Southern Housing (202324414)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324414

Southern Housing

28 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:
1. The installation of the resident’s windows.
2. The resident’s reports of damaged caused to his television by the landlord’s contractors.

Background

The resident lives in a second floor flat under an assured tenancy which began on 20 September 1993.
The resident has said to the landlord that he has a disability to his right arm, hay fever, rhinitis, sarcoidosis and mental health issues.
The complaint centres around issues with windows which the landlord installed as part of its planned works programme. During this installation, the resident said that a large gap was left beneath his window which allowed air, dust and pollen to enter his property. Additionally, he said that the landlord’s contractors damaged his television in the course of the work.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 3 August 2023 about the poor quality of workmanship of the window installation that had been completed on 12 October 2022. The resident said that he was suffering with rhinitis as a result of the dust and pollen entering his property from the gap. The resident said that the contractors had broken his television by removing it when they were completing the works and laying it face down on the resident’s sofa.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 6 September 2023 in which it said:
1. Its project surveyor had assessed the installed windows and agreed that it was not up to standard and required remedial works.
2. It apologised for the window gap and that this has let in pollen and cold air, which had an impact on the resident’s health.
3. Its contactor had been attempting to complete the works, but the resident had not permitted access. This had subsequently been rebooked for 12 September 2023.
4. The window repair works would be overseen by its project surveyor to ensure that the work was completed to a good standard.
5. It apologised that the resident’s television was damaged by its contractor. It noted that its contractor had offered to buy a replacement television or cash equivalent value of £249.
6. It was offering £150 compensation for the inconvenience, time and trouble of the damage to the television and the works to the windows not being completed on the first instance.
7. It had reminded its contractors not to move resident’s possessions and that its clerk of works would hand over all properties in future to identify faults at the earliest opportunity.
The resident escalated his complaint on 18 September 2023. He said that the works to his windows remained outstanding, and it was now over a year since it was reported. He also said that the contractor had deprived him of his television and asked for the matter to be escalated to its insurance company.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 11 October 2023. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint and said:
1. It apologised for the delays to completing the repairs to the resident’s windows. It noted that the resident had not permitted access to his property on two occasions as he wanted the compensation for his television to be paid first.
2. The contactor was willing to undertake the repairs, when the resident granted access. It had offered an appointment on 24 or 31 October 2023. The landlord said this would not negatively impact the compensation claim.
3. Its review panel had found no evidence that the television was damaged by the contractor, however it noted positively that the contractor had immediately accepted liability (without requesting evidence) and offered £249 compensation.
4. It noted that the resident had requested additional compensation for his television but said that he had not taken depreciation into account. On this basis, the landlord felt the contractor’s offer was reasonable.
5. It reiterated the £150 compensation that it offered in its stage 1 complaint response and said that it felt this remained appropriate.
6. It said that the resident could raise a claim for insurance via his own home contents insurance and this would then be progressed to the contractor’s insurer for consideration.
7. It would await the resident confirming a date for access to complete the works. It confirmed that its project surveyor would continue to oversee the works to check the standards of workmanship.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman on 23 November 2023 seeking completion of the repairs to the windows and additional compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

When a complaint is made to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or elements of a complaint will not be investigated. After carefully considering all the evidence I have determined that some elements of the complaint are not able to be considered.
As part of the complaint, the resident sought compensation from the landlord for the impact of the window repair situation on his health and welfare, this is known as a personal injury claim. In particular, the resident stated that he his rhinitis and sarcoidosis had been aggravated and worsened by living in the property with cold air, dust and pollen entering through the gap under the window.
Paragraph 42 (f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, tribunal or other procedure.”
This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the cause of, or liability for, personal injury, therefore we will not consider this element of the resident’s complaint. This Service can give an opinion as to whether the landlord responded in a reasonable manner to the resident’s reports of the window repair, however, claims of personal injury must be decided by a court of law who can assess specialist medical evidence and make a judgement on the merits of the case.
The Ombudsman understands that this situation has been very stressful for the resident and therefore he may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action, or lack thereof, by the landlord.

The installation of the resident’s windows.

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.
As part of a planned works programme, the landlord’s contractor undertook works to replace windows in the resident’s property on 12 October 2022. During this installation, the resident noted that a line of brick had been removed from underneath two windowsills and said that this was allowing cold air, dust and pollen to enter the property. He said that this was increasing his energy bills and worsening his health conditions.
In response to these concerns, the evidence shows that the landlord:
1. Apologised to the resident for the gap underneath his window, which was letting in air and pollen.
2. Arranged for its project surveyor to attend and assess the work undertaken. In its stage 1 complaint response, it confirmed that the window installation had been sub-standard and required remedial works. In particular, the surveyor noted that a hole under the window had been covered with plastic trim, rather than being filled and plastered.
3. Arranged follow up appointments for the works to be completed. This included on 12 September 2023 and 19 September 2023, however the resident did not permit access on these dates as he requested that the compensation for his television be paid first.
4. Recognised that the repairs had not been completed within a reasonable timescale and offered the resident £150 compensation in its stage 1 complaint response for the inconvenience, time and trouble he had experienced.
Within its stage 2 complaint response the landlord apologised that the works to the windows remained outstanding. It said that it had raised this with its contractor and had recruited internally to address its own staff shortages, which had also contributed to the delay. It also said:
1. The resident had previously declined access for the works to be completed and that its contractor was prepared to undertake the works when this was granted.
2. It had set a provisional date for the works to be completed on 24 or 31 October 2023 and asked for the resident to confirm this.
3. Its project surveyor would continue to oversee any works completed to ensure that they were of a good standard.
At the time this case was escalated to the Ombudsman in November 2023, and when evidence was sought from the landlord as part of this investigation in July 2024, the issues with the windows remained outstanding. This is a period of almost 2 years since the initial works were undertaken and almost 1 year since the resident’s formal complaint to the landlord. It is acknowledged that this was caused, in part, by a lack of access from the resident, however this remains a significant delay.
Overall, the landlord has made reasonable steps to attempt to progress the repairs with its contractor. It had not been able to complete these due to a lack of access from the resident at the time of his complaint. The landlord has also apologised for the delays and offered the resident £150 compensation.
Taking these factors together, the landlord has taken reasonable steps to progress the matter with its contractor and has provided redress for the delays and inconvenience he has experienced. On this basis, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the resident’s complaint about the installation of his windows satisfactorily. A recommendation has been made below, should the works remain outstanding at the time of this determination.

Damage to the resident’s television.

The resident said that his television was damaged by the landlord’s contractor when they moved it to undertake the works to his windows on 12 October 2022. He said that they laid it face down on his sofa and, after it was placed back, it did not work. The resident said that he reported this to the contractor at the time the works were completed, and the evidence shows that he followed this up on 7 July 2023.
Prior to the resident raising his formal complaint, the landlord’s contractor had assumed liability for the damage to the television and had committed to purchasing a replacement. The contractor sought details of the type of television and its serial number in July 2023.
The resident raised his formal complaint on 3 August 2023 and said that the contractors had broken his television and that he was seeking compensation for the item itself and the loss of enjoyment from not having his television for several months.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 6 September 2023 offered £150 compensation for the inconvenience, time and trouble for the television being damaged and confirmed that the contractor was prepared to purchase a replacement television or offer a cash alternative of £249. Following this:
1. On 6 September 2023, the resident contested the amount of compensation offered as he said that the original television had cost him £749 and that a television of the same size and specification would now cost no less than £479. He also said that this sum did not reflect the loss of the television for several months.
2. On 7 September 2023, the contractor advised the landlord that replacing the television for the same model would cost £229-249.
3. On 8 September 2023, the resident said that the contractor was trying to “fob [him] off with a second–hand TV bought off Ebay”, rather than replacing the item ‘new for old’. The resident said that this was the principle used by the majority of insurers and should be applied here. The resident also supplied evidence of the cost of the television that he has secured from the manufacturer.
4. On 13 September 2023, the landlord confirmed that the details of the television had been passed to its contractor who, along with its insurance company, was considering the information.
5. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 18 September 2023, as the issue remained outstanding.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord’s review panel said that it had found no evidence that the television had been damaged by the landlord’s contractors but that it was positive to note that the contractor had assumed liability for this without needing additional evidence. It reiterated that the contractor had offered £249 and said that the resident had not considered the impact of depreciation in his request for further compensation.
Overall, the evidence shows that the landlord’s contractor directly accepted liability for the damage to the television at an early stage. The landlord continued to pursue this matter with its contractor, its insurance and communicated its offer of £249 compensation or a replacement television. The landlord also offered its own apology and compensation of £150 to take account of the time the resident did not have access to his television.
Taking these factors together, the landlord has taken reasonable steps to progress the matter with its contractor and has provided redress for the delays and inconvenience caused by the damage. On this basis, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the resident’s complaint about damaged caused to his television satisfactorily.
In the event that the dispute related to the resident’s television is ongoing, the resident may choose to seek compensation by means of an insurance claim and a recommendation has been made below in respect of this.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) the Scheme the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the following complaints satisfactorily:
1. The landlord’s handling of the installation of the resident’s windows.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damaged caused to his television by the landlord’s contractors.

Recommendations

The landlord should:
1. Assess whether the works to the windows remain outstanding. If so, it should await confirmation from the resident as to when he is willing to permit access and then complete the works in a timely way. It should ensure that the works are overseen by its project surveyor, or equivalent, to check that they are completed to a good standard, which addresses the resident’s concerns.
2. Continue supporting the resident with his claim regarding his television to the contractor’s insurance, if required.