Southern Housing (202321638)

REPORT

COMPLAINTS 202321638 and 202331681

Southern Housing

19 May 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 complaints

The complaints are about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Outstanding communal repairs.
2. Outstanding defect works.
3. The associated formal complaint.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder under a shared ownership agreement of a property with the landlord. She and another leaseholder moved into the property, which is a flat in a block of flats (the block) also owned by the landlord, in January 2019.
The resident said the landlord bought the block from a developer in or around October 2018. She said this activated a 2-year defects warranty period where the landlord had to report communal and individual flat snagging defects to the developer for resolution by 31 October 2020. The landlord’s aftercare policy said that at the end of the defect liability period, it became responsible for the maintenance of communal areas.
However, the resident said that when residents made several reports about communal repairs and defects, the landlord either did not respond or responded ineffectively.
On 31 January 2023 the residents complained (complaint 1) about a number of outstanding communal repairs including, among other things, a broken water pump which left residents without water for 3 days and a lack of communication. The landlord acknowledged complaint 1 on 1 March 2023.
Before the landlord had responded to complaint 1, on 27 April 2023 the resident sent further correspondence to the landlord which the landlord understood to be another complaint (complaint 2). The resident asked for clarification around the timeframes for both communal and defect works, asking why these had not begun. She also sought better communication and requested a meeting to move things forward.
On 31 May 2023 the landlord sent a stage 1 response in relation to complaint 2. It said it “upheld” the resident’s complaint “because of the operatives’ conduct.” (It was not clear what ‘conduct’ it referred to). It said factors such as COVID and resourcing contributed to delays. It said it was more appropriate for its contractors to respond to the resident’s concerns. It further said that while it could not provide the outcome of its investigation (it was not clear what investigation) because of GDPR, it would investigate. It said it would close the case. (It was not clear why as it had also said it was going to investigate).
The resident asked to escalate complaint 2 to stage 2 on the same day. She said contractors were not employed during COVID and the contractors that she had been asked to communicate with had stopped working and left the building “falling apart.”
On 26 June 2023 the landlord responded, saying it had closed the complaint. It repeated its stage 1 response and said an additional contractor had been employed to carry out some of the work. It added that if the resident wanted to escalate her complaint, she could “contact 2 of our complaints team.”
The resident asked to escalate complaint 2 again on 3 July 2023, clarifying that her complaint was about the failure to carry out defects work, the failure to communicate with her in a timely manner, its “inadequate and illegible” complaint responses, the failure to follow its complaints procedure and concern about service charge information.
On 22 August 2023, the resident contacted us, saying she did so because of the landlord’s failure to respond to her complaints, failure to complete communal repairs and service charges. We set up a complaint reference number, complaint 2. (At this point she had not raised complaint 1 with us although the issues, particularly around communal repairs, overlap.)
On 29 September 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 response on complaint 2 to the resident. It accepted that its complaint responses had not addressed her concerns. It set out the steps it planned to take to address outstanding works. In relation to compensation it said that a “separate compensation package” would be provided to all residents “independent of individual complaints”, which would be agreed after defect works had been completed. We do not know if this has been offered. In relation to this complaint, it offered her £50 for inconvenience, time and trouble; £50 for delays in complaint handling and £50 for unsatisfactory complaint handling. Its total offer for complaint 2 was £150.
On the same day, the landlord provided a stage 1 response to complaint 1. It set out how it had responded to a number of outstanding communal repairs. It “upheld” her complaint about issues with the communal lift failure and its failings in communication. It offered £125 compensation for inconvenience, time and trouble: £100 for delays in complaint handling and £50 for the communal lift failure.
The resident asked to escalate complaint 1 to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 6 October 2023. She felt the landlord should have also upheld other issues and asked for more compensation.
The landlord responded to complaint 1 at stage 2 of its process on 24 November 2023. It said it could not offer the resident compensation for communal repairs as this was not in line with its compensation policy. However, it said it could use its discretion to offer payment for personal impact and the efforts undertaken to ensure repairs are carried out. It increased its offer of compensation for complaint handling by £50 and offered £6.88 for the loss of water for 1 day. It increased its offer for inconvenience, time and trouble by £125. Its total offer was £456.88.
The resident asked us to investigate the landlord’s response to complaint 1. In her communications with us about both complaints, she said she wanted compensation, communal and individual repairs completed, service charge reimbursement and improved communications from the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Throughout both complaints, the resident referred to issues that she said affected all the residents of the block. However, this was not a group complaint and according to our rules, we have therefore only assessed where any service failure or maladministration by the landlord adversely affected the resident. Other residents are free to pursue their own complaints if they wish.
The issues in complaint 1 and complaint 2 overlap. We have therefore taken the decision to combine our analysis of both complaints in one report.

On the outstanding communal repairs

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says it aims to complete repairs to communal areas “as quickly as possible.”
In her 31 January 2023 complaint (complaint 1), the resident complained about a number of outstanding communal repairs. We will list these here with a focus on how long the repairs took.
1. Broken front door handle – the repair took from 1 October 2022 to 28 April 2023. This was 252 working days. The landlord apologised at stage 2, including this element in an increased overall compensation offer.
2. Fire alarm triggered the electrics, locking all internal doors – the landlord said the alarm was not connected to the door entry. It “noted” that the resident had said residents had been trapped in the building when the alarm went off, but as it did not consider this related to the fire alarm, it did not acknowledge a failure. It should have done so. Given that residents had been locked in the building. It should also have investigated the claim. This was a service failure.
1. Issues with the front buzzer – the resident first reported this problem on 5 January 2023. It repaired it on 29 March 2023 which was an unreasonable delay of 29 working days. It is not clear that it was properly resolved, as another repair was carried out in April 2024. The landlord considered this a communal issue and did not offer compensation. However, it affected the resident personally. It failed to explain why it included the issue with the broken front door handle (which was also a communal issue) in its overall compensation package, but not this issue. This was a service failure.
2. Broken lift – the landlord said the lift needed repairing on 3 main occasions. These repairs took, it said, between 1 and 6 days on 2 of those occasions. There were also issues with its operation from the basement level on 3 occasions. The landlord upheld this part of the resident’s complaint at stage 1, offering £50 compensation for the inconvenience. This sum was in line with its “compensation matrix,” which says that for low-impact issues that are of short duration and cause inconvenience, time and trouble for 0-3 months, it will offer £50. However, this was a further communal issue. It was inconsistent that the landlord dealt with this and not the other communal issues.
3. The resident considered that the landlord should have taken into account future disruption. The records show there have been repeated reports of issues with the lift. In her 6 October 2023 complaint escalation, the resident said that the compensation offered should have reflected the service charge paid towards lift maintenance. The landlord’s compensation framework said it did not offer compensation for communal repairs. But it also said that “it is important to ensure that any relevant reductions are made to service charges.” However, in its stage 2 response the landlord did not show that consideration had been given to the resident’s request to consider a reduction in her service charges.
4. Broken water pump – the landlord said that it completed a temporary repair to the water pump within 2 days of the report that it had broken, meaning the property water supply was restored. Three months later, it completed the repair. This was a reasonable response. At stage 2 it offered the resident the sum of £6.88, which was in line with its policy, which says it will offer 25% of net daily rent for total loss of water from one day after the defect is reported.
5. Car park flooding – the landlord said there were “known issues with the building regarding this issue.” It said it had raised a request for a quote to install sump pumps in the basement in June 2023. As a communal repair, it said it would not offer compensation. On a walkaround at the estate on 9 August 2023, the landlord noted that the “car park leak” was still an issue “that needs to be addressed”. In its complaint responses, the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns that the damp might be connected to the recurrent lift failure in the basement. It appears that the issues had still not been resolved after the stage 2 response. The records show that on 30 October 2023 a request was made to “investigate the leak under the basement floor in the lift corridor.” It is not clear that the issues in the basement car park have been resolved. It is clear that they were not addressed “as quickly as possible”, in line with its policy. The landlord’s failure to respond effectively to this ongoing concern for such a prolonged period caused the resident distress and it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have included it in its overall discretionary payment for inconvenience and time and trouble.
6. Lack of communications – the landlord apologised for the difficulties the resident had faced when communicating complaints. It “upheld” this aspect of her complaint, offering £50. It did not refer to it again at stage 2 but offered an increased sum for complaint handling.
The resident said the landlord should have upheld more aspects of her complaint at stage 1. She said that since the landlord had effectively offered £62.50 per uphold by offering £125 for time and inconvenience at stage 1, it should also offer £62.50 for the delay in repairing the door handle, for the fire alarm tripping and for other elements of the complaint.
She further considered that for each element, excluding the fire alarm tripping and the lift, a further £100 should be paid for delays. This figure was taken from the sum the landlord had agreed to pay for complaint handling delays at stage 1. She said the landlord should pay £300 for the issues with the lift to reflect, among other things, the likely future inconvenience and the cost to the resident’s service charges. In total, she sought £1,287.50.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said that its compensation policy did not allow compensation for communal repairs although it could consider discretionary payments for the impact these had had on a resident. Applying this discretion, even though the front door handle was a communal issue, it increased its compensation for inconvenience, time and trouble by £125. It did not award any compensation for the delay in fixing the front door buzzer. It did not have to, as it is a discretionary payment. However, it would have been consistent to have done so. It should also have explained its reasoning. These were communication failings.
The landlord did not always attend to the reported repairs “as soon as possible.” Taking the outstanding repairs together, we consider they would have caused the resident distress and warrant a finding of maladministration. However, we consider the eventual redress offered of £250 for the inconvenience, time and trouble, along with the offers made for the period without water and the lift failure, are in line with the landlord’s policy and with what we would have awarded in our guidance on remedies. Therefore, we have not ordered any more compensation.
As such, excepting its complaint handling (which we will address in the relevant section below), the landlord has since made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolved the complaint about the defects.

On the outstanding defect works

The landlord’s aftercare policy said it would monitor contractors. If a contractor failed to rectify a defect on time without an adequate reason, it would contact the resident and it would complete the work.
We have seen no evidence to show that the landlord acted in line with its policy in this regard or within a reasonable timeframe. The resident says the defect period ended in October 2020. We have not had confirmation of this date from the landlord but by the time of its stage 2 response in September 2023 it had still not employed a new contractor to take on works that had not been completed within any reasonable timeframe.
There may have been mitigating factors. The landlord explained at points to the resident that contractors had difficulty with access to some flats, for example. But, as the resident pointed out, this should not have stopped the works to remaining properties. The landlord’s delay in taking decisive action and ending its relationship with a contractor that was not managing the project effectively, was not in line with its policy and would have been exasperating for the resident, causing significant frustration, inconvenience, time and trouble.
In April 2023 the resident explained that contractors had not been on site for weeks. She stressed that poor communication was the “biggest hurdle” and that she was at her “wits end.” The landlord said it was “not surprised” to receive her email. It agreed it was “a frustrating process.” It provided some information about the delays but it was vague, saying, for instance, that subcontractors “…had not left the site completely.” It explained that it had been difficult getting suitable subcontractors for reasonable prices. It agreed that while the request for a meeting had been” the subject of discussion” for some time, no date had been set. In May 2023, it apologised that it had not, as promised, given the resident weekly updates. In another email in May 23, it apologised for its “disjointed approach” to defect management.
While this demonstration of empathy was appropriate, it did not give the resident answers about how it was dealing with the outstanding defects in the building.
This failure to take appropriate action at an earlier stage and poor communication was also demonstrated in its complaint responses. In its September 2023 stage 2 response, it accepted its earlier complaint responses had not responded to the resident’s concerns. The landlord sent this response around 5 months after the resident first raised her complaint about her concerns. This was the response where the resident learnt the landlord had decided to get new contractors to complete the works. However, it was inappropriate that the resident had to chase for a reasonable response several times before being provided with some information.
The landlord’s offer of £50 for inconvenience, time and trouble, did not acknowledge the likely impact of its failings on the resident. The landlord’s compensation policy says it can offer discretionary payments in line with our guidance on remedies. We consider the delay, poor communication and frustration caused by the landlord’s approach adversely affected the resident. A finding of maladministration is appropriate in instances like this, where the landlord acknowledged its failings but continually failed to address the detriment by delaying taking decisive action. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £500 to more proportionately acknowledge the failings identified.

On complaint handling

The landlord’s July 2023 complaints policy set out that it had a 2-stage process. It said it would acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and then provide a response within 10 working days after that.
At stage 2, the landlord says it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and then respond within 20 working days after that acknowledgement.
The landlord did not, as it accepts, meet its own complaint deadlines. We will look at how it dealt with each complaint in turn.

Complaint 1

The landlord took 25 working days to acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint and 173 working days to respond to the complaint. It then took a further 35 working days to respond to the stage 2 escalation. Both delays were inappropriate.
At stage 1 it offered £100 compensation for delays in complaint handling. At stage 2 it offered a further £50.
We consider the delay at stage 1 was so significant as to warrant a higher payment. The records show the resident had to chase a response at least 3 times. Having to wait for a stage 1 response that takes approximately 18 times longer than it should have done, warrants a finding of maladministration. We have made an order that the landlord should increase its overall payment for complaint handling for complaint 1 to £200 to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience its delays will have caused.

Complaint 2

The landlord took 21 days to provide its stage 1 response. It did not offer any compensation for the 11-day delay.
When the resident complained about the content of that complaint response, rather than escalate to stage 2, it sent her another response which it later accepted also failed to address her concerns. The resident complained that these first two responses were illegible and “utterly ridiculous”, failing to address the issues she had raised. On the evidence, this was an understandable point of view.
The second stage 2 response also effectively added a third stage to the process, which is contrary to the Code. Instead of telling the resident she could escalate her complaint it said she could “contact 2 of our complaints team”. The resident asked to escalate her complaint again on 3 July 2023. After she chased a response on 22 August 2023, the landlord responded by asking her when she had asked to escalate the complaint. It reminded her that she only had 20 days within which to seek to do so. As the resident had repeatedly sought to escalate her complaint, she responded that she was “shocked and absolutely furious” at this response. The landlord’s communications through the complaints process failed to properly acknowledge or answer her complaints.
By the time the landlord provided its stage 2 response, it had been 87 working days from her initial escalation on 31 May 2023. This was 67 working days later than it should have taken in accordance with our Code and was inappropriate.
The landlord’s complaint handling was poor and amounted to maladministration. In total, it offered £100 for delay and for “unsatisfactory” complaint handling. This means it recognised some impact by its complaint handling however the level of award was not commensurate with the likely level of impact caused. We consider that a payment of £200 would more appropriately recognise the identified failings. This is because the complaint handling in this case is likely to have had a significant impact on the resident. Rather than providing resolution, its responses often exacerbated the resident’s distress and further undermined the landlord/tenant relationship.
Taking the failings found in both complaint processes, considering the excessive delays and repeated failures to acknowledge the resident’s concerns, we have made a finding of maladministration.

Determinations

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in response to its handling of the outstanding communal repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the defect works.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated formal complaints.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident £900, comprising of:
  1. £500 to acknowledge the distress caused by the landlord’s failings in its approach to outstanding defect works at the building. It may deduct compensation for handling of the defects that it offered and has already paid.
  2. £400 (in total) to acknowledge the distress caused by the delays and identified failures in its complaint handling for both complaints. It may deduct compensation for the complaint handling that it offered and has already paid.

The landlord must pay all outstanding compensation sums to the resident and not off-set against any arrears that may be owing. The landlord can ask the resident if she would like this to be deducted from her service charge account.

Provide a report setting out when it completed all the outstanding defects. If there are any outstanding, it must set out when it will complete these works. It should provide a copy of the report to the Ombudsman and the resident within 28 days of the date of this determination.