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 (202335924)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202335924

Southern Housing

30 September 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 with the resident about lowering her ceiling.
    2. response to the resident’s requests for compensation.
    3. handling of the complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the property. The landlord is the freeholder of the building. The resident purchased the 2-bedroom, upper floor flat in 2019, when it was newly built. Soon after, an issue with sound transference in the building led to the developer carrying out extensive work to resolve it. During this time all occupants were moved out and the developer paid a weekly amount to cover living costs. Before works began, the landlord wrote to some households, including the resident, advising that their ceiling height would be reduced to accommodate steel joists.
  2. The resident complained on 21 April 2023 because she said she was unhappy that her ceiling had been lowered more than other properties and more than she had originally been advised. She reported that the ceiling was also not level. She complained there were 4 defects that she wanted to be put right, including a gap around the bath and exposed pipes above a boiler cupboard. She asked for the issues to be rectified and to be compensated above the amount the developer had awarded of £1500 to all households.
  3. In the stage 1 response, dated 30 May 2023, the landlord said the developer was responsible for the compensation package and advised her to contact it directly. It reflected that the resident had been advised in February 2022 that her ceiling would be reduced by up to 200mm (100mm more than originally advised). The landlord said the ceiling had been assessed by the developer and found to be within “tolerance”. It confirmed the defects would be resolved by the developer and it had given a target date of 28 June 2023, otherwise it would arrange the outstanding work.
  4. The resident asked to escalate her complaint the following day. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response because she felt it should ask the developer to compensate her. She advised she was also seeking compensation from the landlord for its communication about the ceiling height reduction. The resident asked for the landlord to explain how the developer would be addressing the defects and for confirmation of what the tolerance for the ceiling was.
  5. On 20 July 2023, the landlord sent a stage 2 response. It said it had passed her request to be compensated on to the developers and would update her again. It reiterated that the ceiling was within tolerance and offered to reimburse the cost of an independent surveyor if this was found not to be correct. The landlord found service failure because the defects were not rectified by the date given. It said it had taken learning to be proactive about monitoring agreed actions. It also awarded compensation of £275, made up of:
    1. £60 for its failure to repair.
    2. £200 for the inconvenience, time, and trouble.
    3. £15 for not monitoring the actions from stage 1.
  6. On 22 July 2023, the resident made a second complaint to the landlord. She said she remained unhappy with its response to her requests for more compensation. As an outcome the resident said she was seeking more money, confirmation of how much the ceiling height was reduced, and when the outstanding defects would be resolved. She also asked if the landlord had been aware of the noise transference issue at the point of sale.
  7. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 31 August 2023. It said it was unable to offer additional compensation because the amount it had offered was in line with its compensation policy. It reflected that the developer had advised it that it had considered this before but had identified no “material impact” to warrant awarding more than other tenants. It said it had offered to appoint its own contractor to complete the works and was waiting for her approval. The landlord advised it had already addressed her query about the ceiling height in its previous response. It though referred to the National House Building Council’s (NHBC) standards on ceilings to explain why the residents was found to be within tolerance. The landlord said it was still investigating her request about when it became aware of the noise issue and would send a follow up response.
  8. On 9 September 2023, the resident escalated her complaint. She said she disagreed with the landlord’s response because she was asking it to compensate her and not the developer. She also said she had evidenced the landlord had given contradictory answers to her question about how much the ceiling had been lowered. The resident said that, while the ceiling may have been within tolerance, it was “noticeably uneven”. She said she had requested more information from the landlord about the contractor it would use to complete the defect works and that had not been provided.
  9. In the landlord’s stage 2 response, dated 19 October 2023, it said it had not altered its position on the compensation for the ceiling issue and it being at a tolerable level. However, the landlord agreed it had used different units in its communications about the ceiling. It also apologised for a delay in responding to her query about when it became aware of the noise transference issue. It awarded £15 (£295 in total) for the confusion caused by using different units of measurement.
  10. The resident referred her complaint to us because she was unhappy with the amount of compensation the landlord awarded. She said she had also still not received a clear response to her question about the amount the ceiling was reduced by. She also said that the defects had not been completed. The resident said the circumstances of her complaint caused her stress. As an outcome she was seeking more compensation, confirmation of the height of her ceiling from someone independent, and all defects to be resolved. The landlord has since completed the agreed works in April 2024. It also awarded more compensation of £50 because they were further delayed.

Assessment and findings

Communication about ceiling height reduction

  1. Our spotlight report on shared ownership and new builds, published in September 2020, highlighted the importance of effective communication from landlords. This includes being clear about who is responsible for a repair or defect. Before and during the structural works, the landlord held meetings with residents and sent newsletters answering frequently asked questions. In its November 2021 newsletter it explained it had “no say” under its contract in the works that were undertaken. We are satisfied the landlords newsletters made it clear that the developer was responsible for completing the works.
  2. In this situation, we would expect to see the landlord was keeping residents updated, both with the building works and any individual ones to their home. We have seen that the landlord appointed a “partner organisation” to help with the moving planning and to help keep residents individually updated. It is undisputed that the resident was initially advised, along with other affected residents, that her ceiling would be reduced in height by 100mm. Again, it is not in dispute that she was individually contacted by the partner organisation in February 2022 about the need to reduce the height of her ceiling further. In this email she was advised it would be reduced “up to 200mm.” As such, the evidence supports the landlord’s position that it notified her about the change to her ceiling. This was appropriate and within its remit as the liaison between the resident and the developer.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord’s aftercare team in November 2022 about the ceiling height. She said the developer had told her at a recent inspection that her ceiling had been reduced by approximately 8 inches (or 203.2mm). The evidence shows the developer assessed the ceiling although the date this happened is not confirmed in the evidence. There is also no record, that we have seen, of the findings of this other than an internal email from mid-May. This states the ceiling was lowered “around 14cm” (or 140mm). In its responses to the resident’s request for confirmation of the exact amount the landlord has given the same answer that it was reduced “by up to 200mm”.
  4. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which the landlord’s complaints policy at the time adhered to, states it “must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions”. We find the landlord’s responses were not specific enough to address the resident’s concerns. If it did not know the exact amount the ceiling had been reduced by, it would have been reasonable for it to state this and explain why. While it should have been clearer, the landlord’s response has always been consistent in that it has only been able to provide an approximate measurement. There is no evidence, that we have seen, that the landlord has withheld information from the resident. We are therefore satisfied that it has addressed her request to a reasonable extent, albeit that it should have been clear that it was only able to give an estimate.
  5. The resident was also unhappy with the landlord’s response to her report that the ceiling was uneven. Initially it said the developer found the ceiling was “within tolerance”. Again, the landlord’s response should have been clearer. It then went on, when questioned by the resident, to explain this meant it was found to be within the standards set by the NHBC for deviations in measurements of a ceiling. Its response was in line with the expectation of the Code to refer to relevant guidance and standards. However, it could have provided this information sooner than it did. It could also have responded in a more accessible way than it did.
  6. While the above is true, we find the landlord took some appropriate actions. It acknowledged it used different units of measurements. This clearly caused confusion so it was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge this. The landlord also offered an appropriate solution in offering to reimburse the resident’s cost for an independent surveyor should they confirm the ceiling is not within a tolerable amount.
  7. The landlord’s compensation policy states it may award £15 or £50 for service failings. We agree with it that using different units was unhelpful, and that it was appropriate to recognise this. We have though found that it should have been more specific in its responses and, not doing so, likely caused the resident time and trouble pursuing the answers to her questions. As such, we have made a finding of service failure. We have ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation in line with its compensation policy for discretionary payments and our guidance on remedies.

Request for further compensation

  1. In our spotlight report we recognised that landlords do not always have the power to investigate or resolve the issue complained about. The landlord had, as quoted earlier, advised in its November 2021 newsletter that it was not responsible for the structural works. It also said in this same newsletter that the developer would be offering compensation after all works had been completed. It then updated residents again a year later that the developer would be writing directly to residents with the compensation award. The landlord stated it was not involved in deciding the amount and that it would not itself be awarding compensation. As such, we find the landlord’s decision on the resident’s request to be compensated above the amount the developer awarded was consistent with the approach it had communicated throughout. It also advised her she could contact the developer directly to request more compensation and it then also later asked it to. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
  2. The resident was also unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her reports of defects. In the resident’s case, the landlord’s responsibility was to instruct the developer to complete work within an agreed timescale. In such cases, we would expect to see the landlord had oversight of what was happening and that it was keeping the resident updated.
  3. In the December 2022 newsletter it advised that the developer was prioritising urgent repairs, such as to boilers, over addressing decorative defects. In March 2023 the landlord confirmed a list of the 25 defects the resident had reported. These were mainly decorative issues, apart from a cracked window. The landlord confirmed when the window would be repaired. It also advised that the developer would be in contact to arrange the work but then subsequently attended a joint inspection in mid-April to assess the reported defects. The evidence shows that the landlord was at this time reasonably keeping the resident updated and was also attempting to progress the resolution of the defects.
  4. By the time of her first complaint in April 2023, the resident reported 4 of these were outstanding: a lack of beading around flooring edges, there were exposed pipes to her boiler, and there were gaps around the lounge door frame and around the side of the bath. There is no indication that any of these issues were urgent, and the landlord’s internal emails refer to them as “cosmetic”. Even so, we would expect the landlord to have been keeping the resident updated with timescales. But it did not, from the evidence we have seen, do anything between the inspection and stage 1 response in late May 2023 to keep her informed.
  5. The landlord appropriately apologised in its initial response that these works were outstanding. It explained that, while it had been “challenging” to complete works on all affected properties, it acknowledged it had taken too long. The landlord confirmed it had given the developer a month to complete them. And that if this were not met it would then arrange for the works to be completed. Both the landlord’s policy and the Code required it to monitor agreed actions through to completion. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to recognise, in its first stage 2 response from July 2023, that it failed to do this and take steps to put things right. This included learning that it should be more proactive about monitoring compliance with its agreed actions.
  6. The landlord offered in its second stage 2 response, from October 2023, to complete the works or to allow the resident to appoint her own contractor. While she initially said that she would be taking legal action instead, she later advised in December 2023 that she wanted the landlord to complete the works. It completed these in March and April 2024. This was around 9 months after the original target date, which was clearly inappropriate. The landlord awarded £275 in total during the complaints process. This included £200 in recognition of the inconvenience the resident was caused, £60 for the failure to complete the works, and £15 for its mistake in not monitoring them after the initial response. It also provided a further £50 after the complaints process ended to recognise the further delay. We are satisfied the total amount of £325 was proportionate to the cumulative impact on the resident. It was consistent with the landlord’s compensation policy for cases where there has been delays that have caused a degree of distress, inconvenience, and trouble. It was also within the range our guidance on remedies recommends is paid for impacts that are not expected to be long lasting.
  7. We find that the landlord, having failed to fulfil its role in ensuring the defects were resolved within a reasonable timescale, took appropriate steps to put this right. As such we have found that it has reasonably addressed this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

Complaint handling

  1. The Code sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The landlord’s complaints policy adhered to the timescales and principles of the Code. As such it was required to respond within 10 working days of acknowledging and logging the complaint at stage 1 (15 working days overall). If the complaint was escalated to stage 2 it must respond within 20 working days of the acknowledgement (up to 25 working days). However, both the complaints policy and the Code allow for extensions to timescales at each stage where needed of up to 10 working days. In exceptional circumstances a landlord may request an extension of up to 20 working days but must get the residents agreement. It must also include details about how to contact us.
  2. In this case, the landlord took longer than its standard response times at every stage. In the first complaint it took 23 working days at stage 1, but it did follow the right process in updating the resident about the need to extend the timescale. Similarly, the landlord advised her about needing more time to respond at stage 1 of her second complaint (28 working days overall). However, it should have sought the resident’s agreement with this first. While it failed to do this, we have seen that it explained that the delay was due to staff absence, which we consider was an acceptable reason and was outside of its control. It did also appropriately provide details of this Service.
  3. There is no evidence, that we have seen, that the landlord advised the resident that its initial stage 2 response would be delayed. This was a failing especially as it took 35 working days to send it. We have also seen no record of the landlord advising the resident that it would not meet its timescale for the second stage 2 complaint, which took 28 working days overall. The landlord missed opportunities to recognise its failures and to take steps to put things right in the complaints process. As such we have found service failure and have ordered it to pay compensation in line with its policy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) there was service failure in the landlord’s communication with the resident about lowering her ceiling.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to her requests for compensation.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

 

 

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence showing it has:
    1. apologised for the complaint handling failures identified by this investigation.
    2. paid compensation of £100, made up of:
      1. £50 for the time and trouble caused by its communication over the ceiling height.
      2. £50 for the time and trouble caused by the lack of updates in the complaints process.

Recommendations

  1. If the landlord has not already done so, it should reoffer the compensation it awarded of £325 as this was the reason we decided it had reasonably resolved the resident’s request for further compensation.