Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Southern Housing (202304987)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304987

Southern Housing

4 August 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:
    1. The resident’s reports of noises from the roof.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has been a shared leaseholder at the property since 1 January 2018. The property is a maisonette split into 2 flats; he resides in the upstairs flat. The landlord is a housing association. Both parties are subject to the covenants under the leasehold agreement.
  2. Since purchasing the property, the resident raised various issues during the defects period. In response, the landlord completed an acoustic survey on 28 February 2019. The results of the test were that the dwelling passed and exceeded building regulations for airborne and impact noise transference.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 8 March 2022. He said that the roof made cracking noises on hot days which continued through the evening as the temperature started to decrease.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and responded by commissioning an independent visual structural inspection. In its stage 1 response on 23 September 2022, it advised that a March 2022 survey had not identified any structural faults. As such, it would not uphold the complaint.
  5. The resident referred his case to this Service on 15 September 2023, having tried to escalate the complaint with the landlord. His complaint had not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process so we referred it back to the landlord.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 2 January 2024. It apologised that the resident found cause to complain. It reiterated the information from the stage 1 response regarding the visual structural inspection findings which had not identified any defects. It concluded by advising the resident that he could instruct his own survey and would be responsible for referring any defects to the NHBC warranty scheme or insurers.
  7. The resident referred the complaint to us on 2 January 2024. He said that the landlord had ignored his recordings of the roof noise which he had provided to it and he felt a defect was still present.

Assessment and findings

Policy and Procedures

  1. Under the lease agreement, it is the landlord’s responsibility to repair and maintain all external parts of the premises. This includes common parts, external and load bearing walls, windows, doors and service media, which is defined under the lease to include gutters.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy states that, upon receipt of a complaint, it will contact the complainant within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints in writing within 10 working days. At stage 2, it will respond within 20 working days. Both stages include a 10-working day extension period if the complaint requires further investigation.

Handling of reports of noises from the roof

  1. It is important to note that it is not the Ombudsman’s role to assess individual instances of workmanship or determine whether an issue raised is a building defect. Our role is to assess whether the landlord handled the resident’s reports in line with its policies and good industry practice.
  2. It is not in dispute that the resident made a report on 8 March 2022 regarding cracking noises from the roof area during hot days. He said this noise then restarted during the evening as the temperature began to decrease. He advised that this situation had been ongoing since he purchased the property.
  3. The landlord responded to this report on the same day, advising it would raise a complaint. To assist with its investigation into the matter, it commissioned an independent visual structural inspection. This approach was appropriate and indicates the landlord sought to establish a root cause.
  4. The inspection took place on 23 March 2022. The inspector shared the results with the landlord on 6 June 2022. The report determined that there were no significant defects to the property. The report referenced an independent acoustic survey that was conducted on 28 February 2019, which also confirmed compliance with Building Regulations.
  5. The inspection report includes pictures of the loft area – these images indicate that the inspection was conducted from the loft hatch, allowing for any holes, leaks or joist movement to be observed. The report also included ground level images of the building exterior. This illustrates that due regard was given to identify any movement in the building – this was appropriate.
  6. However, the resident reported that these noises only occurred during hot weather. While it was appropriate for the landlord to instruct and rely on the report of the structural engineers, its brief to the structural engineers was limited to reporting significant defects evident at the time of the inspection. Once it received confirmation that the building was structurally adequate, it would have been reasonable for it to further investigate the cause of the noise.
  7. As no further investigation occurred, the resident was left with no resolution to the noise problem which he said came from the roof/external structures. These are the responsibility of the landlord to maintain under the lease whether there is a structural fault or a less significant repair required. It was unreasonable for the landlord to limit its actions to a structural survey. This was a missed opportunity to provide the resident with some reassurance.
  8. In an email dated 24 October 2022, the resident referred to several noise recordings submitted via the noise app between March and May 2022 which were not acknowledged or commented on. We have also not seen any evidence that the landlord explored these recordings.
  9. This indicates an incomplete investigation of the issue by the landlord. As the resident provided additional information, the landlord should have considered this in its investigations. This may have led to a more focused diagnosis attempt. This was a service failure.
  10. In its stage 2 response, the landlord advised the resident that he could commission his own survey and, if this indicated a potential latent defect, he could make a claim to the NHBC or insurers. This is correct and appropriate information to provide where a structural defect is concerned.
  11. However, the landlord said that ‘residents become responsible for repairs within their lease after the defect’s liability period ends.’ Whilst this is not an incorrect statement, this is not applicable where roofing and guttering is concerned. As stated in the lease, these items fall under the landlord’s responsibility. This statement could mislead a resident and cause additional avoidable distress.
  12. Overall, the Ombudsman finds service failure by the landlord in its handling of reports of noises from the roof. The landlord acted appropriately on the resident’s initial reports by commissioning a visual survey on which it based its findings. This was an appropriate course of action.
  13. However, it failed to consider all the information provided by the resident which could have led to a more targeted inspection. Its responses failed to comment on the potential source of the noise or establish whether it checked if there was a repair obligation. As such, an order has been made below.

The associated complaint

  1. The resident raised the complaint on 8 March 2022. The landlord responded appropriately that same day by advising it would log a complaint. Following this initial acknowledgement, there is a gap in the records provided until 22 July 2022, when it requested a stage 1 extension.
  2. This stage 1 extension stated that the landlord did not acknowledge the original complaint until 8 July 2022. This Service has not been provided with a copy of that letter. The landlord then requested a second extension on 12 August 2022, before it issued the stage 1 response on 23 September 2022. Overall, there was a delay of around 6 months between the landlord advising it would log a complaint to the point the response was issued. This was an inappropriate period to leave a resident without an outcome.
  3. In an email dated 21 October 2022, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 1 response. The landlord did not treat this as a stage 2 escalation request. Its policy states an escalation will be considered if any of the following points applied:
    1. It did not follow its policies or procedures.
    2. It did not address one of the agreed points.
    3. The resident feels the complaint was not fully investigated.
  4. However, the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code required landlords to be compliant from 1 October 2022. That Code stated that ‘If all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage one it must be progressed to stage two of the landlord’s procedure, unless an exclusion ground now applies.’ The complaint was not escalated until the resident contacted this Service.
  5. We contacted the landlord on 15 September 2023, advising it that a stage 2 response was required by 13 October 2023. We again contacted the landlord on 8 November 2023, advising the roof noise issue would require a stage 2 response.
  6. The landlord contacted the resident on 14 December 2023 to request a stage 2 extension. Its stage 2 response was issued on 2 January 2024. This represents a period of over a year from when the resident advised he was unhappy with the stage 1 response to receiving the landlord’s final decision. This was an unacceptable period where the landlord left the resident to chase a resolution, with very little communication about progress. It offered £50 compensation for the delay in its response. This was not proportionate considering the extensive period that elapsed.
  7. Overall, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. It is clear from the records provided that the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the investigation of the complaint within several emails to the landlord. This combined with the delays in the escalation to stage 2 resulted in a considerable delay for the resident with additional time and trouble caused as he pursued updates. As such, the landlord should pay the resident an additional £200 compensation, which consists of:
    1. £100 for the resident’s time and trouble.
    2. £100 for distress and inconvenience.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noises from the roof.
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Provide an apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £400 in compensation. This is comprised of:
      1. £150 for the time and trouble caused by the failings in its handling of his reports of noises from the roof.
      2. £100 for time and trouble caused by the failings in its complaint handling.
      3. £100 for distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its complaint handling.
      4. £50 which was offered at stage 2, if not already paid.
  2. Within 12 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must conduct a detailed survey of the roof and guttering to seek to establish if any repairs are required. The surveyor should be provided with the audio recordings provided by the resident to assist their investigation. It must provide the resident and Ombudsman with a copy of the resulting report along with an action plan to complete any identified repairs.
  3. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman within the timescales set out above.