Southern Housing (202336383)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202336383

Southern Housing

22 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 handling of the resident’s concerns about:
   1. Communal lighting issues.
   2. Lift repairs.
2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a leaseholder. She has lived in the property, a 2-bed fourth floor flat, for 18 years. The landlord is the freeholder.
4. The resident pays a monthly charge for services received. This includes communal electricity and lift servicing and repairs.
5. The flat is within a 5-storey block of similar flats. The design of the block is such that the corridors are open air rather than enclosed. This means they are lit naturally during the day. There are sensors and timers in place to turn the communal lights on when it gets dark.
6. On 21 December 2023 the resident made a stage 1 complaint. She said the communal lights were on permanently. She explained the issue was ongoing despite her regularly reporting it and she was concerned about the rising cost of electricity. The resident also said she was concerned about the number of times the lift had been out of service. She said residents were struggling to report the issue as waiting times on the landlord’s repair line often exceeded 30 minutes and they were being cut off while on hold.
7. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 24 January 2024. It said the lights in the block were on a sensor and came on when it got dark. It said it had attended the block and confirmed that the lights turned off around 8.15am. The landlord stated there had only been 4 lift callouts since June 2023 and it had resolved them all on the same day. It did not uphold the complaint.
8. The resident escalated her complaint on 5 February 2024. She said the landlord’s stage 1 response had been “patronising”. She explained that information provided in its response was incorrect and challenged the accuracy of the landlord’s records. She said that while the lighting was off when it attended, this was not generally the case. She also stated that the number of callouts the landlord had quoted was incorrect and there had been many callouts for lift breakdowns.
9. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 12 March 2024. It acknowledged the resident had provided evidence of the lights remaining on during the day. It said it would check the lighting sensors and timers and make any required adjustments. The landlord apologised if it had provided incorrect information. It acknowledged that there had been “issues” with its previous lift contractor and that the records for this period were “not as accurate as [it] would have liked”. The landlord said that it had brough the lift back into service following a water leak and that this was within a “reasonable timeframe”. It therefore did not uphold the complaint.
10. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response as she continued to experience issues with the communal lighting and lift. She therefore escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

Communal lighting issues.

11. The records show the resident began reporting her concerns about the communal lighting in March 2023. She reported the issue 11 times between then and the end of the landlord’s complaint process a year later. The repair records show the landlord’s response times varied from 1 to 36 days. It took an average of 13 days to resolve the issue each time the resident reported it.
12. The landlord’s repairs policy does not provide a target timeframe for routine repairs. Instead it states it aims to complete all repairs in “as little time as possible”. While landlords are not obliged to provide a timeframe for repairs, doing so allows them to more effectively manage resident’s expectations and monitor their own performance. Following a recent investigation we recommended that the landlord consider reviewing its repairs policy and consider including target timeframes for routine repairs. We will monitor the landlord’s response to this recommendation and therefore have not made the recommendation again.
13. The landlord did sometimes attend to resolve the lighting issue within a reasonable timeframe. However, we consider that its response was unreasonably delayed on several occasions.
14. We also note that operatives told the resident that when they changed a bulb in the communal areas, this caused the timer settings to be lost and the lights to remain on. As it was aware of this issue, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to update its system to ensure that when it changes a communal bulb, it resets the timer. This would have avoided the lights remaining on and the resident having to make repeated repair reports and chase their completion. We have ordered the landlord to consider what action it can take to ensure that when it changes a communal bulb it also resets the timer.
15. The resident has stated that she is concerned about energy being wasted and the financial impact of the increased energy usage. Given widespread increasing energy costs, this concern is understandable.
16. The landlord’s service charge policy states that it will “always look for value for money in the services [it] provide[s]”.Leaving lights on unnecessarily does not provide value for money.
17. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s concerns about the impact of the lighting on her service charges. It would have been reasonable for it to investigate her concerns and provide data showing whether there had been an impact on the usage in the block and therefore on her charges. That it did not was unreasonable.
18. Overall, the landlord did not consistently respond to the resident’s reports about the communal lights within a reasonable timeframe. Nor did it consider what measures it could put in place to prevent the issue from reoccurring. The landlord also failed to reasonably address the resident’s concerns about the impact of the lighting issue on her service charges. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about communal lighting being on constantly.
19. The landlord did not acknowledge its failings or offer any financial redress in relation to its handling of the communal lighting issues. This was unreasonable. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 for time and trouble associated with her having to repeatedly report the issue and chase for a response.
20. We have also ordered the landlord to investigate her concerns and provide data showing whether there had been an impact on the usage in the block and therefore on her charges. If this shows that her charges have increased due to the repair issue, the landlord should compensate the resident for the increase.

Lift repairs.

21. The lease states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the lift shafts and machinery. Its repair policy states it will attend emergency repairs (including lift breakdowns) within 6 hours to make safe. As previously explained, it does not provide a timeframe for non-emergency or follow-on repairs.
22. Between April 2023 and December 2023 the evidence shows 8 callouts due to issues with the lift. However, the landlord accepts that this information may not be reliable due to issues with its previous contractor.
23. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service and assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that it understands the condition of its properties, can monitor and manage outstanding repairs, and enable it to provide accurate information to residents. Landlord and contractor staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these. That the landlord cannot with confidence confirm how many times its contractor attended and the work it completed is unreasonable. The landlord’s lack of clarity on the actions of its contractor indicates that there were shortcomings in monitoring of the contractor’s performance.
24. We recognise that lifts are subject to a lot of wear and tear. We would not therefore necessarily consider the number of callouts for the lift to be usual.
25. On most occasions the landlord brought the lift back into service on the same day. This is a reasonable timeframe and in line with the landlord’s repair policy.
26. There were several instances however where the resident attempted to log lift repairs by telephone but, due to call waiting times, resorted to emailing landlord staff. She stated that she was often on hold for over 30 minutes and was sometimes cut off before speaking to anyone. While there is an option for online reporting, this is for ‘routine’ repairs. The resident could not therefore report the lift being out of service as this was considered an emergency. This caused her avoidable frustration, time and trouble.
27. Landlords often publish service standards outlining how quickly they aim to answer calls and respond to contact. While the landlord has a customer service promise, this provides no such timeframes. We have recommended that it consider implementing such an approach so residents know what level of service they can expect.
28. On 26 January 2024 the resident reported water leaking into the lift shaft. She said it was dripping onto the lift runners and she was concerned it was a safety issue. The records show the lift was out of service due to the water leak for 39 days.
29. We acknowledge that it will not always be possible for a landlord to bring a lift into service on the same day the issue is reported. However, in a multi-storey block we would expect it to prioritise the repair appropriately.
30. In its complaint response the landlord stated that it had brought the lift into service within a “reasonable” timeframe. We do not consider that 39 days was reasonable considering the impact of it being out of use.
31. We accept that it can often be difficult to trace the source of leaks and that this may have delayed the repairs. However, we would have expected the landlord to take some actions to mitigate the impact of the delays.
32. There is no evidence the landlord carried out a risk assessment or considered the impact of the broken lift on the resident. It did not contact the resident to ask whether she needed any support. Nor have we seen that it considered whether reasonable adjustments were required. This was a failing.
33. The lift was out of order for almost 7 weeks. The resident reported that she was worried about the wellbeing of her elderly neighbour who she said was unable to manage the stairs and needed help with her shopping. We have not seen that the landlord responded to this concern. It should reasonably have checked on the wellbeing of its residents while the lift was out of order for a prolonged period, especially those likely to be vulnerable. The landlord has not evidenced that it carried out any such checks on the resident. This was a failure.
34. Overall, the landlord has acknowledged that there are issues with the accuracy of its records in relation to the lift repairs. This demonstrates failings in its management of the lift contractor. The resident struggled to raise repairs due to issues with the landlord’s telephone system and this caused her time, trouble, and frustration. The landlord then delayed in repairing the lift. It also failed to address the impact that being without a lift may have had on those who like the resident lived on upper floors. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s handling to the resident’s concerns about lift breakdowns.
35. The landlord did not acknowledge its failings or offer any financial redress in relation to its handling of the lift repairs. This was unreasonable. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £350 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble in relation to its handling of the issue.

Complaint handling.

36. It took the landlord 21 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. This far exceeds the timescales outlined in its policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord did not advise the resident that it required an extension in the response timeframe. That it failed to acknowledge and apologise for this in its response was unreasonable.
37. In its stage 1 response the landlord provided data which it acknowledged at stage 2 was not accurate. If the landlord is not confident in the correctness of its data, it should not rely on it in a complaint response. Doing so caused the resident avoidable frustration.
38. The landlord also told the resident that it had attended the block and found the lights were not on during the day. It failed however to note that it had repaired the lighting issue several days before its visit. The resident has described feeling patronised and disbelieved by the landlord’s response. Had it carried out checks of its repair system before issuing the response it could have prevented causing the resident avoidable frustration.
39. It took the landlord 26 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint response. It again failed to request an extension. The landlord did not acknowledge its delay in its final complaint response or offer any redress. This was unreasonable.
40. Overall, the landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s complaint. It also caused avoidable frustration to the resident by failing to carry out reasonable checks of its data before issuing its response. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
41. The landlord did not offer the resident any redress for its complaint handling failings. We have ordered it to pay £100 which is proportionate to the time and trouble experienced by the resident and in line with our remedies guidance.

Determination

42. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about communal lighting issues.
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about lift repairs.
    3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

43. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £550 which comprises:
       1. £100 for time and trouble in relation to its handling of the resident’s concerns about communal lighting issues.
       2. £350 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble in relation to its handling of the resident’s concerns about lift repairs.
       3. £100 for time and trouble in relation to its complaint handling.
    3. Explain to the resident what action it will take to ensure that when it changes a communal bulb it also resets the timer.
    4. Investigate and respond to the resident’s concerns regarding electricity usage and the impact on service charges. If the usage and charges have increased due to delays carrying out repairs to the system then the landlord should reimburse the resident for the cost of running the lighting systems during the delays.

Recommendation

44. The landlord should review its customer service promise with a view to including standards or target timeframes for answering calls and responding to communications.