Southern Housing (202404075)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202404075

Southern Housing

29 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 the resident’s reports of various repairs in the property.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives in a one-bedroom flat.
4. On 7 March 2023 the resident made a complaint to the landlord, which it acknowledged on 14 March 2023. In his complaint, the resident reported:

a.     all the tap washers needed replacing

b.     some kitchen drawers and kickboards were broken

c.      mould in the kitchen and bathroom

d.     its contractor did not attend 3 scheduled repair appointments between January and March 2023

5. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 27 September 2023 in which it apologised for the delays and said:

a.     all repair issues had been resolved since the resident logged his complaint

b.     an improvement plan was in place to address problems with the repairs service

c.      it offered £100 compensation for the inconvenience it caused the resident

6. The resident contacted the landlord on 3 October 2023 to escalate his complaint to stage 2. He said he was unhappy with its response, the level of compensation offered, and reported the following issues remained outstanding:

a.     bathroom taps needed replacing

b.     loose kitchen tap

c.      kitchen drawers and kickboards were still broken

d.     mould in the bathroom

e.     damaged door frame and shelves in the airing cupboard following a cylinder replacement

f.        loose plug socket in the living room

g.     loose communal TV aerial cables causing reception problems

7. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 6 October 2023 and responded on 3 November 2023, in which it said:

a.     it did not attend 5 scheduled appointments between 30 January and 26 May 2023 to fix the taps and kickboards

b.     an engineer visited on 2 June 2023 and reported the taps did not need replacing

c.      the kitchen tap had been replaced on 26 June 2023

d.     repairs were not raised after the Surveyor visited on 25 May 2023 who recommended:

1. replacing the kitchen kickboards and some drawer fronts
2. treat the mould and check the extractor fan in the bathroom

e.     a surveyor would visit before 1 December 2023 to assess the outstanding repairs

f.       the plug socket and cylinder damage were not investigated because they were not raised as part of the resident’s stage 1 complaint

g.     a repair was raised for the TV aerial before March 2023

h.     it offered him compensation of £720, broken down as followed:

1. £100 for its delays in responding to his stage 1 complaint
2. £60 for the delays in repairing the issues raised in January 2023.
3. £60 for its service failures
4. £100 for the missed appointments
5. £400 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience it caused

8. The resident referred his complaint to this Service on 29 April 2024. He told us the repairs remained outstanding and there had been further missed appointments.

Post complaint

9. On 30 April 2024 the resident told his landlord an appointment that was scheduled for 26 April 2024 had been cancelled late in the day. The landlord visited on 14 June 2024 to complete the outstanding repairs and recorded the resident was not aware of the appointment. The resident was told to reschedule the appointment.
10. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that the following repairs remain outstanding:

a.     bathroom taps needed replacing

b.     kitchen drawers and kickboards were still broken

c.      treat the mould and check the extractor fan in the bathroom

d.     loose communal TV aerial

e.     damaged door frame and shelves in the airing cupboard following a cylinder replacement

Assessment and findings

Scoping

11. After logging his stage 1 complaint, the resident reported the airing cupboard was damaged following a cylinder replacement. He also reported problems with the communal TV aerial. The landlord’s Complaints policy says if residents raise further concerns after logging a complaint, the landlord will log them as a new complaint. Although the landlord did not provide a formal response to these issues, it had the opportunity to do so. Therefore, the Ombudsman has decided it is reasonable to include these issues within the scope of the investigation.
12. The resident also raised issues with a loose plug socket at stage 2 of his complaint. The landlord told him it did not investigate this as it was not raised at stage 1 of the complaints process. It told him he could log a new complaint. In accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we are unable to consider complaints about matters which have not formally exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. For this reason, we have not considered the landlord’s handling of the loose plug socket. Any reference to this has been included for contextual purposes.
13. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of this issue, he may be able to raise this as a new complaint with the landlord. The resident can then refer the complaint to us as a new case if he remains unhappy with the stage 2 complaint response.
14. There have been events that happened after the landlord issued its final response. As these events relate to the resident’s original complaint, the Ombudsman has decided that it is appropriate to investigate events beyond the landlord’s final complaint response. Therefore, this investigation will focus on landlord’s handling of the various repairs between 20 January 2023 and 14 June 2024.

Handling of various repairs

15. The landlord’s Repairs policy commits to delivering a “simple, efficient, and transparent” repairs service and sets out what it is responsible for repairing. This includes water, gas, and electricity installations. It says it will complete responsive repairs “as soon as possible”. Although the policy is silent in relation to fixed time frames, the landlord does provide set target completion dates. Therefore, we have assessed the landlord’s actions based on reasonableness, whether it acted in a manner that was fair, and whether it met its target date.
16. Its Damp and Mould policy says it will conduct an inspection within 10 working days to assess the issue. Any identified works will be completed within 6 weeks of the initial report.
17. The landlord’s Compensation policy sets out the circumstances in which it will make a payment. It will pay:

a.     £20 per missed appointment

b.     one off payment of £10 plus £2 per day until the repair is completed (up to a maximum of £50)

c.      discretionary compensation on a case-by-case basis in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance

18. The landlord raised a repair on 20 January 2023 after the resident reported the tap washers and kickboards were broken. The target date to complete the repair was 30 January 2023. Although an appointment was scheduled for 30 January 2023, its contractor did not attend. There is no evidence the resident was informed the appointment would not go ahead. This was unreasonable and would have caused him avoidable frustration and inconvenience.
19. Further appointments were scheduled for 21 February and 3 March 2023 to repair the kickboards, but the contractor failed to attend. No evidence has been seen that the landlord communicated with the resident in a timely manner to inform him why scheduled appointments were not going ahead. This would have meant the resident waited in for appointments, taking up his time. This was unfair and unreasonable.
20. Additionally, repair records show that the contractor closed the repair after it failed to attend on 3 March 2023. This does not align with its policy that says when a resident misses an appointment and does not reschedule it within 7 days, the repair will be closed. In this case, it was not the resident who missed the appointment, but the contractor. This was not appropriate and added to the delays.
21. After the resident logged his complaint on 7 March 2023, the landlord’s Surveyor attended on 25 March 2023. While the Surveyor did not document issues with the taps, they did record:

a.     kitchen drawer fronts and kickboards needed to be replaced

b.     clean and treat the damp and mould in the bathroom

c.      check the bathroom extractor fan is working adequately

22. Although it was reasonable to inspect the issues raised by the resident, the landlord did not raise repairs after its visit. As a result of its failing, some of the delays that went on to follow could have been avoided. In addition to this, the landlord did not inspect the mould within 10 working days. Rather, it took 14 working days. The gap between the resident reporting the mould and the Surveyor attending, fell short of the time frame set out in its policy.
23. On 28 March 2023 the resident reported the airing cupboard door frame and shelves were damaged when he had a new cylinder installed. While this was noted within the landlord’s records, it did not log a repair. It missed an opportunity to inform the resident if a repair or complaint had been logged, leaving him uncertain. The landlord’s failure to appropriately log the repair contributed to the overall delays he experienced.
24. A new appointment was made on 31 March 2023 to investigate the tap washers on 25 April 2023. When the resident contacted the landlord on 4 April 2023, he reported the washers were in an extremely poor condition. He explained that he has high water pressure that causes water to splash. He was worried that he would be unable to turn off the hot tap because of the condition of the washers and would burn himself.
25. The landlord’s policy says it will act promptly in relation to the health and safety of a resident when reporting repairs. However, in this case, it did not do so. Rather, it waited until 14 April 2023, 10 days after the resident’s report, before it contacted the contractor and asked it to attend sooner. Given the potential safety risk, the landlord should have organised a visit in a timely manner. Not prioritising the repair caused the resident unnecessary distress. This was unreasonable in the circumstance.
26. A further 2 appointments were scheduled to investigate the taps on 25 April and 26 May 2023. However, the contractor did not attend on either occasion. This was not appropriate as it had exceeded the target date of 30 January 2023. Furthermore, it was not consistent with is policy that aims to complete repairs as soon as possible. Its approach was not reasonable given how long the issues had remained outstanding.
27. The repeated missed appointments would have damaged the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s repairs service and caused him understandable frustration. As a result of the landlord’s poor communication, the resident would have unnecessarily waited in for the appointment.
28. The Surveyor attended the property again on 25 May 2023 to inspect all the repair issues. They noted the same findings from its previous survey in March 2023 but did not document the condition of the taps or cylinder cupboard. The landlord missed another opportunity to address the resident’s reports and rectify them.
29. The resident reported that he had no water supply on 1 June 2023 because the tap washers had broken. The contractor attended the next day and reported the taps were working and the resident wanted them replaced. The landlord’s records do not specify if it attended within the 6 hours emergency time frame set out in its policy. Therefore, we have been unable to determine whether the landlord acted in line with its repairs policy on this occasion.
30. Following the Surveyors visit, an internal email dated 6 June 2023 showed they asked for the following repairs to be raised:

a.     repair the extractor fan in the kitchen contributing towards mould

b.     fit new drawer fronts and kickboards

c.      treat the mould and check the extractor fan in the bathroom

31. The resident chased the landlord for an update on 23 June 2023 as there had been no communication since the Surveyor visited. He also told it he wanted to be compensated for the delays in completing the repairs. The landlord apologised for the poor communication and confirmed the repairs had been raised.
32. Had the landlord proactively communicated updates to the resident, it may have avoided some of the time, trouble, and frustration it caused the resident. Rather, the onus was on the resident to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates. Its apology would not have gone far enough in putting things right or restoring the resident’s confidence in the repairs service. This was unreasonable and a failing.
33. A new kitchen tap was installed on 26 June 2023, despite an engineer saying the taps were working on 2 June 2023. It is unclear why the landlord changed its position. The conflicting information was unreasonable and would have been frustrating for the resident who reported issues almost 6 months previously. Furthermore, this was not consistent with the landlord’s policy that says it will complete repairs as soon as possible.
34. The resident chased the landlord on 10 August 2023 for an update on the repairs identified during the Surveyor’s visit in May 2023. He also reported that he had poor reception on his TV because the communal aerial cables were loose. The landlord did not respond to the resident and missed an opportunity to communicate what actions it would take regarding his concerns. This prolonged his uncertainty about the status of the repairs and would have further damaged his trust in the landlord.
35. There is no evidence the landlord communicated with the resident until it issued its stage 1 response on 27 September 2023. The landlord’s response went some way in putting things right. It apologised for its delays in completing the repairs and assured the resident it had implemented a repairs improvement plan. The landlord offered the resident £100 for the delays and missed appointments and said all the repairs were completed.
36. Although the landlord’s apology and improvement plan were reasonable steps to address the resident’s complaint, its compensation offer did not align with its policy. Given there were 5 missed appointments and some repairs taking more than 8 months to complete, its offer was not proportionate.
37. Furthermore, there was no evidence that all the repairs had been completed. It is unclear how the landlord had concluded they were. This information would have caused the resident unnecessary distress, as he had been reporting the issues were not resolved. It highlights further weaknesses in the landlord’s oversight of repairs and raises concerns about how effective its improvement plan was.
38. After the resident escalated his complaint on 3 October 2023, he chased the landlord for an update on 20 October 2023. He reiterated that all the repairs he had raised between January and September 2023 remained outstanding. The resident also reported that the kitchen tap had become loose.
39. Had the landlord had adequate oversight of its repairs, it may have addressed the repairs sooner. Rather, the onus remained on the resident to chase the landlord for updates. This was unreasonable and a failing, causing the resident ongoing and unnecessary frustration, time, and trouble.
40. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 3 November 2023. It apologised for its delays in repairing the kickboards, taps, mould, and drawer fronts. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint due to its service failures and delays in completing repairs. To put things right, it would organise for a surveyor to attend by 1 December 2023 to inspect the outstanding issues. Additionally, it offered the resident £620 compensation, made up of:
    1. £60 for delays to the repairs
    2. £60 for its service failures
    3. £100 for the missed appointments
    4. £400 for the inconvenience, time and trouble
41. The landlord’s response went some way in putting things right. It identified the missed appointments and acknowledged there was no evidence the resident was informed they were cancelled. It apologised for the inconvenience, time, and trouble it caused the resident who had to regularly chase the landlord. This, coupled with its promise to send a surveyor to create a schedule of works, were all appropriate steps to take to resolve the complaint.
42. Further, the landlord’s offer of £620 aligned with its policy and our remedies guidance. Both of which suggest a payment between £100 to £600 is appropriate for issues that have caused an adverse effect to the resident but have not had a permanent impact. Considering how long the issues had been ongoing for, there would have been a cumulative impact on the resident. Therefore, its offer was reasonable and appropriate in the circumstance.
43. Despite this, the landlord missed the opportunity to provide clarity around the taps. It did not acknowledge it prolonged the resident’s distress after he reported he was worried he would burn himself, failing to show due regard to its policy.
44. After the landlord issued its stage 2 response, the Surveyor attended the property on 22 November 2023 as promised. This was appropriate and would have gone some way in reinstating the resident’s confidence in the landlord. During the Surveyor’s visit, the following repairs were identified:

a.     replace bathroom taps and descale the basin

b.     renew 2 kitchen drawer fronts and kickboards

c.      renew the bathroom extractor fan

d.     fix the loose socket in the lounge

e.     repair door frame and replace shelves to airing cupboard

45. Despite not addressing the airing cupboard in its complaint response, the landlord did assess it during its visit. This was a reasonable, particularly given the resident had reported this twice. Following the Surveyor’s visit, internal emails show it requested for the repairs to be raised on 28 November 2023. However, there is no evidence it contacted the resident to organise the repairs. This resulted in the resident chasing the landlord on 1 December 2023.
46. Repair logs show that the repairs were not formally raised until 4 January 2024, more than 1 month after the Surveyor’s visit. There was no explanation for this delay which contributed to the residents unnecessary and prolonged distress. Although the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response acknowledged the impact it had on the resident due to its poor service, the pattern persisted. This was unreasonable and would have caused the resident frustration. It is unclear what, if any, positive change had happened following the resident’s complaints. The lack of learning would have left the resident feeling unheard and with little confidence in the landlord’s repairs service.
47. The poor communication persisted, resulting in the resident ringing the landlord on 5 January 2024 for an update on the repairs. The landlord told him a text message was sent to his landline on 4 January 2024. An ‘all day’ appointment had been scheduled for 26 January 2024. However, it is unclear from the repair record whether the visit went ahead, and what, if any, repairs were completed.
48. The lack of data within the repair records would likely to have contributed to the delays in completing the repairs. This indicated a lack of oversight in its repairs service. Efficient record keeping and effective systems allow landlords to track the status of repairs, ensuring they are dealt with in a timely manner. While the landlord’s Repairs policy set outs to provide an efficient repairs service and says it monitors the time taken to complete repairs, its actions were not consistent with this.
49. The landlord visited on the afternoon of 1 February 2024 to complete the repairs. Its records note that the resident did not allow it to fit a new extractor fan in the bathroom, and a new appointment was scheduled for 8 March 2024. The landlord’s records fell short of adding detail to specify why the resident refused the extractor fan. For example, it could have said whether it was because of the time of the visit, or if the resident did not want a new extractor fan whatsoever. Detailed records allows landlords to take the appropriate steps to resolve repairs and ensure they are rescheduled within a reasonable amount of time.
50. The landlord went on to miss appointments on 8 March, 12 April, and 30 April 2024. However, evidence showed the resident was only contacted on one occasion to cancel the appointment. This would have further undermined the resident’s confidence in the repairs service. The landlord’s poor communication was a failing.
51. Repair logs show that the landlord attended on 14 June 2024 to address all of the repairs excluding the communal aerial. However, the resident was not aware of the appointment and asked for it to be rescheduled because he was not available. The landlord recorded that the resident would need to call it to book a new appointment. Despite the resident waiting almost 18 months for some of the repairs, the landlord was not pro-active in resolving the issues. This was unreasonable given the length of time the repairs remained outstanding.
52. To summarise, the landlord’s stage 2 response went some way in putting things right. The landlord apologised to the resident and reasonably compensated him for the delays in completing the repairs, missed appointments, and distress it caused him. However, it did not consider the failings identified by this Service relating to the airing cupboard damage or communal aerial. Additionally, it missed the opportunity to provide clarity around the taps.
53. After the stage 2 response, the resident continued to experience issues with the repairs service. The landlord missed a further 3 appointments, resulting in the resident unnecessarily waiting at home. The poor communication continued, placing the onus on the resident to chase the landlord for updates on 4 further occasions. The landlord’s oversight of its repairs service was inadequate, leaving the resident waiting up to 511 days for some of the repairs, some of which remain outstanding.
54. The ongoing problems indicated that there has been a lack of learning from the resident’s complaint. Additionally, the length of time and repeated failings would have had a cumulative impact on the resident, resulting in an adverse effect. Considering the multiple failings, the Ombudsman finds there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of various repairs.
55. In May 2024, the Ombudsman issued a special report about the landlord, highlighting concerns which included its handling of repairs and its record keeping. The report recommended the landlord review its process, practices, and procedures to reduce the risk of similar failures in the future. In this investigation we have identified failures similar to those in our special report.
56. To avoid duplication no further orders for policy, process or practice review have been made. We do expect the landlord to take all relevant learning points from this case into account when delivering future service provision.
57. In considering an offer of compensation, we have referred to the landlord’s Compensation policy and our remedies guidance. We order the landlord to pay the resident £60 for 3 missed appointments, and a further £100 for the delays, time, and trouble the resident experienced. These amounts are in addition to the £620 offered at stage 2 of the complaint.

Complaint handling

58. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Its Complaints policy says that it will:

a.     acknowledge stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 5 working days

b.     respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of it acknowledging the complaint

c.      respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of the resident escalating the complaint

59. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The Code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint-handling culture that enables it to resolve disputes, improve the quality of services, and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and improvement.
60. The Code says that if a landlord cannot respond within 20 working days, it must contact the resident and provide a timescale. Extensions cannot exceed 20 working days.
61. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 7 March 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 14 March 2023. This was appropriate and in line with its policy and the Code.
62. When the resident reported his airing cupboard was damaged on 28 March 2023, the landlord did not effectively communicate what would happen next. The landlord’s policy says if when a resident raises multiple complaints at the same time, it will provide them with one point of contact, where possible. If resident’s raise further concerns, the landlord will log it as a new complaint.
63. Given the landlord had not issued its response, it would have been appropriate in the circumstance to have added his concern to his existing complaint or, log a new one. This was a failing and resulted in the resident’s concerns being overlooked.
64. Despite its policy setting out it should respond within 10 working days, the landlord did not do so. This resulted in the resident chasing the landlord for a response on 2 May and 26 May 2023. The landlord should have extended the response target date and communicated any delays with the resident. Rather, the onus was on the resident to obtain updates and prompt the landlord for a response. This was unreasonable and would have caused the resident time and trouble.
65. The landlord did not provide a stage 1 response until 27 September 2023, 137 working days after it was acknowledged. It failed to apologise and acknowledge the length of time it took to provide its response. Given the resident had to frequently chase it for an update, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider offering compensation. Even though its Compensation policy suggests payment between £15 and £50 where there has been poor complaint handling, there is no evidence the landlord considered this. Had it done so, the resident may have felt it went some way in putting things right.
66. The resident escalated his complaint on 3 October 2023, and this was acknowledged by the landlord on 6 October 2023. It acknowledged this within 5 working days and was in line with its policy. This was reasonable.
67. On 3 November 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. This was within the 20 working days set out in its policy. The landlord apologised for its poor complaint handling at stage 1 and offered the resident £100 compensation. The offer aligned with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies which suggests that an award of £50 to £100 may remedy service failure where there is no lasting impact on the resident. This was a reasonable and appropriate amount. However, it missed the opportunity to identify why the delays happened and learn from them in the future.
68. In summary, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in line with the time frame set out in its policy or the Code. It failed to communicate with him when it was unable to meet the complaint due date and did not tell him why there were significant delays. It did not inform the resident if his concerns about the airing cupboard and aerial were added to his existing complaint, or a service request. Although its apology and compensation were appropriate, it did not identify all of its failings. For these reasons, the Ombudsman finds there has been service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
69. In recognition of the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor communication, a further order of compensation has been made for £50 in addition to the £100 that has already been offered. The total compensation of £150 is in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance.

Determination

70. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds that there was:

a.     Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of various repairs

b.     Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

Orders

71. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:

a.     Pay the resident total compensation of £930, less any amount already paid to the resident, broken down as follows:

1. £720 the landlord offered at stage 2
2. £50 for its complaint handling failures
3. £60 for 3 missed appointments
4. £100 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience

b.     Apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified within this report.

c.      Contact the resident to agree a mutually convenient appointment for a surveyor / suitably qualified person to inspect the property. This must be within the next 28 days to determine what, if any, repairs need to be completed that were identified in this report. This includes:

1. bathroom and basin taps
2. bathroom basin
3. kitchen drawer fronts and kitchen kickboards
4. kitchen tap
5. mould in the bathroom and extractor fan
6. airing cupboarded door frame and shelves
7. loose communal TV

d.     If there are outstanding repairs, the landlord should specify what these repairs are and provide a mutually agreed timeline for completion. The landlord should confirm the repairs and timeline in writing to us and the resident within the next 28 days.

e.     Provide evidence to us showing compliance with the above orders.