Southern Housing (202222548)

Decision
Case ID	202222548
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Southern Housing
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	20 November 2025

Background

1. The resident has lived in the property, a one-bedroom flat, since 2010. The property is on an estate which has roads with speed ramps.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a hazard.
   2. Associated formal complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a hazard.
   2. Associated formal complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord did not treat the hazard with the urgency it warranted and did not promptly follow through on agreed actions. It identified failings and offered redress, but this was not proportionate to the failures identified in this report.
5. The landlord did not handle the complaint in line with its policy. It delayed logging and then escalating the complaint. It did not offer explanations or redress.

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 provided by a senior member of its leadership team. 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 18 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must provide documentary evidence it has paid directly to the resident £650 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures, made up as follows:  £500 for its response to his reports of a hazard (inclusive of the £125 previously offered). £150 for its response to his formal complaint.	No later than 18 December 2025
3	Case review The landlord must provide documentary evidence it has reviewed the complaint handling failures highlighted in this investigation alongside the provisions of the Code.	No later than 18 December 2025

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
6 December 2022	The resident complained to the landlord about a speed ramp. He said he had repeatedly reported it as a trip hazard since March 2022, after his friend tripped and injured herself. Since then, other residents had also been injured after falling over it. He said the ramp spikes’ yellow paint had worn away leaving it the same colour as the tarmac. This, combined with the poor lighting and planters in the area, made it hard to see. He wanted the hazard to be made safe to avoid anyone else getting hurt.
27 January 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response, setting out a timeline of events. It upheld the complaint, recognising the delay in inspecting the area and making it safe. It apologised and set out a schedule of proposed work with target completion dates.
Throughout 2023	The resident contacted the landlord, including its CEO, to say repairs had not been completed as advised or had failed soon after. He reiterated his concerns about the hazard and the danger posed to residents’ (particularly the elderly) health and safety (others had since fallen and been injured). He made suggestions for remedial action.
4 January 2024	Following our intervention, the landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2.
9 February 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response, setting out an updated timeline of events. It acknowledged missed appointments and repair delays. It said it could not give timescales for planned repairs but would update on the progress. It had engaged new contractors due to challenges experienced with the previous one. It detailed an action plan. It upheld the complaint due to ‘sub-standard’ service and delays. It offered £125 compensation for inconvenience, time, and trouble.
December 2024	The speed ramp was removed.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy with the time taken to address the 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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a hazard
Finding	Maladministration

6. The resident has told us about ongoing issues with the landlord. We can only consider issues which have first been raised with the landlord and addressed through its internal complaint process. We do not generally investigate live issues or apply the benefit of hindsight to our investigations. Therefore, new concerns, even about ongoing issues, must first be raised as a new complaint with the landlord. Once any new complaint has completed the landlord’s complaint process, it can be referred to us.
7. The landlord has accepted its service failures in its complaint responses and offered compensation. Overall, our investigation found the same failings and the hazard has since been removed. Therefore, the question before us is whether the landlord has awarded sufficient redress for its identified failings.
8. The landlord was informed of the hazard on 25 March 2022, the day after the resident’s friend tripped and injured herself. The resident and his friend then sent multiple chasers without any investigation or action being taken. There was no investigation or action until February 2023, after the complaint was logged with our help. During this period, the landlord had settled a personal injury claim and been informed of other incidents. We have not found a reasonable explanation for the delays.
9. After initial work (painting and partial fixing of the lighting) in February 2023, there was again a lack of progress. Jobs were raised for the remaining lighting to be fixed, but this was not completed until February 2024. In fact, all the identified and promised work was not completed until July 2024, more than 2 years after the hazard was brought to the landlord’s attention.
10. During this period, the resident continued to report the absence of lighting and the seriousness of the hazard. He contacted various teams and staff members to get meaningful action taken but often struggled to get a response. When individual staff took ownership of the issue, they then struggled to move things along. This meant that, even when the resident received an update with proposed action, it did not take place. Again, there is no reasonable explanation for this lack of progress. The landlord said it faced challenges with its contractor. However, it has not explained why it did not do more sooner to address those challenges and its contractor’s lack of action.
11. To further add to the resident’s frustration, in October 2023, the landlord cut down a small palm tree in front of a faulty light, but left the palm tree in front of the working light (blocking it out) untouched. It is understandable that the resident felt it was not working efficiently. Despite staff’s best efforts, they could not get colleagues and contractors to act. We have seen evidence of individuals trying their best to resolve the issue with little positive result.
12. Further, it is not clear if consideration was given to pedestrian access when designing the speed ramp. Residents had no choice but to walk in the road as a section of the footpath was blocked by planters. It was within this area that the speed ramp was placed. We have not seen evidence that the installation of the speed ramp was suitably risk assessed or that, once it was brought to the landlord’s attention, it did so then.
13. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a hazard. It offered £125 compensation, saying its compensation policy did not allow for redress to be paid for communal repairs. However, this was not an appropriate position to take. The resident had repeatedly and candidly communicated the serious nature of the issue, providing photographs of significant injuries incurred by multiple people. He had to continuously chase, spending time and effort in obtaining contact information for senior members of staff, in the hope someone would act. He repeatedly faced a lack of updates and progress. Ultimately, the length of time it took to meaningfully address the issue was unreasonable and disproportionate to the risk posed.
14. The landlord is ordered to write to the resident with a sincere apology for its failings. It is ordered to pay £500 compensation (inclusive of the £125 previously offered) for the trouble, upset, and inconvenience caused by its failings. This is in line with our remedies guidance, considering the length of time taken, the poor communication, the lack of explanations, and the impact on the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

15. The landlord’s complaint policy applicable at the time defined a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by it, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or a group of residents.”
16. The policy set out a 2-stage complaint process. It set out timeframes; 5 working days to acknowledge the complaint, 10 working days for a full response at stage 1 (with an extension of an extra 10 working days if needed), and 20 working days at stage 2 (with an extension of an extra 20 working days if needed). At both stages, an extension would only be with good reason and the agreement of the resident.
17. The landlord’s stage 1 response was issued 35 working days after it was logged. This was after we intervened and asked it to respond to the complaint. There is no evidence of an acknowledgement sent within 5 working days. Further, while the complaint was logged on 6 December 2022, the resident had been expressing his dissatisfaction for months beforehand. This should have been treated as a complaint sooner.
18. The landlord then did not escalate the complaint to stage 2 even though the resident repeatedly expressed his unhappiness with the ongoing lack of progress. Again, the complaint was only escalated and logged after our intervention. Even then an acknowledgement was not sent within 5 working days. The landlord then issued its stage 2 response 27 working days later. While it updated us about the delay, we have not seen evidence of it updating the resident or agreeing an extension with him.
19. The landlord did not acknowledge the delays and failings in its complaint handling. It did not offer any explanations, apologies, or redress for this. We have, therefore, found maladministration in its handling of the complaint. It is ordered to write to the resident with an apology and pay him £150 compensation for the upset and inconvenience caused by its failures, in line with our remedies guidance.
20. On 8 February 2024 we issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in policy and practice. The Code applied from 1 April 2024 and we have a duty to monitor compliance with it. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met. As a result, no specific order is made on this case with regard to the landlord’s compliance with the Code, and the contents of its policies and procedures in that regard.
21. However, an order is made for the landlord to review its handling of the complaint in this case, alongside the provisions of the Code in order to: understand how the failings occurred; identify areas for improvement; and note where current practices may be at odds with the requirements of the Code.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord provided us with sufficient information to investigate the complaint and reach a decision. However, its evidence submission unnecessarily duplicated information multiple times, such as emails. This added avoidable delay to our investigation.