Southern Housing (202344402)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202344402

Southern Housing

13 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

The resident’s complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs, specifically to the kitchen extractor fan, garden paving and fence.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a kitchen and bathroom upgrade.
3. The landlord’s communication with the resident.

Background

The resident began living in the property on a temporary basis on 16 March 2023. She signed an assured tenancy for the property on 23 September 2024. The property is a 1 bedroom bungalow.
The landlord’s records show the resident had restricted mobility and a long term illness. The resident had communication needs and had an advocate. The resident has told us that she has depression.
The landlord completed a void inspection at the property on 3 January 2023. The landlord identified the back garden fence needed replacing.
On 10 October 2023 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said that she had not received call backs. She told the landlord the kitchen extractor fan was not working, the garden paving slabs were uneven and the fence in the back garden had not been repaired.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 3 November 2023. It:
1. Said all of the works have been completed apart from the extractor fan in the kitchen window. It would be fitted on 8 November 2023.
2. Apologised that the resident had not received call backs and this may have happened due to staff being on annual leave.
3. Offered an apology and £250 compensation broken down as:
  1. £125 for poor communication.
  2. £125 to recognise the inconvenience due to the works not being completed before she moved into the property.
4. Said to learn from the complaint it had:
  1. Asked staff members to leave clear messages on their phone when on annual leave.
  2. Instructed that checks are completed upon completion of works.
The resident escalated her complaint on 8 March 2024. She said she had not received a call back and the repair works were incomplete. She told the landlord the situation had been ongoing for a year and she felt disrespected.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response it said:
1. It would contact the resident by 3 April 2024 to inspect and repair the extractor fan and patio slabs.
2. It was sorry she experienced a lack of communication. It would investigate the concerns and the resident’s claim that a new kitchen and bathroom had been agreed. It would update the resident by 3 April 2024.
3. It had increased its offer of compensation. It offered £590 compensation, broken down as follows:
  1. £250 compensation offered at stage 1.
  2. £60 for repair failure.
  3. £15 for repeat visits.
  4. £15 for miscommunication.
  5. £250 for inconvenience, time and trouble.
On 13 January 2025, the resident said she would like us to investigate her case. She said the landlord did not speak to her with respect. The bathroom and kitchen had been replaced but the workmanship was poor.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The landlord issued its final complaint response on 20 March 2024. At the time of its response, the works to the fan and patio, and a decision regarding planned upgrades to the property were outstanding. For fairness we have considered events beyond the final response, as these are directly linked to the complaint and proposed resolution.
We are aware the resident had numerous repair concerns at her property. She also told us there were repairs currently outstanding. Our investigation will specifically assess repairs to the kitchen extractor fan, garden paving slabs and garden fence. This is because the issues were raised to the landlord as part of the resident’s formal complaint.

The landlord’s handling of repairs, specifically the kitchen extractor fan, garden paving and fence

The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping the outside of the property in a reasonable state of repair and proper working order.
The landlord’s compensation policy states it may make discretionary compensation payments to recognise the inconvenience caused by service failure.
It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. In reviewing the evidence in this case, there was limited information on the repair records provided.
The landlord identified that works to the garden fence were required before the resident moved into the property in March 2023. The repair log provided by the landlord does not include a repair for the garden fence. There is therefore no evidence that a repair was originally logged and no record that any work was done to the fence at this time.
On 14 August 2023 the landlord inspected the property and identified repairs were needed to the garden fence and paving slabs. It is clear the landlord had not taken any action to repair the fence after it first identified the need for repair before the resident moved in. We have not seen evidence that repairs were logged, or appointments booked following the inspection in August.
It is not clear when the resident first raised a repair request for the kitchen extractor fan. On 5 October 2023 the landlord confirmed to the resident’s advocate that the only outstanding repair was to the kitchen extractor fan. In the resident’s complaint on 10 October 2023, she told the landlord that the kitchen extractor fan, garden fence and paving slabs repairs were outstanding. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord had appropriately logged all the outstanding repairs.
The landlord levelled the patio and replaced the garden fence on 29 October 2023. There was an unreasonable delay in completing these repairs. The landlord identified the fence needed repairing or replacing 10 months before.
The landlord’s records show the extractor fan repair did not go ahead on 8 November 2023 and was recorded as “no access”. It is not clear if the landlord made further attempts to repair it in November 2023 however the records show contractors attended the property on a further 3 occasions. There are no details of what works, if any, were carried out. The repair records show the extractor fan was fitted on 23 February 2024. The evidence provided indicates that the delay may have been as the resident was away from the property.
The landlord spoke to the resident by telephone on 11 March 2024. We have not received a contact note for the telephone call. The landlord said the resident told it that slabs were laid in garden but were uneven. The extractor fan had been repaired but was not working.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it told the resident that she would be contacted by 3 April 2024. It said it would inspect the paving slabs and extractor fan and arrange for repairs to be completed. In an internal email on 25 March 2024, the landlord said it had spoken to the resident that day. Its position was that the paving slabs had “some unevenness” but this was not “excessive”. The landlord noted the resident was disabled. It said to resolve the issue, the solution would be to remove all the paving slabs and replace them with concrete.
In internal emails the landlord noted the resident had called a number of times, upset that works had not been done properly. The evidence does not show the resident was regularly updated on the outstanding repairs. This would have caused her frustration.
The landlord agreed to reposition the kitchen extractor fan as part of a kitchen upgrade that took place in July 2024. Internal emails from the landlord also show it offered the resident a repair to the paving slabs by replacing them with concrete however the resident did not want this.
On 18 July 2024 the landlord made a revised offer of compensation, specifically for the length of time it took to complete the repairs. It was fair and reasonable that the landlord considered its actions and effect on the resident further, after all works were completed. The landlord confirmed it was increasing its award for inconvenience, time and trouble to £450. The landlord gave an incorrect breakdown of what was previously offered to the resident at stage 2. This would have been confusing for the resident. The landlord should take care to ensure it provides an accurate breakdown of compensation.
Where the landlord has accepted it has made errors, it is our role to consider whether the redress it offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The resident was offered a total of £650 compensation for this complaint point. This was broken down as:
1. £125 offered for this complaint point at stage 1.
2. £60 for repair failure.
3. £15 for repeat visits.
4. £450 for inconvenience, time and trouble.
In our opinion the landlord has evidenced it made reasonable efforts to resolve the complaint. This was through the repairs it completed, its offer of repair to the paving slabs, its apology and offer of compensation. The landlord’s offer of compensation was fair and proportionate in the circumstances. We have therefore made a determination of reasonable redress. This is because, in our opinion the landlord made an offer which put things right for the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a kitchen and bathroom upgrade

The resident has told us that the landlord verbally agreed to install a new kitchen and bathroom at the property. We do not dispute the resident’s account however we have not seen evidence of the conversation with the landlord.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response it agreed to investigate the resident’s claim. On 25 March 2024 it told the resident it would upgrade the kitchen and bathroom if she accepted the property on a permanent basis. This was reasonable and went beyond what the landlord was obliged to do. This is because the landlord had determined the kitchen and bathroom met lettable standard and did not need replacement.
The landlord completed works as agreed with the resident to the kitchen and bathroom in July 2024. We find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a kitchen and bathroom upgrade. This is because we have not seen evidence that this had been agreed before the resident’s complaint. When the landlord was made aware of the resident’s request, it then made a prompt decision to complete works, and we have seen evidence it involved the resident in agreeing the works it would complete.

The landlord’s communication with the resident

To enable our investigation, the landlord was asked by us to provide all of its records relevant to the resident’s complaint issue. A further request for telephone records was made by us during investigation, when it was identified that the records previously provided may have been incomplete. The landlord told us that it has provided all the information available.
The resident told the landlord she did not receive a call back on 19 September 2023. She said on 27 September 2023 she was told she would be called the next day and it did not happen. We understand this would have been frustrating for the resident. We have not received any telephone contact notes for this period to be able to assess if the landlord acted appropriately. However, the landlord does not dispute that calls were not always returned.
The landlord has provided us with evidence that they spoke to a staff member regarding the resident’s concerns. The landlord’s position is that the staff member had been polite and “firm but fair” when managing the resident’s expectations. We do not dispute how the resident feels however we have seen no evidence of the landlord acting inappropriately.
The landlord recognised some communication failures in its complaint response. We find that the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress which recognised the failings in its communication with the resident. This is because the landlord showed it investigated the resident’s concerns, provided an apology and provided £140 compensation proportionate to its service failing. This was positive to try to restore the relationship with the resident.

Determination

In accordance with 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint about its handling of repairs, specifically the kitchen extractor fan, garden paving and fence.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a kitchen and bathroom upgrade.
In accordance with 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint about the landlord’s communication with the resident.

Recommendations

The landlord should re-offer the resident the total compensation of £790, if this has not yet already been paid. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid. The payment must be paid directly to the resident and not their rent account.