Southern Housing (202403321)

Decision
Case ID	202403321
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Southern Housing
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	22 May 2026

Background

1. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The resident lived there with her 3 children. From December 2021 the resident reported problems with the windows and external doors. This included leaks, draughts and mould. The landlord attended on multiple occasions to inspect, overhaul the front door and complete mould washes.
2. In January 2022 the landlord said the windows and doors were due to be replaced in 2023/24. Two months later it told her these had not been included in the programme for that year, but had been referred to the following years programme. The resident moved out of the property in March 2024.

What the complaint is about

3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Requests for her windows and doors to be replaced.
   2. Associated formal complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for her windows and doors to be replaced.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated formal complaint.
6. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

7. The landlord acknowledged delays and communication failures in its handling of the resident’s requests for her windows and doors to be replaced.  It apologised and offered compensation but this was insufficient considering the failures and the impact on the resident. At the time of the stage 2 response, the substantive issue was resolved. However, this was not as a result of any action by the landlord and only because the resident moved out of the property.
8. The landlord acknowledged delays in its complaint handling, apologised and offered compensation. This was not quite enough considering the failures and the impact on the resident.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
	Compensation order The landlord must provide evidence that it has paid directly to the resident £525 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused as a result of its failures, as follows: £400 for its handling of her requests for her windows and doors to be replaced (inclusive of the £170 already offered). £125 for its complaint handling (inclusive of the £25 already offered). The landlord may deduct any payments it has already paid from the total.	No later than 19 June 2026

 

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
November 2023	On 8 November 2023 the resident complained that she had been waiting 2 years for her windows and doors to be replaced.    Seven days later she told the landlord her heating costs had increased because the property was draughty.
23 February 2024	The landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged there had been delays and communication failures in its handling of this matter. It apologised and offered £195 compensation (£170 for its handling of the resident’s requests for her windows and doors to be replaced and £25 for complaint handling). It also offered £450 for increased heating costs. It said repairs to the windows and doors would be done as part of a planned programme of works in 2024/25.   The same day the resident told the landlord she was dissatisfied with the compensation offer.
24 April 2024	The landlord’s stage 2 response did not uphold the complaint. It said it had recognised failures at stage 1 and offered fair and reasonable compensation for these.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident has told us she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s compensation offer. She said this did not cover the increased heating costs. She feels this was not enough considering the length of time the issue went on and the impact on her.

 

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Requests for the windows and doors to be replaced
Finding	Maladministration

9. Our investigations generally cover the period 12 months before the resident made their complaint. In this case that was November 2022. However, the landlord investigated its handling of this matter back to December 2021. Therefore, we have done the same.
10. The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property, including external doors and windows. It is reasonable that the landlord tries to repair windows and doors in the first instance, rather than replacing them. If they are deemed irreparable, then it is the landlord’s responsibility to replace them.
11. In March 2022 the landlord changed its position on when the windows and doors were going to be replaced. While disappointing for the resident, this was not a failure. The landlord has a limited budget to complete its planned programme of works each year. This means sometimes recommended works need to be pushed back to subsequent years.
12. When a resident reports problems with windows and doors, it is appropriate that the landlord inspects to identify if these need to be replaced sooner than planned. In this case, the landlord attended on multiple occasions to inspect, which was appropriate. The resident has said she was told multiple times that these needed replacing but this was not done. There are gaps in the landlord’s records for some of these visits so it is not clear the outcome or what was agreed. These gaps mean we cannot fully assess the landlord’s handling of this matter.
13. There is evidence that on at least one occasion in 2022 the landlord visited and noted the front door needed replacing. It said a quote was required. This raised the resident’s expectations that the door would be replaced. In July 2022 it chased the quote for this. It subsequently put this on hold while it investigated whether this was covered by a planned programme. There is no evidence the landlord told the resident about this, which left her disappointed and resulted in her spending time and effort chasing this up.
14. Where the landlord identifies windows and doors need replacing, it is reasonable that it does this as part of its planned programme of works. This can mean that replacements are not done immediately. In this circumstance, the landlord should consider any interim repairs it can do to improve the condition in the short term.
15. The resident said the landlord attended multiple times to overhaul the front door lock, which was appropriate. However, there is no evidence the landlord did any interim repairs to the door or windows to address the draughts and leaks. This means the resident lived in the property for more than 2 years with draughty windows and doors. This was particularly concerning as the resident had 3 children living with her, including a newborn baby. She also said this led to increased energy bills.
16. The resident reported the windows were mouldy. In December 2022 she told the landlord this was affecting the family’s health. The landlord inspected the following month and recommended works to remove and treat the mould. This was appropriate in the short term to manage any risk. There is no evidence this was done at that time, which was disappointing for the resident.
17. The landlord raised a further job for a mould wash in September 2023. It said it attended the following month but did not complete the works because there were ongoing roof repairs that meant this was counterproductive. This was inappropriate as the landlord should have removed and treated the mould to reduce any risk in the interim. This was particularly important as the resident said the mould was affecting the family’s health and there was a newborn baby in the property.
18. The resident said the landlord attended shortly before she moved out to complete a mould wash. She has raised concerns about the competency of the operative that attended. We have seen no evidence of this visit in the landlord’s records, which is a concern. The landlord must keep detailed records of all repair visits, including the outcome. This is so it can account for its actions and decisions to residents and us, where required. The lack of records for this visit means we cannot comment further on this issue.
19. The resident moved out of the property in March 2024, more than 2 years after she first reported her concerns about the windows and doors. It was not a failure that the landlord did not replace these during that time. However, it did not do enough to improve the condition in the interim period until it replaced them. It also did not take sufficient action to remove the mould and manage the associated risk of this, considering the circumstances of the household. This means the resident lived in the property for 27 months with draughty and mouldy windows and a draughty and leaking front door.
20. There were failures in the landlord’s communication. It did not consistently update the resident on its actions and decisions, which left her uncertain. This resulted in her chasing for updates on multiple occasions. She said at times the landlord did not respond to her requests for updates. This left her feeling ignored.
21. The landlord acknowledged delays and communication failures in its handling of this matter. It apologised and offered £170 compensation. Its compensation policy at the time said it would pay compensation based on our remedies guidance. Our guidance recommended payments of between £100 and £600 for failures that adversely affected the resident but had no permanent impact.
22. It was reasonable that the landlord offered compensation within this range. However, considering the extent of the delays, lack of interim actions taken, multiple communication failures and the impact on the resident, the amount offered was not enough. Therefore, a finding of maladministration is appropriate. We order the landlord to pay the resident £400 compensation, inclusive of the £170 already offered.
23. The landlord also offered an amount for increased heating costs. Its compensation policy said it could pay compensation for quantifiable loss where a service failure had resulted in measurable loss. This could include higher energy costs but the resident must provide evidence of these. In this case, the resident sent the landlord 2 energy bills for 2023 and 2024. These showed the energy usage for those periods but were not evidence of increased costs, as the landlord needed to see earlier bills for comparison.
24. The resident moved into the property in December 2021, shortly before she reported her concerns about the windows and doors. She said she incurred increased costs for the entire period she lived at the property. This means her comparison was with energy costs at her previous property.
25. It is unreasonable to compare energy costs between properties as there will naturally be a difference due to differences in the type and makeup of properties. Considering this and the length of time the matter had been ongoing, it was reasonable that the landlord did not ask for additional evidence to compare energy costs for the 2 year period.
26. Our compensation guidance says where a resident has incurred costs as a result of a landlord’s maladministration, but has not been able to evidence this, we may say the landlord should pay an amount in recognition. In this case, the landlord offered £450 for increased energy bills for 2 years. This was reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord has paid this amount to the resident so we have not made an order in respect of this.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

27. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the resident’s complaint said it would acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days. It would respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of the acknowledgement and within 20 working days at stage 2.
28. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 15 November 2023, 5 working days after the resident made the complaint. This was in line with the committed timescale set out in its policy. The landlord sent the stage 1 response in 69 working days, significantly over the policy committed timescale.
29. The landlord’s policy at the time said if it needed more time to respond, it would tell the resident and agree the response date. The landlord did not comply with this. There is no evidence it told the resident it had extended the response deadline or agreed a response date with her. This resulted in the resident spending time and effort chasing the response on at least 4 occasions in December 2023.
30. During an email exchange in December 2023 the landlord confirmed it should have told the resident about an extension to the response deadline, but had not done so. It said it would call her to discuss the delay. There is no evidence it did. This was a further failure that was disappointing for the resident and made her feel the landlord was not taking the complaint seriously.
31. The same day the landlord sent the stage 1 response, the resident told it she was dissatisfied with the compensation amount. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2. The landlord did not escalate the complaint at that time. It only did so after further contact from the resident in March 2023.
32. The Code says a resident does not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for it to be treated as such. Similarly, a resident does not have to specifically ask to escalate the complaint for this to happen. Therefore, the landlord should have escalated the complaint in February 2023, following the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response. Its failure to do so was not in line with the Code. As the landlord should have escalated the complaint in February 2023, we have assessed the timescale of the acknowledgement from this date.
33. The landlord acknowledge the stage 2 complaint on 25 March 2024, 21 working days after the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response. This was significantly over the policy committed timescale. The landlord sent the stage 2 response in 20 working days, in line with the committed timescale set out in its policy.
34. In total the resident’s complaint took 105 working days to complete the landlord’s internal process, compared to a target timescale of 40 working days. This equates to a delay of around 13 weeks. This was an unreasonable delay that unnecessarily prolonged the complaints process. This was frustrating for the resident.
35. The landlord’s complaint responses were detailed and sought to address the resident’s concerns. Its final position on the substantive issue was that the repairs would be done as part of its planned programme in 2024/25. This was a longer term action to resolve the issues.
36. The landlord did not suggest any immediate, interim actions it would take to resolve the issues affecting the windows and doors. This means the landlord failed to resolve the substantive issue for the resident as part of its formal complaint process. This was only resolved for the resident when she moved out of the property.
37. The landlord acknowledged failures in its complaint handling, apologised and offered £25 compensation. Our remedies guidance at the time recommended payments of between £50 and £100 for minor failures over a short duration. Considering the failures identified and the impact on the resident, this was not quite enough. Therefore a finding of service failure is appropriate.
38. We order the landlord to pay the resident £125 compensation, inclusive of the £25 already offered. This was in line with our remedies guidance for failures that adversely affected the resident but had no permanent impact, and recommended payments of between £100 and £600.

Learning

39. The landlord should complete repairs to windows and doors to improve the condition in the interim until it replaces them.
40. The landlord should remove and treat mould in properties at the earliest opportunity. This is particularly important where the resident says this is impacting their health, or where the landlord is aware of vulnerable people in the household.
41. The landlord should escalate a complaint where the resident expresses dissatisfaction with the stage 1 outcome. The resident does not need to specifically ask for this.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

42. There were missing records that have impacted our ability to investigate this complaint. The landlord should record all repairs visits and inspections, including the outcome and any decisions made. Detailed records allow it to account for its actions and decisions to residents and us, where required. The landlord should ensure it provides all relevant records to us for investigations. The landlord can access learning materials about recording keeping, including our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management, via our Centre for Learning to assist it in this area, if needed.

Communication

43. The landlord should update residents on its actions and decisions so they know what is happening and are not left uncertain or feeling ignored.
44. If the landlord cannot respond to a complaint within the policy committed timescales, it should tell the resident and confirm a date by which it will respond.