From 13 January 2026, we 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.

Southern Housing (202233515)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233515

Southern Housing

13 June 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s patio doors.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. Her tenancy at the property began in 1995. She is elderly and has arthritis and health conditions affecting her heart and lungs. The resident’s daughter referred her complaint to us. This report will refer to both the resident and daughter as “the resident”.
  2. The resident has explained that her patio doors were replaced in the summer of 2022. She began to report issues with the doors from August 2022. Between August and November 2022:
    1. On 12 and 31 August, the resident raised concern that the door would not lock, and that they may break due to the wind and lack of restrictor. The landlord raised a work order.
    2. Operatives attended on 3 and 5 September due to her separate reports that the doors would not lock.
    3. The landlord has referenced that notes from an appointment on 20 September showed that the patio door was misaligned and would not lock. The keep plate was removed and there was a gap at the bottom of the door, but the patio door was left safe and secure. It found that it needed to align the door and refit the keep plate.
    4. The landlord’s records from 30 September show that it attended, the resident reported that the doors were not aligned, and that there was an appointment for an inspection scheduled for 5 October.
  3. The resident called the landlord on 7 November 2022 to raise a complaint about the delay in repairing her patio door. It acknowledged the complaint on 15 November 2022 and said it would respond within 10 working days.
  4. The resident continued to pursue updates on the work to the door and her complaint between November 2022 and January 2023. On 16 December 2022, she sent images of the door which showed material placed around the door to fill gaps. She shared that she was unhappy it had left her living with gaps around her door since September 2022, that the property was extremely cold despite putting her heating on, and that she was more prone to illness as she was elderly. On 6 February 2023, she asked the landlord to escalate the complaint due to a lack of action.
  5. The landlord attended on 30 March 2023 and reported completing work to overhaul and adjust the door on 17 April 2023. In June and July 2023, the resident informed us that its repair contractors were aware that the faulty door had not been resolved. Its repair records from 19 July 2023 indicate that it was not able to gain access to the property for an appointment related to draughts from the front door.
  6. In its stage 1 complaint response on 27 July 2023, the landlord:
    1. Apologised for the delay in repairing the patio door and responding to the complaint. It noted that she first reported repairs on 31 August 2022 and it found that the new doors were not aligned and had no restrictor. There was a delay, but it had not heard from her about repairs since it completed work on 17 April 2023.
    2. It upheld the complaint due to delays and a lack of communication. It offered £340 compensation in recognition of its failure to repair, inconvenience, time and trouble, repeat visits, failure to respond within timescale, the resident needing to chase, and its complaint handling.
    3. It also asked her to provide energy statements from winter 2021 and 2022 to compare the usage to determine if there was an increase in costs that could relate to the door repairs.
  7. We sent a copy of the landlord’s complaint response to the resident on 28 July 2023. The landlord raised works to inspect and overhaul the doors on 27 September 2023 following contact from the resident. On 5 October 2023, we sent a copy of the landlord’s stage 1 response to the resident via her representative as she said she had not received this.
  8. The resident contacted the landlord on 10 October 2023. She maintained that she had complained about her patio door for a year, and it had not sent her its stage 1 complaint response. She was unhappy with the response and asked it to escalate the complaint to stage 2. On the same day, an operative attended and reported that there were gaps all around the doors. They adjusted the doors but they did not meet in the middle. They also reported that the resident said this was the same problem she initially reported a year prior.
  9. In its stage 2 complaint response on 28 November 2023, the landlord:
    1. Said it had sent its stage 1 complaint response to the email address it had on file. The email she had used to contact it on 10 October 2023 was different to the one it had saved for her. It apologised that she did not receive its stage 1 complaint response but did not find a service failure.
    2. It apologised that there were delays in its complaint handling at stage 1 between 7 November 2022 and 27 July 2023. It listed the repair visits and maintained that it had no reports between March 2023 and 27 September 2023. Following the visit on 10 October 2023, it found the doors did not meet in the middle. It confirmed a surveyor would attend on 29 November 2023.
    3. It upheld the complaint because of the delays in its complaint handling, delays to repairs, and 4 unspecified service failures. It recognised its failure to follow process meant she needed to contact it repeatedly and it did not respond. It recognised the impact the matter had and apologised for the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused.
    4. It reiterated its offer to consider her claim for increased energy bills and asked her to provide utility bills from winter 2021 and 2022 to compare the usage. It offered £405 compensation comprised of:.
      1. £150 for delays in complaint handling;
      2. £60 for delays to repairs;
      3. £70 for 4 service failures;
      4. £125 for the inconvenience, time, and trouble.
  10. The resident referred her complaint to us as she remained unhappy with the level of compensation the landlord had offered and wanted it to fix the door. She said that the surveyor did not turn up on 29 November 2023. The resident pursued her concerns with the landlord in March 2024 and reported that a surveyor had not turned up for appointments in November 2023 or February 2024.
  11. The landlord issued a further stage 1 response on 4 April 2024. It explained that the surveyor did not attend on 29 November 2023 due to sickness, but it was not able to find that it had made any other appointments in 2024. It upheld the complaint due to the failure to attend the appointment and apologised for the inconvenience and time and trouble caused to her. It booked an appointment to inspect the doors on 8 April 2024 and offered £45 compensation for the missed appointment and the impact on her.
  12. The landlord subsequently completed work to replace the doors at some stage prior to July 2024 when it raised a work order to align the newly installed patio doors. In its communication with us in July 2024, the landlord said that it had resolved the door issues and had not had further contact from the resident.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident referenced how the situation has impacted her health. While we do not doubt her comments, it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident, and whether it suitably considered her vulnerabilities in its handling of the matter.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s patio doors

  1. The landlord has not been able to provide a copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement to us. Its repairs policy confirms that it is responsible for repairs and maintenance to external doors. It aimed to attend emergency repairs within 24 hours. It did not have set timeframes for routine repairs at the time of the complaint but aimed to complete these as quickly as possible. We generally expect landlords to address repairs within a “reasonable timescale”. In line with best practice, routine repairs should take place within 1 month, and more complex works requiring manufactured parts within 3 months.
  2. It is evident that the resident began to report problems with the patio doors in August 2022. These were unresolved at the time of its stage 2 complaint response in November 2023, over a year later. We have not seen evidence to show that the landlord fully resolved the issues until around April to July 2024. When a landlord admits to failings, our role is to determine whether its response and offer of compensation was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  3. In response to the complaint, the landlord recognised that there were delays in its handling of the repair and that it did not communicate effectively, leading to the resident spending additional time and trouble in pursuing a resolution. It apologised and offered £255 compensation for this element of the complaint within its initial responses. We have also considered its further offer of £45 compensation within its additional complaint response in April 2024.

Records

  1. As part of this investigation, we asked the landlord to provide evidence related to the resident’s reports, including communication logs, call notes, and repair logs. The repair logs provided were not comprehensive and there is limited evidence of its communication with the resident aside from emails or references to phone calls within internal emails. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that it followed its own policies and procedures.
  2. In its information submissions to us in September 2024, the landlord said that it did not have a record of any vulnerabilities for the resident, but that it was made aware she was elderly in December 2022. A repair raised on 3 September 2022 for the door lock refers to her as a “vulnerable tenant”, indicating that it had some knowledge of her vulnerabilities. It is of concern that it does not have an adequate record of her vulnerabilities to inform its approach to repairs.

Patio door repair and communication

  1. The landlord’s repair records are not comprehensive in relation to the appointments and work completed in August and September 2022. The records provided and the landlord’s reference of what happened do not align. While it has provided evidence to show that it attended to reports that the door did not lock within emergency timescales (which was reasonable), it is unclear when it was first aware of the door alignment problems. It is evident that this was some time between 20 and 30 September 2022. Its records reference an inspection scheduled for 5 October 2022; however, we have not seen evidence to show that this took place.
  2. Despite being aware of the need to realign the door and refit the keep plate it had removed to allow the door to lock from September 2022, it did not take steps to progress work to remedy the problem. We have not seen evidence of the resident’s communication with the landlord. However, its records from 28 November 2023 show that staff were aware she was calling every day. She also called it at least 5 times between December and January 2023.
  3. It was unreasonable that despite the frequency of the resident’s communication, the length of time the matter had been outstanding, and her report regarding the impact of the cold on her on 16 December 2022, the landlord did not raise the repair to align the door until 24 March 2023. This was approximately 6 months since it became aware of the gaps around the door. It did not demonstrate that it considered the resident’s reports about the cold temperatures and the impact on her, or seek to resolve the matter during the colder, winter months. It has not demonstrated that it gave due regard for the resident’s vulnerabilities in its handling of the repairs which is a failing.
  4. The landlord has referenced that its contractors overhauled, eased, and adjusted the patio door on 17 April 2023. It has provided no clear record of this work or how it satisfied itself that it had resolved her concerns. It has maintained that the resident did not make any repair reports between 17 April 2023 and 27 September 2023, a period of 5 months. However, in her communication with us on 1 June 2023, the resident maintained that it had not aligned the doors and that it had told her it was waiting approval. She also said that she made multiple calls in June and July.
  5. In view of the lack of available contact records, we are unable to determine the extent of time and trouble the resident spent pursuing her concerns at the time, or whether the landlord failed to act on her contact. However, given the length of time the matter was ongoing, and the open complaint at the time of the work on 17 April 2023, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have checked that this repair resolved the matter by contacting the resident or completing a post inspection.
  6. In our communication with the landlord on 27 July 2023, we asked it to respond to the complaint and explained that the resident wanted the door to be repaired as a resolution. Our communication should have prompted it to contact the resident to ensure that the issues were resolved at the time, prior to issuing its response on the same day. We note that the resident did not receive the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 27 July 2023 which we have addressed in more detail in the complaint handling section below.
  7. Following a report on 27 September 2023, the landlord raised a work order for the doors. It attended within a reasonable timescale on 10 October 2023 and found that there were “large gaps”, and that despite adjusting the doors, they did not meet in the middle. This indicates that the previous work it said it completed in April 2023 was unlikely to have resolved the problem due to the size of the doors.

Events following the complaint

  1. We have considered events following the complaint for completeness. The landlord committed to survey the doors on 29 November 2023 in its stage 2 complaint response, but it is evident that this did not happen due to staff sickness. We would have expected to see that the landlord proactively sought to rearrange the appointment at the time especially given the length of time the matter had been ongoing, that it was now the winter months, and in view of the resident’s vulnerabilities. There is no evidence to demonstrate that it effectively monitored its complaint commitments through to completion.
  2. The resident pursued her concerns on 15 March 2024. The landlord acted reasonably by raising a work order to attend on 8 April 2024 to survey the doors and recognising the missed appointment and inconvenience. However, it has not recognised that the resident was left with gaps affecting the door during winter months for a second year.
  3. In its communication with us in July 2024, the landlord said that the issues were resolved but provided limited evidence of the steps taken. It said it did not complete major works. However, the resident has confirmed that it replaced the doors, which is generally considered major work. We asked it to provide evidence to show when and how it resolved the problem, but it provided unrelated repair records related to further work to the “new” doors in July and September 2024. It is of concern that it was not able to provide relevant information about how it resolved the matter when asked. Nonetheless, it is not disputed that the matter was resolved.

Summary

  1. We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the door repair. Its overall offer of £300 compensation for this aspect of the complaint goes some way to recognise the impact on the resident alongside its offer to consider her claim for costs associated with increased energy usage. However, a lack of learning and oversight of the works led to the resident spending another winter with gaps affecting the door, and the landlord has not demonstrated that it adequately considered her vulnerabilities in its handling of the matter.
  2. Overall, the landlord knowledge failings and made some attempt to put things right but failed to fully address the detriment to the resident. The offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation given the delays extended to around 2 years and continued despite the assurances in its stage 2 complaint response. We have included an order below for the landlord to pay additional compensation to adequately recognise the time and trouble, and impact on the resident of its failings.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The landlord had a 2 stage complaints process at the time of the complaint. At stage 1, it aimed to acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and respond within a further 10 working days. At stage 2, it aimed to respond within 20 working days. If there was likely to be a delay at either stage, the landlord would contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay, and provide a new response timescale, which should not be more than 10 working days.
  2. The resident called to make a complaint on 7 November 2022. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 15 November 2022 and said it would respond within 10 working days. It did not issue its stage 1 complaint response until 27 July 2023, 182 working days after her request. This was significantly outside of its complaint handling timescales. The resident needed to spend significant time and trouble asking for updates, including via the support of this Service, and we have not seen evidence to show that the landlord updated her as to when she would receive its response, or explained the delay during this time.
  3. We note that the resident said she did not receive the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 27 July 2023. It has provided evidence to show that it contacted her on 27 July 2023 using the email address she had used to contact it (and us). We also sent a copy of this response to the same email address on 28 July 2023. It remains unclear as to why she did not receive its response at the time.
  4. We note that the resident initially asked the landlord to escalate her complaint due to a lack of response on 6 February 2023. At this stage, it had not responded to her complaint at stage 1 of its process. Our Complaint Handling Code (2022) set out that landlords must only escalate a complaint to stage 2 once it has completed stage 1 and at the request of the resident. As it had not provided a stage 1 complaint response at the time, it was reasonable that it did not escalate the complaint to stage 2.
  5. Following contact from the resident, who said she had still not received the stage 1 complaint response, we sent a copy of the response to her representative and via post on 5 October 2023. She then asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 10 October 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 28 November 2023, which was outside its policy timescale by 16 working days.
  6. We note that the landlord contacted the resident on 21 November 2023 to explain that there had been a delay in escalating the complaint. It apologised and confirmed that it would take this into account within the stage 2 response. While it subsequently recognised the delay in providing its stage 1 response between November 2022 and July 2023, and reiterated its previous offer of £150 compensation, it did not consider the delay at stage 2 as it said it would or provide suitable redress. In addition, while the stage 2 complaint response recognised 4 service failures, it did not specify what these were or how it would prevent these in future.
  7. We have found service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. While its offer of £150 goes some way to put right its failings, it did not suitably recognise the delay at stage 2. In addition, it did not demonstrate that it had taken learning from its failings, including its lack of communication at stage 1, or explain how it would prevent similar failings in the future. We have made an order for the landlord to pay additional compensation below.
  8. Despite the failings we have identified, we have not made any specific learning orders for the landlord as part of this report. We completed a special investigation into the landlord in May 2024, and it has engaged with several recommendations for improvement in the time since this complaint, including in relation to its handling of repairs and complaints.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the resident’s patio doors.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise.
    2. Pay the resident £600, comprised of:
      1. £400 in recognition of the inconvenience and time and trouble caused by the failings in its handling of the door repair. This includes its previous offers of £255 and £45.
      2. £200 in recognition of the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures. This includes its previous offer of £150.
    3. Contact the resident to confirm its understanding of her vulnerabilities. It should provide evidence that it has updated its records so that this is visible to relevant staff when delivering its services. It should also ensure that it has up to date contact details and authorisation for any family members to act as representatives.
    4. Ask the resident to provide evidence of her utility statements for the winter periods between 2021 and 2024 and consider whether there was additional usage in 2022 and 2023 because of the outstanding door repair. If there is evidence of increased usage, it should make an offer of compensation toward the additional costs. It should confirm its position within 4 weeks of receiving the statements.
  2. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance within 4 weeks.