes clear, accessible records setting out responsibility for repairs to shared assets and communal areas.
11. The resident first reported noise from the communal pipework on 14 August 2023. The landlord then missed an appointment scheduled for 20 September 2023. It later attended on 9 October 2023 and identified a banging noise from the communal commercial pipework. A further operative attended on 10 October 2023 and found that a large pressure gauge within the communal pipework was also generating noise. By 5 December 2023, the landlord’s records show that there had been 8 attempts to address the problem over a 6‑month period.
12. The landlord referred the repair to its managing agent, who attended on 29 January 2024, carried out tests, and replaced bearings and seals believed to be contributing to the noise. The resident continued to report disturbance after these works. The landlord instructed an alternative contractor, who attended on 16 July 2024 and installed new pressure valves. This resolved the issue. Overall, the noise had remained unresolved for 11 months after it was first reported.
13. In its final response to Complaint B, the landlord stated that the managing agent was responsible for all communal water pipes. However, the landlord did not involve the managing agent at the outset and instead alternated between using its own operatives and referring the matter to the managing agent, who only became involved in January 2024. This inconsistency created uncertainty about which organisation was responsible for progressing the investigation and repair. The landlord’s explanation on 12 July 2024 was ambiguous, as it stated that the managing agent was responsible for external communal spaces and building insurance, while the landlord was responsible for other aspects of property management. It was open to the resident to understand from this wording that the landlord, not the managing agent, remained responsible for repairing the communal pipework.
14. Overall, there was inconsistent communication with the resident, a lack of internal clarity about repair responsibility, and no clear oversight of the repair process. These issues resulted in multiple operatives and contractors being involved without a coordinated approach. There were repeated delays, periods without meaningful updates, and no evidence of sustained progress. The records also show shortcomings in planning and coordination with the managing agent, which contributed to further delays. Taken together, these issues indicate shortcomings in the landlord’s management of the repair and demonstrate that it did not progress the works within a reasonable timeframe. The resident also spent considerable time and effort pursuing updates over a prolonged period.
15. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord addressed the resident’s repeated requests for a building liabilities matrix setting out the division of responsibilities between it and the managing agent. The absence of this information contributed to the resident’s uncertainty about who was responsible for progressing the repair. We have ordered the landlord to provide the resident with sufficiently clear up to date information about the appropriate points of contact for repair types and needs.
16. In its final formal response, the landlord did not demonstrate that it had considered whether any service improvements could be made as a result of learning from Complaint B. An overall finding of service failure is therefore determined. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £470, representing the combined discretionary compensation it offered in its second stage two response to Complaint A and its stage one response to Complaint B, to recognise the distress and inconvenience experienced during the repair process.

17. The landlord’s complaint policy sets out a two‑stage complaint process.
18. It is without dispute that the landlord did not meet the timeframes in its complaint policy or in this Service’s Complaint Handling Code. For Complaint A it took over 5 months from the resident’s initial complaint to issue its final response with delays at each stage, and approaching 3 months for Complaint B. As a result, the resident waited longer than necessary for a resolution and had to invest avoidable time and trouble in seeking updates and a resolution.
19. In its stage 1 response to Complaint A, the landlord said it was “committed to finding a timely resolution.” However, it did not follow through on this commitment, and the subsequent delays meant it missed an opportunity to address the resident’s concerns sooner. This indicates shortcomings in its oversight of the complaint‑handling process.
20. For Complaint A, the landlord applied an incorrect process by inserting an additional stage into its complaint procedure, effectively creating a second stage two. This was not in accordance with its published complaints policy or the Code and resulted in unnecessary delay and confusion for the resident. It is positive that in this second stage two response, the landlord included a proportionate compensation payment to recognise the delays in its handling of Complaint A.
21. In addition, the landlord’s final responses did not demonstrate any significant learning from its acknowledged failures in its complaint‑handling failures. It also did not explain how it intended to improve its complaint service processes as a result.
22. Consequently, we find there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord is ordered to pay £50 to the resident, in line with our Remedies Guidance. This is for the delay in its handling of Complaint B and replaces the £30 that the landlord offered on 30 August 2024.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. There was a lack of cohesion in the landlord’s communication with both the managing agent and the resident, which contributed to delays in completing the repair. The landlord should consider proactive updates to ensure it has clear documentation that sets out which organisation is responsible for each service area on estates where it owns, manages, leases, or sub‑lets property.
24. The landlord should consider ensuring that complaints are managed within the timescales set out in its complaint policy and the Complaint Handling Code. Introducing unplanned stages can lead to avoidable delays and undermine the resident’s confidence in the complaints process.
25. The landlord did not follow through on the commitments made in its complaint responses. The landlord may wish to review how it could ensure that commitments given at all stages of a complaint are tracked, actioned, and evidenced, and that any relevant organisational learning is captured and improvement opportunities identified are brought into its operations.