From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Southampton City Council (202324519)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324519

Southampton City Council

22 April 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. Rusty water from the cold taps, and a fault with the internal stop tap.
    2. Leaks and associated damage.
  2. We also considered the landlord’s handling of the related complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy for a 1-bedroom flat on the first floor of a 12-story tower block containing 104 flats. The tenancy started in September 2019. The landlord is a local council.
  2. The resident resides at the property with her partner and 3 young children. The landlord has no other vulnerabilities recorded on its system for the resident or her household.
  3. The landlord’s repair notes indicate that it raised a job on 21 February 2023 in relation to the resident’s reports concerning rusty water from the cold taps and a faulty stop tap. On 23 February 2023 the landlord told the resident it would be in touch with her once it had arranged to visit with its plumber and the water company. The landlord’s repair notes also show that on 21 March 2023 it raised another job in relation to a leak coming from the resident’s bathroom ceiling.
  4. On 22 March 2023, the landlord left a voicemail message updating the resident regarding the faulty stop tap. It told her it needed to arrange a “block shutdown” for the stop tap to be replaced and it was in communication with the water company regarding this. It left another voicemail for the resident on 23 March 2023 saying that it was still trying to gain access to the flat above to investigate the leak but hoped to do so that evening. On 5 April 2023, the landlord added a note stating the leak would be repaired that week.
  5. On 6 June 2023, and 24 June 2023, the resident raised formal complaints via the landlord’s webform system. Within these she stated:
    1. Water from the cold tap had been rusty since moving into the flat 4 years prior. The landlord had previously investigated this but never resolved this issue.
    2. The landlord took a large section of wall out behind her toilet in the bathroom a few years ago to check piping but never replaced it. The hole is unsafe as it was big enough for her children to climb into.
    3. Her stop tap was not working. If a leak were to occur, she would be unable to turn off the water.
    4. Leaks from the bathroom and kitchen ceilings were contained and eventually stopped.
    5. Another leak occurred in the bathroom whilst she was away. While this was not actively leaking, it had caused permanent water damage to her bathroom floor.
    6. She requested a damp test.
    7. All issues had been reported to the landlord several times.
  6. On 20 July 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. This stated:
    1. Regarding water ingress, it visited flats in the resident’s block on 10 and 19 July 2023 and identified a corroded basin waste pipe in the flat above the resident’s. This had now been repaired.
    2. The resident should make it aware if any further water ingress appeared.
    3. It had raised an order for a decorator to attend and make good any damage in the bathroom.
    4. A previous attempt to replace her internal stop tap could not be completed.
    5. It had arranged for its contractor, the water company, and its plumber to attend on 15 September 2023 to try and resolve the issue with her internal stop valve.
    6. The issue with rusty water would be looked at when the internal stop tap was changed.
  7. On 28 July 2023 the resident raised a stage 2 complaint. This stated:
    1. Its response did not mention the length of time she had been living with a dangerous hole in her bathroom wall.
    2. They had not had any clean drinking water since moving into the property.
    3. She had had to spend over £1,000 on bottled water, plus ‘Brita’ filters to feed babies their formula, during the 4 years living at the property.
    4. No compensation had been offered to her for these purchases.
    5. She believed compensation should be offered due to the amount of time she had waited for these issues to be rectified and were still ongoing.
  8. On 23 August 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. This said:
    1. It had responded appropriately each time a leak report was received despite significant challenges to identify the root cause. It did not uphold this aspect of her complaint.
    2. It was unable to make a finding in respect of the rusty water as it was yet to establish what the source of this and where, if any, liability lie.
    3. There had been on-going difficulties co-ordinating a visit with the water company.
    4. An appointment had been booked for 15 September 2023 when it hoped replacing both the external and internal stop taps may enable it to fully explore the “rusty water” issue.
    5. It was unable to offer compensation for purchases of water over the years until the source of the rusty water was identified.

Post the landlord’s final response

  1. On 19 September 2023 the resident told us that while the repairs were in progress, she was unhappy about the length of time the issues had been unresolved. She said that it was only after she raised a complaint that the landlord acted.
  2. On 4 April 2025 the landlord told us that all the repairs listed in the original complaint had been completed but that the rusty water problem still existed. It said that the resident had not reported any concerns about rusty water since the end of 2023, however it had spoken to her on 31 March 2025 and was currently making arrangements for an external plumbing contractor to return and assess further what might be causing this problem.

Assessment and findings

Scope of this investigation

  1. In her complaint the resident said the leak had impacted her child’s health. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to investigate if there was a causal link between reports of poor health issues experienced and the actions of the landlord. The resident may wish to seek legal advice about this, as a personal injury claim may be a more appropriate way of dealing with this aspect of the complaint. As this claim is more appropriately dealt with by a court or other procedure, this element will not be investigated. However, consideration has been given to whether the landlord appropriately considered vulnerabilities in the resident’s household while handling her reports and associated complaint.
  2. In her complaint, the resident stated that she had experienced the issues raised in her complaint for the past few years. The landlord’s repair notes confirm the resident had previously reported the issues concerning rusty water from her cold taps and leaks from as early as 2020 and that it had investigated her reports at these times. However, the focus of our investigation will be from February 2023. Prior to this, the resident had not made any reports concerning rusty water during the previous 15 months or about leaks during the previous 26 months. This is within a reasonable timeframe of the resident’s formal complaint dated 6 June 2023. Any reference to events pre-2023, is for context only.

Handling of the resident’s reports of rusty water from the cold taps and a fault with the internal stop tap

  1. In her complaint the resident raised a concern about an ongoing issue with rusty water coming from her cold taps. She said she had been buying bottled water to drink, and a water filter to make her baby’s formulae milk due to safety concerns. The resident also said her (internal) stop tap was not working.
  2. The landlord is responsible for internal plumbing at the property including the internal stop tap. While the water company (Southern water) is responsible for the quality of the water, if the issue concerning rusty water from the cold tap relates to a fault with the landlord’s assets for example internal piping, it would fall to the landlord to address. As such we would expect the landlord to investigate the resident’s reports of this nature in line with its repair policy to identify a suitable course of action to address the problem. This includes working with the water company where necessary. Under its repair policy the landlord must attend:
    1. emergency repairs within 4 hours
    2. urgent repairs within 2 days
    3. priority repairs within 10 days
    4. standard repairs within 25 days
    5. planned minor works within 60 days
  3. The landlord has not provided any records of the resident’s calls or reports during the complaint timeframe in 2023. Nonetheless, its repair notes show that on 21 February 2023 the landlord contacted its contractor, plumber, and the water company to arrange a joint visit to further explore the rusty water report. This indicates the resident had been in communication with the landlord around this time to report this issue, but it is unclear exactly when. Its approach at this time to arrange a joint visit with its internal teams as well as with the water company, was reasonable given that the resolution might have required input from all parties.
  4. The note dated 21 February 2023 also mentions that to replace the resident’s internal stop tap, the water company needed to isolate the block’s water supply. This shows the landlord was aware of the resident’s faulty internal stop tap at this time, and that it intended to address this issue during the joint visit. This was appropriate.
  5. The landlord told the resident on 22 February 2023 that it would get in touch with her when it had arranged an appointment with all the parties. While its repair notes indicate the landlord chased this matter up internally on 22 March 2023, and again on 3 May 2022, there is no evidence of it informing the resident of an appointment. This is evidence of poor communication from the landlord and of it failing to act in accordance with timescales in its repair policy. A few weeks later, the resident raised a formal complaint on 6 June 2023, regarding its handling of her reports which she said remained unresolved.
  6. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it would investigate the rusty water on 15 September 2023 with the water company, its repair contractor, and plumber. It told her it would also replace the internal stop tap. It is evident the landlord believed replacement of both the internal and external stop tap might have resolved the problem. It is recognised that because of the need to co-ordinate the visit with the water company as well as different internal teams, it is reasonable to expect that it may take the landlord slightly longer to arrange. Nonetheless bearing in mind the landlord told the resident on 22 February 2023 that it would arrange this appointment, the extended timeframe taken to do this until 15 September 2023 indicates an unreasonable delay by the landlord. Particularly as it was aware of how this issue was impacting the resident and her young children.
  7. It has not explained this delay other than to say that on-going efforts to co-ordinate this had proved difficult. The landlord did not apologise for the delay or offer any compensation. While its explanation provided for not reimbursing the resident for bottled water and filters was reasonable, in the circumstances, compensation for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused would have been appropriate.
  8. We also expect landlords to demonstrate they have provided repairs or actions promised during the complaints process. In the resident’s case, it agreed to address the rusty water issue and the fault with her stop tap on 15 September 2023. However, the landlord’s repair notes of this visit states there was insufficient time to do the job. While there is another repair note dated 1 November 2023 which suggests the landlord rebooked the appointment, this states the resident was not at the property.
  9. In response to our further information request, on 4 April 2025 the landlord acknowledged that the problem with rusty water from the resident’s cold taps still existed but stated that all other repairs had been completed. While this suggests the landlord has replaced the faulty internal stop top, this is not confirmed in the repair records provided to this Service. Landlords are expected to keep records including the outcome of a visit and the type and date of the repair provided. Its failure to do so here means we are unable to confirm if it repaired or replaced the internal stop tap within a reasonable time of its final response. This and the lack any records of the resident’s reports or calls during the timeframe investigated indicates an issue with the landlord’s knowledge and information management (KIM). An appropriate order has been included below.
  10. In summary there was an unreasonable delay by the landlord in arranging a joint visit with the water company which was necessary to replace the faulty internal stop tap and investigate the cause of the rusty water from the cold tap. While the joint appointment took place on the date stated in the final response, there is no evidence of the landlord identifying the cause of the rusty water at this time or at any time since. These issues and poor KIM are indicative of maladministration by the landlord.
  11. In the circumstances, it is reasonable for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £300 for the stress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by failings while handling reports of rusty water from the cold taps and a fault with the internal stop tap. This amount is in line with the level recommended in our remedies guidance where failings have adversely affected the resident.
  12. On 4 April 2023 the landlord told us it was currently making arrangements for an external plumbing contractor to attend and assess further what might be causing the rusty water problem. An appropriate order has been included below.

Handling of the resident’s report of leaks and associated damage

  1. In her complaint the resident said there had been leaks in the bathroom and kitchen coming from the flat above.
  2. The landlord’s repair notes indicate it raised a job on 21 March 2023 to repair an “uncontainable” leak coming from the resident’s bathroom. Under its repair policy “uncontainable leaks” constitute an emergency repair and require the landlord to attend within 4 hours. The landlord’s records however indicate that it took until 7 April 2023 for this leak to be repaired with no evidence of it attending within 4 hours.
  3. We recognise that tracing the source of a leak in a block can be complex when it involves accessing other flats, particularly where the landlord is not the owner of all flats in the block, as in this case. However, as the landlord took between 2 to 3 weeks to resolve this leak, this indicates it did not act with sufficient urgency or within its timescales for emergency, urgent or priority repairs (4 hours 2 days or 10 days respectively). This was inappropriate.
  4. In her formal complaint raised around 2 months later on 6 June 2023, the resident acknowledged that previous leaks had stopped but reported that she had found signs of another leak from the bathroom ceiling in May 2023 after returning from a period away from the property. She said while it was not active at that time, it had caused permanent damage to the flooring.
  5. In response the landlord arranged visits with its plumbers on 10 and 19 July 2023, to investigate the resident’s further report. Although the resident had said it was not “actively leaking”, it was appropriate that the landlord investigate her report to identify the source and mitigate the risk of any further leaks. In its stage 1 response the landlord said that during these visits it identified a corroded basin waste pipe in a flat (directly above hers) after removing “firestopping” from behind the toilet. It told her it believed the repair undertaken had rectified the issue. There is no evidence of the resident reporting any further issues with leaks after the date of its stage 1 response suggesting works undertaken by the landlord during its visits resolved the leaks.
  6. Therefore, although there were some delays by the landlord in tracing the source of the leaks, the action it then took effectively resolved the problem.
  7. Regarding damage to the resident’s bathroom wall, in its stage 1 response the landlord agreed to rectify this damage and said it had raised a job for this. This was appropriate however it is evident the repairs were still in progress at the date of its final response issued a few weeks later. As mentioned above, we expect landlords to demonstrate they have completed repairs promised during the complaints process. In the resident’s case, we have not seen any records of this repair being completed although the landlord has since told us it was carried out. This is further evidence of poor KIM by the landlord while handling repairs and means we cannot verify if the landlord followed through with its promise to repair the bathroom wall.
  8. In summary, the landlord investigated and repaired reported leaks from the flat above and promised to rectify damage to the resident’s bathroom wall which was appropriate. However, there were some delays in addressing reported leaks and poor record keeping around repairs provided in response to the resident’s report of damage to her internal wall, this is indicative of service failure by the landlord.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process under which it aims to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and provide a stage 1 response within a further 10 working days. At stage 2 the landlord aims to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and provide a stage 2 response within a further 20 working days.
  2. The resident submitted a stage 1 webform on 6 June 2023 and a further stage 1 webform on 23 June 2023. There is no evidence of the landlord acknowledging either complaint as per its process. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 20 July 2023. This was 44 working days after the resident’s initial complaint indicating the landlord did not act within its 10-working day timescale. As both the resident’s stage 1 complaints were related to the same concerns, the landlord said it would address them in its stage 1 response which was appropriate.
  3. In its final response the landlord explained the cause of the delay. It said there was a system error which meant her web complaints had not been converted to PDF format and sent to the relevant team to action. It apologised to the resident for the lack of any timely responses provided and told her the technical issue had since been fixed. Although its acknowledgement and apology provided was appropriate, an offer of compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by this would also have been reasonable in the circumstances.
  4. Also, we are mindful that in its complaint responses, the landlord failed to address all points raised by the resident in her complaint. In her stage 1 complaint the resident raised safety concerns regarding the hole in her bathroom wall that she said had been left by the landlord for some years. The landlord failed to respond to this specific point at stage 1 and 2 of its complaints process. The resident also requested a damp reading due to prior leaks and there is no evidence of the landlord acting on this request or responding to this in its responses.
  5. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) makes clear landlords are expected to address all points raised in a complaint. The landlord also did not respond to the resident’s complaint about water damage caused to her bathroom flooring. We would expect in the circumstance for the landlord to explain responsibility for damage under the tenancy agreement, and how to make an insurance claim for this if relevant. The landlord’s failure to address all points raised is evidence of poor complaint handling.
  6. As the redress offered for the delay in responding to her stage 1 complaints was insufficient and the landlord did not address all points raised by the resident in her complaints, this is indicative of maladministration by the landlord.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of rusty water from the cold taps and a fault with the internal stop tap.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks and associated damage.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s related complaint.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that the landlord, within 4 weeks:
    1. Provide an apology to the resident for the failings identified in this investigation.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £600 made up of:
      1. £300 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble for failings while handling the resident’s reports of rusty water from the cold taps and a fault with the internal stop tap.
      2. £100 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble for failings while handling the resident’s reports of leaks and associated damage.
      3. £200 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble for failings while handling the resident’s related complaint.
    3. Proceed with its investigation into the cause of the rusty water from the cold taps in line with its repair timescales and ensuring it provides regular updates to the resident.
    4. Contact the resident to check if any aspect of the complaint raised remains outstanding and if appropriate, agree an action plan to address these.
  2. Within 8 weeks:
    1. Read the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (May 2023) and follow-up report (January 2025) and if not already done so, self-assess against the recommendations in the original report.
    2. Provide us with evidence of compliance with the above orders.