We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Southern Housing (202324841)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324841

Southern Housing

19 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:
    1. Communication in relation to the resident’s requests for information.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident was a shared owner of the property, a ground floor flat, between 2021 and 2024. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord holds a head-lease with the freeholder and under-lease with the resident. A managing agent manages the building and provides services on behalf of the freeholder.
  2. On 6 June 2023, the resident contacted the landlord. He said:
    1. He did not feel a commercial insurance policy provided the correct cover for a residential building. He wanted to see the minutes from a meeting between the landlord and managing agent about the insurance policy.
    2. He felt his communication through the landlord’s service centre was not successful and requested a specific point of contact.
    3. He was unhappy with the landlord’s update on internet provision. He had been waiting 2 years for the installation of full fibre broadband and expected the landlord to provide further details and dates for when the service would be upgraded.
    4. When he bought the property, no cladding issues were identified. Recently he had found out that the building received a B2 rating. He wanted an update on what action was taking place with the cladding.
  3. The resident then complained to the landlord on 13 July 2023. He said:
    1. Since moving into the property, he had experienced very poor customer service and communication.
    2. He had written to the landlord on 6 June 2023 requesting answers to important questions. Because it did not reply, he had sent the email again on 20 June 2023. He did not get a response.
    3. He had contacted the landlord about smells from the rubbish on 26 June 2023. On 28 June 2023 it told him it would respond within 10 working days. He did not receive a response.
    4. He wanted the landlord to include the points in the email he sent on 20 June 2023 into his overall complaint about its poor professional standards.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 28 July 2023. It said:
    1. It was not responsible for providing buildings insurance. The building had a managing agent which arranged insurance on behalf of the freeholder.
    2. His area had a property manager. However, it was unable to guarantee a single point of contact for the resident’s queries. It encouraged him to contact the service centre.
    3. It was aware that the resident and other residents were seeking further information on internet changes. It had no further information to provide but would share any updates when they became available.
    4. Following the allocation of the B2 rating, the building safety team had shared the information they normally would. It encouraged the resident to contact that team directly with any specific queries.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 9 August 2023. He said:
    1. One of the main points of his complaint related to the landlord’s poor customer service, but it had not mentioned this in its stage 1 complaint. He expected an answer on why its customer service was so “atrocious”.
    2. The landlord had also not addressed his complaint about the smells from the refuse bins he was experiencing.
    3. He did not feel the landlord had dealt with his concerns about the buildings insurance. He wanted to know how leaseholders had been represented at the meeting between the landlord and freeholder regarding the insurance policy. The provision of the minutes would provide the necessary detail, but the landlord had not supplied them as requested. It had also omitted his request for information on how it intended to deal with the issue moving forward.
    4. The landlord’s response about the internet was unsatisfactory. Despite his repeated attempts to obtain information, the landlord had not provided it. He had never spoken to the person named in the stage 1 response about the internet issues. 2 years after requesting to upgrade the internet, the landlord had not made any progress.
    5. The landlord had not adequately answered his queries surrounding the cladding. He had emailed the cladding team himself in January 2022 but had never received a response.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 September 2023. It said:
    1. It was investigating the foul smell from the bins. This included enquiring if the lids could be kept closed and the bins moved away from the lift as in previous years.
    2. It was unable to share minutes of meetings with its contractors due to the discussion of unrelated matters not related to the resident.
    3. The resident’s building incorporated a mix of residential and student accommodation. The landlord only held leases for a small number of properties in the block. It was not responsible for insuring the building and had no influence over the cost of the insurance premiums. It had approached the managing agent with a request for it to review the insurance excess. The approach had been unsuccessful.
    4. It did not have an update on the case law it was using to query the insurance policy). The managing agent had submitted their accounts for 2021/2022, which it was reviewing. The historical position was still being questioned and a response awaited from the managing agent.
    5. It had created a home ownership team in April 2023. The resident had a property manager who he had been in contact with. Nonetheless, it asked that he contact the service centre with his queries so they could be allocated to the correct teams.
    6. It was aware the resident wanted a full-fibre internet connection. It had been involved in communications with the current provider regarding wayleave negotiations, but their responses had been delayed. The process had also been delayed due to its own merger with another landlord. It had contacted 7 other internet suppliers. One of the major networks had advised it would be laying full fibre in the area in early 2024. It was unable to control where broadband providers placed their networks and advised the resident to register his interest to demonstrate need.
    7. As a leaseholder it was not responsible for the cladding remediation. The managing agent was responsible for arranging the work. The agent had advised that their consultants had completed further investigations and were compiling a report. When it received an update from the managing agent it would share this with the resident.
    8. In recognition of its findings, it apologised and offered the resident £50 compensation.
  7. The resident sold the property and moved out 2024

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests

Cladding

  1. When investigating a complaint relating to the government’s guidance on fire safety and cladding, the Ombudsman will consider the following points:
    1. The landlord’s long-term plans for compliance with the guidance and whether these were fair and reasonable.
    2. How it communicated with shared owners/leaseholders regarding the situation and whether this communication was appropriate.
    3. How it responded to the individual circumstances of the resident.
  2. We acknowledge that the landlord was not responsible for organising or undertaking the cladding remediation works. However, as a building owner itself, it would have had the knowledge and expertise to provide a detailed response to the resident on the general process, steps involved and the potential timescales.
  3. In his email to the landlord on 6 June 2023, the resident clearly expressed that he was unsure about the cladding situation and that it had not come up as part of his conveyancing. The landlord’s response that it had already shared the information that it normally would was unhelpful. It is not disputed that the landlord was not responsible for the conveyancing process. However, given the resident’s queries, it could have engaged with him to clarify the dates and timeframes involved with the cladding issues specific to the building. The landlord’s response was not appropriate and lacked support for the resident.
  4. The resident indicated to the landlord that he had contacted the building safety team in 2022 about the cladding and nobody had got back to him. Its response telling him to contact them again would have been frustrating for the resident. While we are aware the landlord did pass the resident’s query to the building safety team, the information provided in response was minimal.
  5. On 21 July 2023, the cladding safety team sent an internal email in response to the resident’s request for information. They advised they had requested information from the freeholder in June 2023 but had not received a response. Upon receiving the resident’s request, it would have been good practice for the cladding safety team to have been proactive and to have pursued the freeholder for a comprehensive answer. As a minimum, the landlord could have provided the resident with the contact details of the responsible person so that he could follow it up himself.
  6. In its evidence to this Service, the landlord has not provided any documents or emails to show that it proactively communicated with the freeholder. Further, it has not provided any evidence to demonstrate how it was keeping the resident up to date on the cladding issues. Overall, we consider the landlord’s actions in relation to the resident’s concerns and requests regarding cladding were unreasonable.

Insurance

  1. There are a number of lease agreements that apply to the resident’s building. Upon examination of these documents, it is apparent that the freeholder is responsible for insuring the building for the “full re-instatement costs against loss or damaged by the insured risks… Which include fire and such other risks”.
  2. Nonetheless, the landlord was still responsible for supporting the resident and responding to his queries. He made clear that he had significant concerns about the £25,000 excess in the insurance policy. He also queried the suitability of a commercial insurance policy for a residential block. The resident was paying for a proportion of the insurance policy through his service charge directly to the landlord. It was therefore not appropriate for it to simply state that it was not responsible for insurance, as it did in the stage 1 response.
  3. As part of his request, the resident asked for the minutes of a meeting concerning insurance between the landlord and responsible parties. He stated that he wanted these minutes to see how leaseholders’ interests had been represented. The landlord refused this request on the basis that the meeting included other topics that did not concern insurance. This decision was unreasonable. The landlord could have redacted those aspects that did not concern the resident. Its approach lacked transparency and openness.
  4. It is important for landlords to remember that, as they are spending residents’ money, those residents have the right to scrutinise and question how that money is being spent. There are of course legal obligations that must be complied with in the provision of information associated with service charges. However, in the spirit of transparency and openness, landlords should deal with requests in a fair and reasonable manner and seek to provide information at the earliest opportunity. This would have been especially beneficial in this case.
  5. Within the evidence, it is apparent that the landlord had informed the resident that it was pursuing the issues with the insurance in line with specific case law. In his stage 2 escalation the resident queried this case law and implied that he believed the landlord was being dishonest in this respect. The landlord did not provide a response to these claims, nor did it provide the case law as requested. This was frustrating for the resident and left him feeling that he had not received the answers he had requested.
  6. The landlord emailed the managing agent on 28 November 2023. The email referred to a meeting between the parties in relation to the insurance excess. The landlord confirmed it had previously committed to provide the case law it had referenced. It said it had re–checked, stating “there isn’t case law as such” and that it would be relying on the Financial Conduct Authority Regulations to address the issue. Where errors are made, landlords should take ownership of those errors and be open in their communication with residents. We would therefore have expected the landlord to have followed up with the resident and provided the same explanation it had given the managing agent.

Internet

  1. The landlord has provided minimal evidence to demonstrate how it has dealt with the resident’s internet queries. For example, it has not provided its communications with service providers, contractors, or the owners of the building, to demonstrate that it was proactively pursuing the issue.
  2. Within current living trends, a fast internet connection is ever more important and can cause extreme frustration for those without it. We understand that availability can be dependent on the correct infrastructure being available. The landlord should have recognised the importance of regular updates to the resident about the internet. It was unreasonable for it only to be reactive in its communications.
  3. In the landlord’s communications with the resident, it blamed a merger with another landlord and the slow response of service providers. In the absence of any supporting documentation, we do not see either of these as reasonable explanations for a delay that had been ongoing for a 2–year period.

Refuse smells

  1. The landlord submitted a number of building inspection reports to this Service. The reports, dated 3 March 2023 and 16 May 2023, both show 2 large 660–litre refuse containers. The lid on one container was open and the second container did not have a lid. It would be common knowledge among housing officers and building managers that lids on refuse containers should always remain closed. Leaving lids open allows smells to permeate and attracts vermin such as rats and mice.
  2. Given this evidence, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acted upon the resident’s email on 6 June 2023 immediately. It was not until 26 June 2023 – after the resident’s second email – that the landlord made contact. In that email it said it would provide a response on 28 June 2023. However, the landlord did not respond until it issued its stage 2 response on 20 September 2023, nearly 3 months later, which was inappropriate.
  3. In that response it said it was investigating whether the lids could be kept closed and the bins moved. The response was vague in relation to when the landlord had specifically raised the resident’s concern with the managing agent. A photograph of the bins on 9 September 2023 shows that the lids remained open. The landlord’s failure to take timely action combined with its poor communication was unreasonable.

Conclusion

  1. The resident originally emailed the landlord on 6 October 2023. He did not receive a response and therefore forwarded his email again on 20 June 2023, to both a named member of staff and the customer contact centre. It was unfair that he still did not receive a response. When the landlord did respond, it did not provide adequate detail or indicate that it had fully investigated the resident’s queries. This led to prolonged but avoidable frustration for the resident.
  2. Landlords should have have in place, apply and monitor their own communication key performance indicators to ensure residents are responded to as required. In this instance it was unreasonable that the resident had to make a formal complaint to obtain answers to his questions. Overall, the landlord’s communication was poor and has led to a finding of maladministration.
  3. As a result of our finding, we have made an award of £200 compensation. We have based the amount on our remedies guidance (published on our website), which the landlord also uses when awarding compensation. The remedies guidance recommends awards of this level where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.


Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2–stage complaints process. It has adopted the definition of a complaint in line with that of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’). Namely, a complaint is “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made… about the standard of service… or those acting on a landlords behalf”. At stage 1 the landlord commits to acknowledging complaints within 5 working days and responding within 10 working days from the date of the acknowledgement letter. At stage 2 it will acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days. The stage 2 response will be provided within 20 working days from the date of the acknowledgement letter.
  2. The resident’s email to the landlord on 20 June 2023 was a clear indication that he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s customer service and its lack of communication. Despite not explicitly stating he was making a complaint, in line with the Code and the landlord’s policy, the email should have been accepted as a complaint at this point. Failing to register a complaint led to the resident expending further time and trouble contacting the landlord.
  3. Upon accepting the complaint, the landlord provided an email acknowledgement 7 working days later. In that email it said it would provide a formal acknowledgement within 5 working days. However, it has not provided any evidence that it did so. While the delay was not extensive and the complaint was acknowledged informally, the landlord’s failure to adhere to its procedure and commitment would have been frustrating for the resident.
  4. The Code requires landlords to address all points raised in a complaint, as does the landlord’s complaints procedure. The landlord did not do this. It did not respond to the resident’s dissatisfaction with its poor communication and the foul smell from the bins. This was inappropriate and left the resident feeling unheard.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 9 August 2023. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 22 August 2023, 4 working days outside its target. While the delay was not excessive, it would still have been frustrating for the resident, informing him in advance of any delay would have improved his experience. However, the landlord appropriately provided its response within the required 20 working days after the stage 2 acknowledgement, which complied with its policy.
  6. In the resident’s escalation request he was clear that the landlord had failed to address his concerns regarding its communication. He said, “I want some answers why customer service is so atrocious”. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord again failed to address this complaint point. Not providing a response to his concerns left the resident doubting the landlord’s commitment to taking his complaint seriously and conducting a thorough investigation. It also impacted negatively on the relationship between the parties. Further, the omission shows the landlord did not take sufficient learning from its previous complaint handling failures. Due to these findings, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  7. In its stage 2 response the landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for its complaint handling failures at stage 1. This was an appropriate amount, but was insufficient to address the additional shortcomings highlighted above. We have therefore made an additional award of £100 compensation, in line with our remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
    1. Communication in relation to the resident’s request for information.
    2. Complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Provide a written apology from a senior manager to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The apology must meet the criteria highlighted in the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
    2. Pay the resident £350 compensation, which includes the £50 offered by the landlord at stage 2. This sum is comprised of:             
      1. £200 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience associated with the landlord’s communication in relation to the resident’s request for information.
      2. £150 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience associated with the landlord’s complaint handling.