Southern Housing (202329195)

Decision
Case ID	202329195
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Southern Housing
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	20 April 2026

Background

1. The resident queried his service charges in 2022 after the landlord requested an additional payment above previously estimated costs. He was dissatisfied with the length of time the landlord took to respond. The resident confirmed that the landlord provided an explanation and refunded some charges, but his queries about scaffolding costs remain unresolved.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s service charge queries.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge queries.
   2. The landlord offered reasonable redress for the failures identified in its handling of the associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge queries

4. There were unreasonable delays in the landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge queries. Although it acknowledged this and offered compensation, it is yet to provide a substantive response on the scaffolding costs, despite promising to do so.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

5. The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging its complaint handling failings and put things right by offering proportionate compensation for the impact caused.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report in relation to its handling of the resident’s service charge queries. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior member of staff. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 18 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £300 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its handling of the resident’s service charge queries. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 18 May 2026
3	Write to the resident The landlord must write to the resident by the due date setting out its position on the scaffolding costs and state whether it considers them reasonable. It must explain the reasons for its position, with reference to any evidence relied upon. Where the landlord considers any refund to be appropriate, it must confirm the amount, the method and clear timescale by which this will be implemented.	No later than 18 May 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
12 January 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. He said that: it had been 10 months since he initially queried his service charge increase for the year 2022 to 2023 and an unexpected bill for the year 2020 to 2021 the TV aerial repairs, roof leak repairs and scaffolding costs should be covered by the major works reserve the communal bin tap had not been fixed but the landlord still charged him for this The resident asked the landlord to revise the charges to reflect the services provided.
7 March 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response and upheld the complaint. It apologised for not responding to the service charge queries since March 2022. It offered the resident £15 compensation for the impact of this and a further £50 for delays in responding to his complaint. It explained how it calculates service charges. It also confirmed that the reserve fund cannot be used for day-to-day repairs and agreed to remove the communal bin tap charge.
15 March 2023	The resident told the landlord that he did not consider the complaint outcome completely satisfactory due to concerns about the TV aerial and scaffolding costs.
April 2023 to March 2024	The resident chased a response by phone and email on several occasions. In October 2023 he said he was unhappy with how the landlord handled his complaint.
5 April 2024	Following our intervention, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It apologised for its lack of communication to date. It offered the resident £200 compensation, including £50 for complaint handling. It said it could not evidence parts of the TV aerial costs and would refund these to the resident’s rent account. It also said it could not evidence the scaffolding costs, which it was still reviewing. It promised a further update on this.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate the complaint. He said that although he received a refund of the TV aerial repair costs, he has not received an update on the scaffolding costs.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge queries.
Finding	Maladministration

6. Our investigation focused on the landlord’s communication about the service charges. This is because we may not investigate complaints about the level of service charges or level of increase. As a result, we are unable to determine whether the landlord overcharged the resident for any services. The resident may wish to seek independent advice if he is looking to further challenge the reasonableness of any service charges.
7. The landlord confirmed that the resident first queried the charges in March 2022 and raised further questions after receiving a reconciliation bill in July 2022. By January 2023 the resident said he had still not received a response. Given the timescales involved, it was reasonable that the landlord apologised for the delay and provided answers to the resident’s queries as part of its stage 1 response.
8. Following the stage 1 response, the resident said the TV aerial repair costs were unrealistic and that he did not recall scaffolding being used. The landlord said the TV aerial costs were reasonable and provided copies of quotes, but said it was still awaiting information about the scaffolding. It is unclear why it provided copies of quotes rather than invoices, given it said it had already incurred those costs. The resident continued to challenge the TV aerial and scaffolding costs by phone and email on at least 20 occasions between April 2023 and January 2024. The landlord did not provide a substantive response during this period, which was unreasonable, particularly given it had already upheld a complaint about delays.
9. In February 2024 the landlord discussed the issues with the resident and provided some invoices, but this did not resolve the matter. At stage 2 it said it could not evidence parts of the TV aerial repair costs and would refund these, which differed from its earlier position. It again said it was reviewing the scaffolding costs, with no progress since the previous year. It apologised for its poor communication and offered a further £150 compensation, bringing the total to £175.
10. Where there are failings by a landlord, as it the case here, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress (apology, compensation and response to outstanding queries) put things right and resolved the complaint in line with our dispute resolution principles.
11. The landlord acted reasonably by acknowledging its communication failures and offering compensation. Although it promised to update the resident regarding scaffolding costs, it did not set a timescale by which he could expect a response. We have also not seen any evidence it has responded in the last 2 years since April 2024. The landlord recently told us it could not confirm whether it had made any refund or adjustment.
12. Had the landlord followed through on its stage 2 promise of a further update, we would have likely found reasonable redress. However, it failed to do so, which prolonged the matter, causing the resident further distress and inconvenience. We have ordered the landlord to set out its position regarding the scaffolding costs within the next 4 weeks. In line with our compensation guidance for situations where there have been failures which adversely affected the resident, we have also ordered it to pay him £300compensation. This is inclusive of the £175 it already paid as part of its internal complaints process.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
Finding	Reasonable redress

13. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the complaint complied with the definition of a complaint in the Complaint Handling Code (March 2022) (the Code). The timescales in the landlord’s current complaint procedure comply with the April 2024 Code.
14. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint within 3 working days, in line with its policy. It issued another acknowledgement 6 working days later. It provided its full response after 38 working from receipt of the complaint. Although it requested 2 extensions, which were permitted by its policy, its response was still 8 working days late based on the date of its initial acknowledgement.
15. On 15 March 2023 the resident told the landlord he was dissatisfied with the stage 1 outcome. Under its complaints policy, it should have discussed his concerns further. While it agreed to respond to some service charge queries, it would have been reasonable for it to check whether the resident wished to escalate his complaint.
16. The resident repeatedly told the landlord his complaint remained unresolved during later contact about service charges. Despite this, in January 2024, the landlord told him it had closed the complaint. It did not escalate it to stage 2 until our intervention. This meant it issued its response 269 working days after the resident first expressed dissatisfaction with the stage 1 outcome. Its policy timescale was 20 working days.
17. The landlord reasonably acknowledged and apologised for poor communication from its complaints team. It paid the resident £100 compensation for complaint handling failures across both stages, which was proportionate and in line with our compensation guidance. The main impact of the communication failures was already considered as part of the substantive service charge complaint. The landlord did not identify any learning, which we address below.

Learning

18. Landlords should ensure clear ownership for investigating and responding to service charge disputes. Where multiple teams are involved, responsibility should be clearly defined and followed through to completion.
19. Since the complaint, the landlord has implemented a service charge policy which sets out its process for managing service charge disputes, setting out clear response timescales. This should improve transparency and consistency.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The landlord’s records were adequate.

Communication

21. Landlords should communicate clearly and promptly with residents to avoid unnecessary distress. Where a resident remains dissatisfied with a stage 1 outcome, the landlord should establish whether the complaint should be escalated and act in line with its complaint policy timescales.