Southern Housing (202324125)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324125

Southern Housing

12 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 complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports about a leak.

Background

The resident lives in a 1 bed flat under an assured tenancy agreement which began on 2 September 2008.
The resident did not declare any vulnerabilities to the landlord or this Service. He did indicate that he was being assessed for an ADHD diagnosis at the time of this complaint.
The complaint centres around a boiler leak from a neighbouring property which caused water damage to the resident’s property on 29 July 2023. This included damage to carpets which he said that he had recently installed himself. The landlords records described the boiler as “exploding” and then causing an “uncontrollable leak” which required the attendance of the fire brigade. The leak caused damage to the resident’s property, the neighbouring property (where it originated) and the communal hallway.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 14 August 2023 in which it said:
1. It had not had any previous calls regarding repairs or issues with the neighbour’s boiler.
2. Its contractor had attended the same day to make the building safe, when the leak was reported.
3. Its contractor had undertaken further investigations the following day after the leak and the works were completed on 4 August 2023.
4. There was no fault or negligence on the part of the landlord or its contractor and therefore no compensation was due.
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 14 August 2023, He was dissatisfied that the landlord had not replaced his carpets or offered compensation. The resident said that he did not have contents insurance and was not able to make a claim for these items. The resident felt that the leak damage had been allowed to happen due to the negligence of the landlord’s contractor.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 2 October 2023 in which it said:
1. A failed fitting had caused the leak in the boiler. It said there were no previous callouts related to the boiler and, on this basis, there was no negligence on the part of its contractor.
2. It had agreed to renew the resident’s carpets in the living room and hallway during a survey on 4 September 2023. Additionally, the landlord had committed to checking the walls behind the kitchen units, undertaking any works to make this good and renewing the kitchen flooring.
3. Its contractor had been attempting to contact the resident to book the works to the kitchen and flooring and had now confirmed these for 12-13 October 2023.
4. It was offering £60 compensation to the resident, comprised of £10 for repair failures and £50 for the inconvenience, time and trouble of pursuing the matter to completion.
5. It upheld the resident’s complaint due to the works not being delivered in a timely manner.
6. It had identified lessons learnt including that a systems failure resulted in the works being delayed and that improved communication with the resident would have assisted the situation.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman on 13 October 2023 seeking additional compensation due to damaged personal possessions and the costs of professional services, carpet cleaning and temporary accommodation. The resident was also seeking compensation for the distress caused.

Assessment and findings

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, landlords have a statutory duty to maintain the structure and exterior of its properties, which includes the roof, walls, windows, doors, and external fixtures. Once notified of a defect, landlords must make a lasting and effective repair in a reasonable time.
The landlord’s responsive repair policy highlights this responsibility and defines an emergency repair as “anything causing immediate […] risk to the health, safety, and security of any occupants and/or visitors to your home, or damage to a property’s structure, fixtures, and/or fittings.” The policy says that typically this will include:
1. “Water leaks to a water pipe or riser on the landlord side of the stopcock”
2. “Making safe immediately after a flood e.g. checking electrics”
In these cases, the landlord commits to attending the property and making it safe within 6 hours of the repair being reported. All other routine repairs will be completed in 20 working days. The policy also notes that residents are responsible for insuring the contents of their home.
The landlord’s compensation framework says that it will pay compensation in the following instances:
1. In cases of delays or failures to complete a repair – £10 plus £2 per day until the repair is completed, up to a maximum of £50.
2. When residents experience a financial loss because of a service failure by the landlord, a goodwill payment of £25 can be made. This can be increased following submission of evidence of further incurred costs.
3. In cases of service failures compensation of £15-50 can be paid. This can be increased (as a discretionary compensation payment) upon evidence of more significant impact.
4. When a dehumidifier is provided, compensation of £2 per unit, per day is payable for increased utility costs. This can be increased when resident’s provide evidence that the incurred cost is higher than this.
5. Discretionary compensation can be paid, in line with this Service’s remedies guidance (available on our website) for service failures, depending on the severity and impact of these. This compensation ranges from £50 to £700 or more.
At around 10pm on 29 July 2023, a leak occurred in a neighbouring property which caused damage to the resident’s property, the neighbour’s property and the communal hallway. The landlord’s survey immediately after the leak occurred identified that it was caused by a failure of a “cubeflow cylinder” in the neighbour’s boiler. In response to the leak, the evidence shows that the following actions were taken:
1. The fire brigade attended to shut off the water. It is not clear when this occurred.
2. The landlord’s contractor arrived on site at 10:39pm to cap off the leaking pipework and remove the faulty fitting. The contractor left the neighbour with running water.
3. The landlord’s contractors attended the following day to remove a valve and cap pipework. The notes indicated that plumbers needed to attend to undertake further works to reinstate the pipework.
4. On 31 July 2023 the contractors attended to turn off the immersion tank and take photographs in preparation for substantive works to repair and reinstate the boiler.
5. On 1 August 2023, an electrician attended to make safe electrics in the neighbouring property.
6. On 4 August 2023, a contractor attended to undertake works to the boiler pipework, however this was declined by the neighbour, as the contractor had suggested reusing existing pipework. The records show that the landlord ordered new parts the same day.
7. On 10 August 2023, the landlord arranged for a dehumidifier to be dropped off to the resident to assist with drying out his property.
8. On 30 August 2023, an electrician attended the resident’s property in response to concerns he had regarding the safety of his electrics following the leak. The report shows no dangerous faults and that the electrics were ‘satisfactory’.
9. The landlord undertook a pre-inspection survey on 4 September 2023 in which it committed to removing the resident’s kitchen units to inspect the wall behind for dampness and undertaking any remedial work required. Additionally, the landlord said it would replace the flooring in the residents living room, hallway and kitchen as they were water damaged.
10. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord committed to completing the works to the kitchen, living room and hallway on 12-13 October 2023. The evidence shows that these works were completed on 13 November 2023.
On this basis, the evidence shows that it attended the property and undertook the required emergency actions within a reasonable time, and within the timescales shown in its responsive repairs policy. It is appreciated that leaks can cause considerable damage to properties in a short period of time and this Service acknowledges that the resident suffered water damage to his living room, hallway and kitchen. This is not disputed by either party.
This Service cannot make a legal finding of liability, as this is for the courts to assess, having considered specialist advice, and making a judgement based on the case’s merits. Notwithstanding this, there has been no evidence to indicate that the landlord or its third-party contractors acted outside of the scope of its repairing obligations, which would have actively contributed to the cause or severity of the leak in the neighbour’s property. The contractor attended within the required timescales and took action to stop the initial escape of water, which was reasonable in the circumstances.
In terms of addressing the longer-term repairs to the resident’s property, the landlord initially said, in its stage 1 complaint response, that it would not undertake flooring replacements or pay compensation as it was not at fault for the damage occurring. The landlord recommended that the resident claim on his contents insurance for his damaged carpets, flooring and possessions. This was reasonable in the circumstances, in relation to the resident’s carpets, as these were owned by him and the landlord was not legally required to undertake a repair where it was not liable for the damage. Additionally, the resident’s tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repair policy note that it is the responsibility of residents to insure their personal possessions.
This response was not appropriate for the kitchen fixture and flooring which were owned by the landlord and were therefore subject to its repair obligations. Having had this repair reported to it, it should have assessed the damage and undertaken a repair in a timely way, in line with its repair policy timescales.
The resident told this Service that his neighbour had told him that she had reported faults with her boiler to the landlord on several occasions prior to the leak occurring. The landlord’s contemporaneous repairs records and its complaint responses do not indicate that there were any earlier reports of faults. Given the lack of evidence, it is not possible for this Service to come to a reasoned and evidenced view on if and when these reports were made and what they may have contained.
When the landlord surveyed the property on 4 September 2023, it noted that the resident did not have contents insurance and agreed to replace the hallways and living room carpet with “medium grade carpet”, “rather than a complaint being lodged”. The survey agreed the following works:
1. Removal of kitchen units to check the wall behind for signs of water damage or damp. If found, the landlord committed to making good any damage.
2. Renewing the carpet in the resident’s living room and hallway or paying appropriate compensation to its value.
3. Replacing the flooring in the resident’s kitchen.
4. Renewing the communal hallway carpet, as this was still showing signs of dampness.
It is unclear from the evidence why the landlord altered its position. While the landlord was not legally obliged to undertake this work, it is positive to note that it took account of the resident’s situation and provided these works.
The works were originally scheduled to be completed on 12-13 October 2023; however they were ultimately completed on 13 November 2023. This was a delay of over a month from the initial date and a period of around 4 and a half months from the time of the leak. This was more than the timescales shown in the landlord’s repairs policy and this was a service failing as it caused the resident additional time and trouble in pursuing the complaint to completion. The resident also said that he experienced distress from living in the property when it was damp and water damaged and incurred additional costs such as professional cleaning fees and alternative accommodation.
In response to this, the landlord acknowledged that the repairs had been delayed, apologised and offered the resident £60 compensation comprised of £10 for the repair failure and £50 for the inconvenience, time and trouble he had experienced. This was in addition to the costs of reinstating the resident’s carpet and completing the repairs in the kitchen.
In line with the landlord’s compensation framework, the resident may have been entitled to receive additional compensation, however this is likely to have been offset by the landlord undertaking the repairs to the resident’s carpets, which it was not obliged to do, as this should have been covered by the resident’s own contents insurance.
The landlord could have considered paying the resident a goodwill payment for financial losses (£25) and the £2 per day payment for the increased utility costs of running the dehumidifier. It is unclear from the evidence when this was collected and therefore, we are unable to indicate a total potential compensation value for this element. The landlord should consider assessing these elements and paying this additional compensation, in line with its compensation framework.
Taking these factors together:
1. The landlord responded in a timely way to the initial reports of the leak and took appropriate action to manage this, in line with its repairs policy.
2. The landlord was not obligated to undertake a repair or replacement of the resident’s carpets. Having identified that the resident did not have contents insurance in place, it undertook a replacement of the resident’s carpet as a goodwill gesture.
3. The landlord did not identify the repair liability it had for the kitchen and kitchen flooring in the resident’s property. When this was identified, it should have actioned a repair in a timely way. It did complete these repairs, however there was a delay in doing this.
4. In response to the delays to the repairs being completed, the landlord paid the resident compensation for this and for the distress and inconvenience that he had experienced.
5. The landlord has identified appropriate learning through its complaint process, including a systems failure which caused a delay in completing the repairs. The landlord also identified that better communication with the resident would have improved the complaint process.
On this basis, while there was a delay in actioning the repairs to the kitchen, which the landlord was obligated to complete, the landlord took action to address this. This included apologising for the delay, paying compensation and completing a replacement of the resident’s carpet, which it was not obliged to do. Taking this together, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of a leak satisfactorily.
The landlord should now indicate how it will implement the learning that it identified in its stage 2 complaint response and consider paying the resident additional compensation as set out in its compensation framework.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of a leak satisfactorily.

Recommendations

The landlord should:
1. Provide a schedule showing how it will undertake any required staff training or process changes to implement the learning found in its stage 2 complaint response.
2. Consider, and provide its written position, on paying the resident £25 compensation as a goodwill gesture for financial losses and £2 per day for the increased costs of utilities for the period he was using the dehumidifier.