Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Southern Housing (202339455)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202339455

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 handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports about a ground floor communal door, her mailbox, flat doors, and pigeons in the loft.
    2. A request for a residents’ meeting.
    3. The resident’s concerns about missing rent payments.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bed upper floor flat.
  2. From April 2023 the resident raised her concerns about matters such as payments she had made not appearing on her rent account and her mailbox not being secure. The evidence shows the landlord responded to some of the issues, including by sending a rent statement to her on 15 September 2023 and inviting the resident to highlight any missing payments.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 19 February 2024 about a wide range of issues including about her mailbox, repairs to a communal door, and a residents’ meeting. On 26 March 2024 the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response setting out the actions taken about matters such as repair works done to the communal door and arrangements for the residents’ meeting. It also set out proposed actions for issues including the pigeons. It apologised for service failures and offered £100 compensation for the repair delays.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 26 March 2024. She repeated her original concerns adding that some of the actions from the landlord’s initial response had not been followed through including the residents’ meeting and communal door repairs. The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 19 July 2024. It confirmed what actions it had taken and what it still intended to resolve and increased its original compensation offer by £50 for repair delays.
  5. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman and has said she is seeking an apology and compensation.
  6. The landlord has provided evidence that shows it has continued to take complaint related actions following the completion of the complaints process.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has told the Service about new issues that have arisen after the final complaint response, including the landlord not arranging a December 2024 residents’ meeting. There is no evidence the issue has been put to the landlord as a complaint. The resident needs to do that before the Ombudsman can investigate. If she remains dissatisfied once the issue has been through the landlord’s complaints process, she has the option of bringing the new matter to the Ombudsman.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about a ground floor communal door, her mailbox, flat doors, and pigeons in the loft

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the property structure including the roof, internal doors (frames and hinges), and common parts such as the common entrance hall.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out timescales for attending emergency repairs (within 6 hours) and for non-emergency repairs (as soon as possible). It says residents are responsible for door accessories such as letter boxes. In its pests policy, the landlord states it will arrange treatment for pests in communal areas.
  3. On 19 February 2024 the resident complained a ground floor communal door repair was outstanding (it is not apparent when this had been reported or what the actual repair issue was).In its initial complaint response of 26 March the landlord said the door had been adjusted on 18 March, its final complaint response of 17 July 2024 confirmed the repair was complete. The resident confirmed it was repaired in early May 2025. The landlord acknowledged and offered compensation for its repair delays as well as apologising for its failings.
  4. The resident complained her post was being stolen from her mailbox (located outside the block). The evidence indicates she reported the issue to the landlord in October 2023 after being contacted about fly-tipping (by the local council who had found her stolen post). She said in January 2024 the police visited the site after she reported her mail was being stolen and they had recommended the landlord should replace the mailboxes, erect CCTV and/or add lighting. There is no evidence of any direct contact between the police and landlord at this time.
  5. The landlord failed to address the mailbox issue in its initial complaint response despite the resident’s concerns. In her escalation complaint the resident said she was being chased about a parking fine she had been unaware of because she said the post about it had been stolen. In its final complaint response of 19 July 2024 the landlord stated it was getting a quote to replace the mailboxes and apologised for the delay.
  6. The evidence indicates the resident gave the landlord a police crime reference number in December 2023. After she said the police had also visited the site (January 2024) and made recommendations, the evidence shows there was limited landlord action up until June 2024. It arranged 2 inspections (12 January and 10 April) and requested contractor quotes (May and June) for mailboxes with a “smaller opening”. While the initial inspection was timely, in the absence of any evidence explaining any further mailbox works, it was unreasonable.
  7. While the landlord initially committed to changing the mailboxes, on 16 August 2024 it told the resident the mailboxes were “fit for purpose” and would not be changed. Among others, the resident involved the police for a second time to support her request. On 24 August 2024, the police (following a second site visit) told the landlord the mailboxes were unsafe and made recommendations such as replacing them. On 25 September 2024, the mailboxes were replaced by the landlord.
  8. There is no evidence showing the reasons why the landlord did not make earlier police enquiries given that the resident repeatedly informed it of their recommendations from the start of 2024. Had it done so, it would have shown the resident it took her concerns seriously. The resident was however put to the time and trouble of involving the police again and chasing the landlord including after its final complaint response had committed to replacing the mailboxes. Considering the reported security risk, the delays were unreasonable. The evidence shows these failings caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  9. The resident complained that there were pigeons in the loft (it is not apparent when this was first reported). The loft area is located above the resident’s upper floor flat. The landlord’s initial response of 27 March said its contractors cancelled a visit on 20 March 2024 as the resident had told them there was no longer an issue. It said its contractors would contact her by 22 March 2024 to carry out a post-inspection of the loft. The complaint response demonstrated the landlord’s commitment to resolving the issue in line with its pest policy.
  10. While the resident confirmed an appointment to check the loft (18 April 2024), there is no clear evidence the resident escalated the complaint about the pigeon issue. Based on the evidence, the contractors stated the resident did not respond to calls about the April 2024 appointment. The resident has told us she does not “currently” hear any pigeons. Accordingly, no failings have been identified, and the issue appears to have been resolved.
  11. The resident complained the “post box” or brush seal on her letter flap (on the inside of her front flat door) had fallen away and gaps under internal doors(living room and kitchen) were outstanding since 2022. The landlord’s repairs policy states residents are responsible for letter boxes in their doors, and for any internal door issues apart from hinges and frames.
  12. In its initial complaint response the landlord set out actions such as an internal door inspection on 18 April 2024.In her escalation of the complaint, the resident said the works were still outstanding. The evidence shows on 25 June 2024, draught excluders were fixed to the internal doors. As the internal door repairs did not involve the frame or hinges, the resident was responsible for their repairs. Despite this the landlord used its discretion to repair the internal doors and by doing so it showed goodwill. Issues with the brush seal (in the letter box), were the resident’s to resolve.
  13. The landlord offered compensation of £150 in its complaint response for the repair delays. It did not make clear which repairs it was referring to. However, there was a lack of action over a significant period with the security of the mailboxes such as a failure to engage with the police and its recommendation at an earlier stage. The resident was put to the time and trouble and distress of involving the police on 2 occasions and repeatedly chasing the landlord including after it had already said it would replace the mailboxes. Its handling of and responses to the other issues in this complaint was reasonable, but it failed to reasonably acknowledge and remedy its poor handling of the mailbox issue.

The landlord’s handling of a request for a residents’ meeting

  1. The landlord’s resident group guide sets out how a residents’ group can be set up including by asking the landlord to help organise it.
  2. The resident complained the landlord had not set up a residents’ meeting despite her requests. In its initial complaint response it said it had not received feedback from a previous survey it had sent to residents about creating such a group but said it would send another.
  3. Following escalation when the resident stated she was still waiting for the meeting to be arranged, the landlord’s final complaint response said it had not progressed the meeting due to insufficient support for it. The evidence shows on 21 May 2024 it wrote to residents and later internal emails show no evidence that responses were received supporting a meeting. The landlord appropriately explored its residents’ interest for a meeting despite the lack of support from both surveys. The evidence shows a meeting did take place on 11 September 2024. Nothing in the evidence seen in this investigation indicates any failings in the landlord’s handling of this issue.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about missing rent payments

  1. The landlord’s arrears policy says residents can monitor their rent account and payments by requesting rent statements and by accessing their online account.
  2. The resident complained her rent payments had not been allocated correctly to her account. On 27 March 2024, the landlord initially said it had not identified any missing payments. The resident escalated the complaint saying the landlord had not discussed the missing payments with her.
  3. On 19 July the landlord issued its final complaint response saying on 19 March and 25 April 2024 it had sent her rent statements (dating back to 2022) to help identify missing payments. It said in early May 2024, a missing payment (made on 26 February 2024 for £165.00) was posted to her account and it apologised it had not correctly allocated the payment at the time. It invited the resident to provide proof of further missing payments so it could investigate the issue further.
  4. The evidence shows from September 2023 to June 2024, the resident was sent rent statements on 4 occasions in line with its policy commitment to do so. In June 2023 and May 2024, 2 missing payments were reallocated to her account. The evidence indicates the June 2023 payment was missed as the resident did not include the payment reference when she made the payment. While it is unclear why the May 2024 payment was missed, the landlord appropriately reallocated it and apologised for the error. Nothing in the evidence indicates the missed payments were due to failings by the landlord. Nonetheless, by correcting discrepancies in the resident’s rent account along with its offer to investigate missing payments (subject to proof of payment), the landlord showed a willingness to take the resident’s concerns seriously.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about a ground floor communal door, her mailbox, her flat doors, and pigeons in the loft.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in landlord’s handling of a request for a residents’ meeting.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about missing rent payments.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must pay the resident £250 for the failings identified in this report. This is in addition to the compensation it offered in its complaint response.
  2. Evidence of compliance must be provided to the Service by the deadline.