Southern Housing (202347710)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202347710

Southern Housing

27 March 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. Repairs at the resident’s property, including a leak from above.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy which began in April 2019. The property is a 2-bed first floor maisonette. The landlord’s records show that it was aware that the resident is a wheelchair user with long term illness and sight difficulties.
  2. Following a formal complaint about outstanding repairs in October 2021, the resident raised a disrepair claim through a solicitor in November 2021. An inspection was completed in December 2021 and a list of required works was provided to the landlord.
  3. After the survey, the resident raised concerns about the lack of response from the landlord on her disrepair claim and the lack of any works being completed. She contacted it on a couple of occasions during 2022. The resident advised the landlord during this period that she would no longer have a legal representative involved with the disrepair case.
  4. On 8 November 2023, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. The resident said that previous complaints had gone unanswered and that the disrepair claim had not progressed with none of the required works having been completed. The resident requested that the landlord complete the required works, pay her legal fees and move her to a different property.
  5. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 31 January 2024. It said that the works were assigned to a contractor that it no longer used and had not been reassigned. It said the repairs were with a new contractor and they should contact her within 48 hours. The landlord said that any discussion around compensation would need to be between the legal representatives of both parties.
  6. On 7 February 2024, the resident requested the complaint be escalated to stage 2. She said that the landlord had not addressed her complaint and she asked if the legal team would only engage with a legal representative, rather than her, and if all the repairs on a list she provided would be carried out.
  7. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 22 March 2024. It acknowledged that the resident would be dealing with any compensation discussions. The landlord provided details for its legal representative and said that works were yet to be carried out due to access issues. The landlord said that the contractor had made several calls and visits to the property but they had been unable to contact her. It provided contact details for the contractor and its Head of Complex Projects in order to arrange the required works.
  8. The resident brought the complaint to this Service in March 2024 and it was accepted for investigation in October 2024. The resident asked that the repairs be completed, she be moved and her legal fees paid.
  9. After the stage 2 complaint response, the resident continued to chase replies from the landlord’s legal team and progress of the required works. In October 2024, the resident was temporarily moved from the property with some works being carried out in early 2025.  
  10. The resident informed this Service in March 2025 that she has asked the landlord to terminate her tenancy.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident’s complaint was raised in November 2023 and the complaint process was exhausted in March 2024. We would usually expect a complaint to be brought to the attention of a landlord within 12 months of the matter arising. However, it is clear that the landlord was aware of the repairs linked to the complaint back in October 2021 and the Ombudsman has sufficient evidence to assess the landlord’s handling of these matters.
  2. In November 2021, the landlord provided a formal complaint response related to roofing repairs and the resident’s concerns that further works were required. The landlord’s response outlined that it had been over a year (May 2020) since the resident reported any issues with the roof.
  3. Given more than a year passed since the May 2020 report and there is limited evidence available to the Ombudsman of events during 2020-21, this investigation will focus on the period from October 2021 onwards. This was when the resident submitted the complaint and the landlord was on notice of repairs from this point.
  4. The Ombudsman will not consider matters that have not exhausted a landlord’s complaints process. The landlord’s final complaint response was in March 2024 so we have focused our assessment on events up to this point. We have also considered though whether there were failings in the handling of roof repairs beyond this date to establish whether the landlord put right earlier delays and learned from the outcome of the complaint. However, we are unable to investigate how the landlord handled new events after March 2024, such as arrangements around a temporary move for the resident in October 2024.

Repairs

  1. The resident raised concerns about several elements of the landlord’s management of the required repairs. In view of this, the report will address them individually below.

Delays

  1. The resident had concerns about the roof and leaks into the property prior to raising her disrepair claim in November 2021. The landlord arranged a survey of the property following the claim and this took place in December 2021. The surveyor recommended an inspection of the roof and any rainwater goods, a boiler check and decorative works to areas that showed signs of past leaks.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy says that a non-emergency routine repair should be completed within 20 working days. Although the survey was carried out on 10 December 2021, the landlord took no action to arrange the recommended works until 24 February 2022, some 11 weeks later. This delay was unreasonable and demonstrated a lack of urgency to carry out the required repairs in line with the timeframes set out in the landlord’s repair policy.
  3. Despite a works order request being made in February 2022, the landlord failed to take any action to progress the works. On 28 September 2022, the surveyor made a further request for the same works but submitted to a different contractor. This demonstrates a significant lack of oversight of the initial works as they remained incomplete for 31 weeks after the request.
  4. The landlord then failed to ensure the works order request from 28 September 2022 progressed. Within its stage 1 response in January 2024, it said that it had ended its relationship with the contractor it had assigned to the job in September 2022 but it had not reassigned the works to an active contractor. The landlord seemingly only identified this 16 months after it had raised the request. This is a significant service failing on the part of the landlord, continuing to show a lack of oversight which led to inappropriate delays.
  5. During the 2024 complaint process, the landlord said that it attempted to attend or arrange the required works at the property but access was a problem. Despite being aware that these works had been outstanding for at least 2 years, the landlord took no meaningful action until after a further leak report in October 2024. There is limited evidence of any steps taken by the landlord to arrange advanced notice access with the resident throughout late 2021 to late 2024. This is addressed further below.
  6. Following the late 2024 report of a leak at the property, the landlord attended and carried out a temporary fix. This led to the landlord arranging for another quote with a different contractor. The quote included the same works that were recommended in December 2021. These included an inspection of the roof, decorative works to areas previously stained by leaks and an inspection of the guttering and rainwater goods.
  7. It is therefore clear that despite being aware of the need for these works, the landlord failed to complete them for over 3 years. This is a serious service failing by the landlord which likely caused the resident considerable distress and inconvenience. Although it did complete some works in early 2025, the time taken to progress the roof repairs was unreasonable.
  8. The resident told this Service that leaks at the property were ongoing into 2025 and had not stopped since she raised her claim. However, the initial inspection in December 2021 found that there was no evidence of any ongoing or active leaks and the landlord’s records show no new reports of leaks between October 2021 and March 2024. A landlord would only be expected to address a leak it had been made aware of and afforded the opportunity to repair. Although the recommended works were outstanding for a significant period of time, it is not therefore apparent that there was water ingress throughout this period or a serious impact on the household condition.
  9. The landlord’s records show that it attended the property on 4 October 2024 and carried out emergency roof works. Following this visit, repairs to the rear section of the roof were booked for 21 October 2024 and the resident was temporarily moved from the property. The resident confirmed that some works were completed in 2025 while she was decanted. However, this Service has not had sight of exactly which works were completed and the relevant dates. The resident has since told us that she has terminated her tenancy.

Disrepair Claim

  1. Between September 2022 and January 2024, the resident regularly chased responses to her disrepair claim. The landlord’s records show calls and emails from the resident, requesting contact from its legal department to discuss the progression of her disrepair claim.
  2. It is clear that despite the resident’s best efforts, the landlord failed to respond to multiple requests for information and did not action agreed call backs. This is a significant service failing on the part of the landlord. It is likely that its lack of contact with the resident about her disrepair claim contributed to the ongoing delays in the repairs being completed. This will inevitably have caused the resident unnecessary time, trouble and uncertainty as to how the landlord intended to address her concerns.

Temporary move

  1. While the resident was awaiting completion of the required roofing works, she was concerned about the condition of the property and the potential for further leaks. As the landlord had noted evidence of past leaks and recommended a roof inspection in December 2021, these concerns were understandable.
  2. The resident requested temporary and/or permanent moves from the property on several occasions. When receiving such concerns, it would be reasonable for the landlord to have carried out a risk assessment or an inspection to ensure the property was still habitable.
  3. Neither inspection in October 2021 and December 2021 evidenced any indication that the property was uninhabitable or that the resident should be moved. The landlord’s records show it was unable to find any damp and mould, walls were tested as dry, no immediate concerns were identified and there was only evidence of a previous leak. There was therefore no obligation on the landlord to move the resident, either permanently or temporarily, at this point. Nevertheless, the landlord should have directly answered the resident’s concerns about staying in the property and assured her on how it had assessed this request.
  4. When the resident made further requests for a move in January 2023, the landlord failed to act on them. This was a service failing by the landlord as it should have re-inspected to ensure there was no change in the property condition. Given the time that had passed without a resolution to the potential roof repairs and the resident’s known vulnerabilities, the landlord should have prioritised an additional inspection.
  5. The landlord eventually agreed to a temporary move following the leak report from the resident in October 2024. After it reviewed the property condition and quoted for works in October 2024, the resident moved in with family and friends and advises that the landlord agreed to make a payment of £350 per month towards the related costs. As explained above, the Ombudsman has not investigated the landlord’s handling of this temporary move given it was not part of the complaint brought to us.

Access     

  1. The landlord’s records and complaint responses noted problems with access to the property to carry out works. The landlord indicated that several repairs were delayed due to a lack of access from either the resident or her neighbour. The resident maintained that she did not prevent access and that it was the neighbour who did so.
  2. We have found that the resident did refuse works in an email to the landlord dated 9 March 2023. She said they could not be done while she was in the property. These were works that had been proposed by the surveyor who attended in December 2021. However, this is the only instance where the Ombudsman has located evidence of the resident having refused access during 2021-2023.
  3. As there were recorded problems with access since the resident moved in, the landlord should have taken further steps to ensure this was provided. The tenancy agreement requires the resident to allow access when required, as long as the landlord provides reasonable notice. It is assumed that this is the same for the neighbouring property that the landlord also owns.
  4. The landlord did provide a copy of a letter sent to a neighbour in October 2021, which resulted in access being granted. However, aside from this, it did not provide evidence of any other attempts to gain access from either the resident or her neighbour. The landlord said that it had taken enforcement action to access the rear of the property due to the neighbour’s refusals. However, it did not provide this Service with any evidence of such measures being taken. We are therefore unable to conclude that it took sufficient steps to address the known access difficulties.
  5. Within its March 2024 stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said it had been unable to contact the resident to arrange works. It did not uphold the complaint as she had “not cooperated with us in facilitating the works”. It is understandable that a lack of contact would prevent the works being arranged. However, the landlord’s records show no evidence of such contact attempts being made or visits being scheduled with the resident.
  6. It is clear that throughout, and subsequent to, the complaint, the landlord failed to take reasonable steps to gain access to the property. Given the resident’s reports about the impact of outstanding repairs, her vulnerabilities and records of historic access difficulties, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to be more pro-active in seeking access rather than relying on calls and unscheduled visits. There is no evidence for example that the landlord explored any tenancy enforcement steps available to it to gain access to the resident’s or the neighbour’s property.

Summary – repairs

  1. Ultimately, there were significant and unreasonable delays in the landlord conducting roof repairs that the resident reported had impacted her living conditions. After identifying the required works in December 2021, following the disrepair claim and a complaint, none of those works were completed until early 2025. This was a significant and unreasonable delay.
  2. A lack of oversight by the landlord led to the resident having to chase the outstanding works and progress of her related disrepair claim. Despite these failings being brought to the landlord’s attention in her 2023 complaint, the inaction continued and it was not until late 2024 that the landlord completed an interim repair and re-housed the resident. Given the extent of the delays, we have made a finding of severe maladministration.
  3. We have ordered that the landlord apologise to the resident and award £1,800 compensation. This is in recognition of the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble that was caused to the resident. This compensation is within a range that the Ombudsman would recommend where there have been failings that caused a significant impact. In calculating this compensation, we have considered that the inspection reports on file do not show the property, or any room, was uninhabitable during the complaint period. We have therefore concluded that £600 compensation should be awarded for each of the 3 years where the roof repair was outstanding.
  4. We have ordered the landlord to take action to ensure recent repairs have resolved the leak from above and that there are no remedial works needed. This order is however dependent on whether the resident has ended her tenancy or not.
  5. The Ombudsman completed a special investigation into the landlord in May 2024. This identified faults in the landlord’s handling of repairs, including record-keeping, communication and contractor management. We made various relevant recommendations for landlord improvements as a result so will not make similar lesson learned orders in this case.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman has considered different aspects of the landlord’s complaint handling in turn below.

2021 complaint

  1. Following a complaint in October 2021 and the stage 1 complaint response in November 2021, the resident responded and disputed the landlord’s findings. She said that she would proceed with making a disrepair claim. The landlord apparently suspended the complaint process at this stage, rather than engaging with the resident and progressing the matter to stage 2 of the complaints process.
  2. Although the disrepair claim was linked to the same repairs that formed the basis of the complaint, it was inappropriate for the landlord to end its engagement with the complaint. The two processes can run at the same time and the complaints process can be used as a means of alternative dispute resolution.
  3. The Ombudsman’s November 2021 guidance for landlords on disrepair claims sets out that when a landlord receives correspondence initiating a disrepair claim, it is important that they do not disengage from any open complaint or the repair issue itself. If the landlord was unsure of the resident’s desire to continue with the complaint, it could have contacted her and asked. Its failure to do so was unreasonable.
  4. Had the landlord escalated the complaint, it could have used this as an opportunity to resolve the outstanding repairs and learn lessons from the outcome of the case. Instead, the landlord’s legal team apparently took on the case and this did not prompt any meaningful action beyond an inspection in December 2021. It also meant that the complaints process was unnecessarily delayed and that the resident did not have the opportunity to bring her case to the Ombudsman until early 2024.

Solicitor costs

  1. Within her November 2023 complaint submission, the resident requested that the landlord pay the legal fees that she incurred due to her disrepair claim. These costs were apparently incurred between October 2021 and October 2022. The resident has provided a breakdown of costs that shows the legal bills were in excess of £12,000.
  2. The disrepair protocol letter which started the process was submitted to the landlord on 1 November 2021, prior to it providing the stage 1 response on 3 November 2021.
  3. The resident engaged with the solicitor on a ‘no win no fee’ basis. The Ombudsman understands that as she chose to end her involvement with the solicitor, this led the solicitor to hold her responsible for the charges they said she incurred.
  4. Although the landlord’s complaint handling was poor and likely caused unnecessary time and trouble to the resident, we cannot conclude that this directly led to the resident incurring legal costs. The evidence shows that she engaged the solicitor at the same time as her complaint and prior to the stage 1 response being provided.
  5. As the resident’s engagement with the solicitor began prior to the landlord being given opportunity to investigate the matter as a complaint, the Ombudsman has not established that the subsequent complaint handling failures meant that the resident needed to seek legal representation. This process had already begun. On this basis, the Ombudsman cannot consider the landlord responsible for the charges the resident incurred between October 2021 and October 2022 and has not made an order that the landlord pay towards these.
  6. Nevertheless, we have recommended below that the landlord should offer a direct answer to this point through its complaints process as it said in its March 2024 stage 2 response that its legal team was in negotiations directly with her.

2023 complaint

  1. On 20 January 2023, the landlord recorded correspondence from the resident which she asked to be passed to its complaints team. Part of her complaint related to the outstanding works at her property. Despite this clear indication of a desire for her concerns to be dealt with as a complaint, the landlord did not log it as such. This was unreasonable – the landlord failed to follow its complaint policy and did not provide a complaint response.
  2. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction on multiple occasions during 2023. The landlord’s records show that the resident contacted it on several occasions to chase a response to her disrepair claim but it was not until December 2023 that the landlord acknowledged this as a complaint and indicated that it would provide a response. These were further missed opportunities by the landlord and likely contributed to delays in its handling of the substantive repairs.
  3. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it should acknowledge any complaint within 5 working days and provide a full stage 1 complaint response in 10 working days. The resident raised a complaint on 8 November 2023 but this was not recorded as a complaint until 14 December 2023. It was not acknowledged by the landlord until 19 December 2023, some 30 working days after it was made. Even after the landlord eventually logged the complaint, there were inappropriate delays.
  4. The landlord provided its response 32 working days after it recorded the complaint and 58 working days after the actual complaint date. It is inappropriate that this was well outside of the timescales set out in the complaints policy (and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code) albeit some updates were offered to the resident during this period.
  5. The landlord’s January 2024 stage 1 response acknowledged the reason for the complaint and offered an apology. However, it focused unreasonably on communications with the legal team. There is no indication that it used the complaints process to review the history of the repairs and properly address the delays to that point. When addressing the resident’s concerns about the lack of contact from its legal team, it merely explained that they would discuss the case with her legal representative. This overlooked the resident having explained that she was no longer engaged with a legal representative.
  6. Despite the landlord’s assurances that a new contractor would contact her and complete the outstanding works within 14 days, this did not happen. Although it later said that there were difficulties in the contractor making telephone contact with her and no access visits, the landlord did not take sufficient steps to progress the repairs and it offered no details as to when these contact and access attempts were made.
  7. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it should acknowledge any complaint within 5 working days and provide a full stage 2 response within 20 working days. After the resident escalated the complaint on 7 February 2024, the landlord failed to acknowledge this until 19 February 2024, some 9 working days later. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 22 March 2024. This was 33 working days later and again meant that the landlord did not act in accordance with the timescales set out in its complaints policy.
  8. In its stage 2 response, the landlord again failed to acknowledge its own failings in ensuring the works were completed. Instead, it said the complaint would not be upheld as the resident had not co–operated with it. Despite claiming the resident had not engaged with it to arrange the works, it provided no details of its efforts to arrange those works. The landlord offered no resolution or action plan beyond providing her with the contact details for the contractor and a couple of members of staff.

Summary – complaint handling

  1. The landlord failed to acknowledge and manage the resident’s complaints in a timely or reasonable manner. It missed opportunities to escalate the complaint in late 2021 and apparently stepped away from the complaints process due to the disrepair claim submitted around the same time.
  2. Although there was limited contact from the resident in 2022, the landlord did not recognise that further expressions of dissatisfaction in 2023 should be logged as a complaint. Once the complaint was logged in late 2023, there were more complaint handling delays and the focus of the complaint investigation was unnecessarily narrow.
  3. These failings meant that the complaints process was not used as an opportunity to progress the repairs or put right any delays the landlord was responsible for. This caused unnecessary time and trouble to the resident and meant she was delayed in escalating the complaint to this Service. We have made a finding of severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
  4. We have ordered £400 compensation in recognition of that time and trouble. This is within a range that the Ombudsman would recommend where there were failings that had an adverse impact on the resident. We have not ordered the landlord to pay compensation towards the resident’s legal fees given the complaint handling failings did not directly cause her to take up legal representation.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs at the resident’s property, including a leak from above.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of this report, the chief executive or relevant senior manager of the landlord is required to provide an apology to the resident either in person, or in writing. The resident should be given the option as to how the apology will be delivered.
  2. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is ordered to make a compensation payment of £2,200 to the resident, made up of:
    1. £1,800 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its handling of the repairs;
    2. £400 for the time and trouble caused by the failures in its handling of the complaint.
  3. If the resident’s tenancy has not ended, the landlord should carry out a post inspection of the completed works at the property within 28 days of this report. It should ensure that there is no ongoing water ingress or outstanding remedial works and provide the resident with a copy of the report within 14 days of the inspection. If further works are needed, the report should include a schedule with planned timescales and a single point of contact who will oversee their completion.
  4. The landlord must reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should write to the resident and set out its position in regards to damages or costs it intends to pay to her as part of any settlement that may still be under consideration.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service within 28 days of this report with its intentions in regard to this recommendation.