Soha Housing Limited (202518547)

Decision
Case ID	202518547
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Soha Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	28 January 2026

Background

The resident lived with her partner and 2 young children in the property, which is a 1st floor flat situated at the top of the block. The property is double aspect, with windows facing east and west. This means that the property receives sun for the entire day. There is also no shade around the property. The resident and her family moved out of the property on 29 November 2025 but for ease we have continued to refer to her as ‘the resident’ in this report.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of excessive heat retention within the property.
2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of excessive heat retention within the property.
There was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of the resident’s reports of excessive heat retention within the property

The landlord apologised to the resident and made an offer of compensation for its handling of her reports of excessive heat retention within the property. However, this offer of compensation was not reasonable given the excessive delays that the resident experienced. The landlord did not respond within a reasonable period of time to the resident’s reports of this issue.

Handling of the associated complaint

The landlord handled the resident’s complaint in keeping with the requirements of our complaint handling code (the Code).

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 25 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £550 made up as follows: £150 as offered in its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of excessive heat retention within the property. 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 25 February 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

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

25 February 2026

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £550 made up as follows:

£150 as offered in its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses.
£400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of excessive heat retention within the property.

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 25 February 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
1 July 2025	The resident made her stage 1 complaint on this date. She told the landlord that: Her flat was extremely hot and this was worsening her asthma, her partner’s sleep apnoea, and her children’s breathing issues. She had taken several measures to cool the flat herself, but that these had not solved the problem. She had previously reported the issue to the landlord but it never followed up on these reports. She said that she had recently chased it for updates but got nothing back. During a recent heatwave, she and her family had to sleep in the living room as the bedrooms were excessively hot. She was having to constantly run the portable air-conditioning unit. She said this was pushing her into debt. Its surveyor had told her that the walls hold heat and the flat receives sun all day. The situation is unsafe for her and her family. She said that the landlord is not prioritising their health and safety and wanted it to take urgent action.
8 July 2025	The landlord made its stage 1 complaint response on this date. The landlord told the resident that: It was sorry for the inconvenience she had experienced and recognised that its service had not met expected standards. It would explore possible options to help the resident and her family. She had first reported the issue on 13 May 2024. It said that it recognised that she had contacted it a lot over the last month. Its contractors had contacted her on 23 June 2025 and it carried out a survey into the problem on 30 June 2025. This survey found no defects. It said that the heat was because of the design of the property and the constant direct sunlight it received. It said that the property met building regulations in place at the time. It could not provide a solution to her heat issues at this time. It could support her with exploring a move into a different property and provide support with her request to increase her housing application banding. It asked her to confirm that she wanted this support. It recommended that she contacted her local authority’s environmental health team. It provided the contact details for her to do so. It recognised that the poor communication from its repairs officer had contributed to her stress. It offered her £50 compensation for the inconvenience and apologised for the distress caused.
8 July 2025	The resident made her stage 2 complaint on this date. She told the landlord that: The lack of response and care that she had received was “unacceptable”. She had looked at her phone records and in a period of 2 weeks, she had called it 17 times trying to get through. She said that she had left urgent messages requesting a call back. She said that she did not receive a response to these messages until she made a formal complaint. She felt that her situation had been dismissed by the landlord. She said that she felt that herself and her family were “just another number” to the landlord and that it had not bothered to contact her about her concerns, “let alone actually do something to help”. She did not feel that the £50 compensation was sufficient. She was getting into increasing amounts of debt because she was having to run the air-conditioning unit constantly to allow herself and her family to stay cool.
6 August 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on this date. It told the resident that: It could not see that she had provided any evidence of a diagnosis for the health conditions that she had mentioned but said that she had provided a “health and welfare assessment form” that detailed the family’s medical conditions. It was “concerning and worrying” for it to read how the heat in her home had been impacting on her. It said it was sorry for its delay in communications. It wanted to acknowledge any distress and discomfort that the resident and her family had experienced due to the “persistent heat” in the property. It was sorry for its delay in responding to the resident’s reports of excess heat made on 8 May 2024. It said that it did not respond to this report until 6 June 2024. It said that it had made attempts to contact the resident in June 2024. It could not see that it had taken steps to investigate the issues that the resident had reported until “this year”. It acknowledged that its stage 1 complaint response did not offer the resident any resolution to her excess heat issue. It advised the family to follow the NHS guidance on coping with hot weather and noted that UK homes are designed to retain heat. It would be partially upholding her stage 2 complaint because it recognised that there was more it could do to support her. It said it would consider fitting a window film to reduce heat. It had arranged an appointment for 24 July 2025 to inspect the property (later moved to 29 July, then 12 August at the resident’s own request). The resident’s complaint did not qualify her for a management move or a change to her housing allocation banding. It said that it had contacted her to discuss her moving options. It acknowledged that it should have contacted her sooner and apologised for delays and frustration. It would feedback to its repairs manager about the situation. It offered her an additional £100 in compensation, broken down as follows: £50 for the time and inconvenience. £50 for “distress and frustration due to lack of communication”.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 6 August 2025. She said: Her property was very hot because there was too much insulation in the walls. The landlord had told her there was nothing it could do. She was using a portable air conditioning unit and taking steps to keep the property cool, but it was still too hot.
12 August 2025	Following the landlord’s recommendation, the resident contacted her local authority’s environmental health team who inspected the flat on this date. The environmental health officer rated the excess heat in the property as a category 1 hazard.

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 consider

The resident has told us that the issue with excessive heat in her property has been ongoing since she moved into the property in 2021. This Service has time limits, and we expect residents to raise complaints within a reasonable time, usually within 12 months of an issue occurring. This would therefore be July 2024. However, in this instance, the landlord considered reports spanning back to May 2024. In the interest of fairness and to mirror the approach taken by the landlord, we have also considered reports of the issue spanning back to May 2024.
The resident has told us that she and her family’s health suffered because of the excessive heat in the property. 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 kind 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 considered this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of excessive heat retention within the property.
Finding	Maladministration

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 creates what is known as an ‘implied term’ in tenancy agreements. This means that the landlord must carry out certain repairs to the structure and exterior of the property. it must also complete these repairs within a ‘reasonable period of time’. What is reasonable depends on the circumstances and how urgent the repair is.
A delay in resolving repairs is not always considered a failure, especially if the issue is complicated. However, the landlord should be proactive in its management of the repair and complete the repair as soon as it can. It should keep the resident updated and manage their expectations. It should also complete works to make the property safe in the meantime if there is an immediate health and safety risk to the resident.
The records that the landlord has provided this service show that the resident reported this issue to the landlord on 8 May 2024. The resident has told us that she also reported the issue in June 2024 and July 2024. However, we have not seen any evidence of this. The landlord has not provided this service with any evidence to demonstrate that it took steps to properly investigate these reports made by the resident. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to inspect the property. There was no evidence that it did so, which was a significant failing by the landlord as it did not adhere to its duty to investigate and complete repairs within a reasonable period of time.
The resident reported the issue again in February 2025 and June 2025. The landlord said in its stage 1 complaint response that the resident reported the issue again on 16 June 2025, 18 June 2025 and 20 June 2025. It said that a contactor contacted the resident on 23 June 2025 about her concerns and an inspection of the property was conducted on 30 June 2025. This meant that the landlord had taken over 13 months to inspect the property after the resident’s initial report in May 2024. This was a significant delay and a failing by the landlord.
The landlord said that its contractors found that the only action that it could take would be to install a permanent air-conditioning unit. The landlord told the resident that it was not willing to do this. The landlord has not provided this service with any evidence to show that it offered the resident any other options or support at this stage. This was a failing by the landlord as it offered no resolution to her issues.
In her stage 1 complaint, the resident described the considerable distress that she and her family had experienced as a result of the ongoing excessive heat within her property. The landlord acknowledged within its stage 1 complaint response that “it should not take multiple calls” for it to respond to reports of disrepair. However, it did not apologise for not responding to the resident’s reports of disrepair for over 13 months. It also only offered the resident £50 in compensation, which is not in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for situations where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. This was therefore a missed opportunity by the landlord to put things right for the resident at stage 1 of its complaints process.
The only form of resolution that the landlord offered the resident within its stage 1 complaint was suggesting that she could contact Environmental Health about her concerns. Whilst this was a reasonable suggestion, the landlord missed multiple opportunities to recommend this to the resident after she first reported the issue in 2024. It also missed opportunities to consider alternative steps it could take to reduce the heat on warm days, which were failings.
Within its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord identified that it could have done more to help the resident in its stage 1 complaint response. It also apologised that it took over a year to investigate the issues that the resident had raised and recognised the frustration that the resident would have experienced as a result. It is appreciated that this apology was an attempt by the landlord to put things right for the resident.
The landlord also offered the resident an additional £100 in compensation within its stage 2 complaint response. This brought the total compensation offered to the resident to £150. When considering whether the level of compensation offered by the landlord was reasonable, we not only consider the extent of the failures identified but also the impact that those failures had on the resident. In this case, it is evident that the impact on the resident was considerable. This is evidenced by:
1. The resident telling the landlord in her stage 1 complaint that she felt that she was at her “limit” with the situation and that she and her family felt that the property was unsafe to live in.
2. The resident telling the landlord in email correspondence dated 2 July 2025 that she felt as though it was “turning a blind eye” and ignoring her situation.
3. The resident telling the Environmental Health Officer that she had moved her children out of the property for periods of time during the summer months as the heat was so unbearable for her family and that her young children “could not cope with the heat”.
4. The resident telling the landlord in her stage 2 complaint that she felt “dismissed” by its handling of her reports.
Given the extent of the failures and the impact on the resident, we are not satisfied that the compensation offered by the landlord was fair and reasonable at the time that the stage 2 complaint response was issued. This is because £150 is not in line with amounts set out in our remedies guidance for circumstances where there have been failures that have had a significant impact on the resident.
Also within its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that it could have done more to help the resident at stage 1 of the complaints procedure. It said that it would explore the possibility of installing anti-glare film to the windows of the property. It is appreciated that this is an attempt to put things right by the landlord. However, it provided no clear action plan for this possible resolution. This vagueness would have contributed to the resident’s frustration and was a missed opportunity by the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations.
It is also concerning that it is not clear that the landlord took any steps to accommodate for the health conditions of the resident or her family. Whilst the resident reported these concerns to the landlord in May 2024, the landlord did not acknowledge this point again until its stage 2 complaint response. It told the resident that she had not provided sufficient evidence in relation to the family’s medical conditions. However, it was not clear what additional information it was requesting from the resident, if any. The landlord has not provided this service with evidence to show that it made reasonable enquiries into what support, if any, it could offer to accommodate the family’s needs. This was a failing by the landlord.
The Environmental Health Officer (EHO) inspected the property on 12 August 2025. The EHO identified a number of steps that the landlord could take to resolve the issue, including fitting window restrictors to allow the resident to safely open her windows and an investigation into the insulation levels in the loft. The EHO also suggested that the landlord should monitor the internal temperature of the property. This demonstrates that there were options available to the landlord to help the resident with the heat retention in her property. The EHO ultimately found that the excessive heat in the property was a Category 1 hazard. This would have been identified far sooner if the landlord had taken steps to refer the resident to Environmental Health at the time she made her report in May 2024. This is a significant failing by the landlord.
Following this time, the landlord instructed contractors to complete a further inspection of the property, which was positive. This inspection took place on 23 September 2025. The contractors made a number of suggestions as to how the landlord could improve the internal temperatures in the property. Whilst it is appreciated that this inspection took place after the resident had exhausted the internal complaints procedure, it again shows that the landlord could have done more to investigate the excessive heat within the property and help the resident with this problem. This was a failing by the landlord.
The landlord did not take steps to investigate the loft insulation in the property until 30 October 2025. This was after the deadline set by the EHO to complete this investigation. This Service has not been provided with evidence to explain why the landlord delayed in taking this action. This is a failing by the landlord as it shows that it was not taking steps within its power to resolve the issue for the resident whilst she was still living in the property. The resident has told us that she was still experiencing the issue with excessive heat in her property until she moved out on 25 November 2025.
Considering the above failings by the landlord, and the understandable distress and inconvenience this would have caused the resident, a finding of maladministration has been made. To put this right, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident an additional £400 in compensation, bringing the total payable for this element of her complaint to £550.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
Finding	No maladministration

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and provide a stage 1 response within a further 10 working days. if a resident escalates their complaint, it requires landlords to acknowledge this within 5 working days and provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on the same day that she made it (1 July 2025) and provided its stage 1 complaint response 5 working days later on 8 July 2025. This showed good practice by the landlord as it provided the resident with a prompt response to her complaint.
The landlord also adhered to the timeframes set out within the Code relating to its stage 2 acknowledgment and response.
We have therefore made a finding of no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The resident has told this Service that she reported the issue to the landlord in June and July 2024 but the landlord was unable to provide any evidence of these reports. This may therefore indicate a record keeping issue. Maintaining accurate, detailed records of any contact that a resident makes with it will help the landlord improve transparency and accountability.

Communication

Communication in this case was poor. The resident was left chasing the landlord for a response on numerous occasions. This indicates a training need for the landlord to ensure that its staff are aware of the importance of keeping residents updated on the progress of their cases.