Southern Housing (202405212)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202405212

Southern Housing

30 September 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s garden and fence.
2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the property which is a 3–bedroom house. She lives in the property with her adult son, for whom she is a carer. The landlord has recorded that there are vulnerabilities within the household.
4. On 27 November 2022 the landlord’s contractor’s van rolled down a hill and into the resident’s garden, damaging her fence. In an inspection on 13 January 2023, the notes stated that the workmanship of the fencing and railing by the front steps was poor. It said a new like for like fence needed to be fitted, as well as 4 new fence posts, and to make good the gauges in the front lawn where the vans tyres went.
5. The resident raised a formal complaint on 12 June 2023. She complained about the attitude of the surveyor who attended the following day. She said the repairs were outstanding and there had been a number of missed appointments. She also reported that her friend had fallen into 1 of the holes in the garden and broken their toe. She said she wanted the landlord to make it safe and pay compensation.
6. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 26 June 2023. It concluded that there was service failure because of its delays in completing the repairs and the inconvenience caused to the resident. It outlined the action it had taken so far. It said its contractor would attend to the outstanding repair on 23 August 2023. It said its contractor acknowledged the missed appointments and unprofessional behaviour of its staff, and it would compensate the resident accordingly. It apologised and awarded a total of £230 in compensation.
7. The resident raised another formal complaint on 6 November 2023. She said it was over a year and there was still no repair to her fence and garden. She said landlord staff had attended and taken photos, but nothing had been done. The resident said she had asked for the landlord to place cones over the deep holes where the fence posts had come out. She said due to the delays, people walk through her garden, her friend had broken their toe, and cars parked on her lawn. The resident asked the landlord how much longer it would take. She said the landlord had not put any danger signs up and it was left to her to clear all the broken fencing and railings.
8. The landlord provided its 2nd stage 1 response on 1 February 2024. It apologised for its delay in responding to her complaint. It also apologised for the length of time it had taken to action the repair to her fence since its last stage 1 response and that it was still outstanding. It said the main reason for the delay was due to the time it took to authorise the works. It said it had faced challenges when the team were short staffed, had a high workload, or if the amount quoted was a large figure. It said it was undergoing an organisational restructure and it was confident that its new processes would provide a better service. It confirmed it had ordered the materials and booked an appointment for 3 February 2024 to replace the fencing. It offered £120 in compensation.
9. The resident escalated her complaint on 20 February 2024. She said no-one attended the appointment on 3 February 2024 and the landlord had still not completed the repairs. She said the compensation was not enough.
10. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 28 March 2024. It outlined what action it had taken. It outlined that there had been a lack of updates and notes between the landlord and its contractors which contributed to the delays and instructions. It said its contractors had attended on 25 March 2024 to complete the groundworks. It said the fencing repair was in progress with a target completion date of 17 April 2024. The landlord apologised for the delays in responding to the complaint and in completing the repairs. It offered a total of £280 in compensation.
11. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The landlord has confirmed that it had completed all the repairs by 24 April 2025. The resident feels the landlord should offer her further compensation to reflect the additional delays. She said she had been caused considerable frustration over the years in chasing the repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

12. The resident has suggested that the landlord’s handling of the matters under the review resulted in her friend breaking their toe. This Service is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on her friend. Nor can it calculate or award damages for that. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the garden and fence

13. The landlord’s repairs policy states that if the repair is not an emergency it will arrange an appointment for as soon as possible and at a time that suits the resident.
14. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
    2. Put things right.
    3. Learn from outcomes.
15. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If we find that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to put things right and learn from outcomes.
16. The landlord has not provided its records from the date of the incident which resulted in damage to the resident’s garden and fence, therefore it is difficult to determine if its response at the time was reasonable.
17. The resident informed this Service that a surveyor attended her property the following day. She said they were only there to inspect the damage to the van. The resident said she informed the surveyor that the van had only just missed herself and her friend who had been stood where the van crashed. She said the surveyor responded, “well you’re not dead are you.” The landlord has not provided any records related to this visit.
18. In its stage 1 response the landlord said its contractor had acknowledged the unprofessional behaviour of its member of staff. It said it had compensated the resident accordingly but it is unclear from the compensation offered which amount reflected the staff conduct. It would also have been reasonable for the landlord to outline what steps had been taken by itself and the contractor to address the alleged unprofessional behaviour. This would have shown that it had taken the resident’s reports seriously and that it would not happen again.
19. The landlord’s records show it raised an inspection on 10 January 2023 to inspect the garden fence. The inspection was completed on 13 January 2023, almost 2 months after the incident. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have attended and inspected the damage caused sooner. This would have helped the landlord to identify any hazards such as the holes in the garden and outline what steps it would take to manage the risk.
20. It is a further failing that despite the resident repeatedly raising the issue of the holes in her garden and asking the landlord to make them safe, there is no evidence of the landlord doing so until March 2024. The inspection identified the need to make good the gauges in the front lawn and it is not appropriate that it took 14 months for the landlord to do so. This likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident in her concerns for safety and having to chase the landlord.
21. In its first stage 1 response, the landlord referred to 3 missed appointments on 19 January 2023, 6 April 2023, and 23 May 2023. We have not seen where these were recorded or whether the resident was advised of the appointments at the time. The resident had also referred to missed appointments in her formal complaint and the landlord awarded £40 compensation in recognition of 2 missed appointments, which was reasonable. It showed some learning in stating that it had a dedicated team to review complaints to ensure lessons learned were acted upon.
22. The landlord confirmed it had booked a provisional appointment for 23 August 2023. The landlord’s repairs policy does not specify a timeframe in which it must complete non-emergency repairs. It is likely that this lack of guidance would not have helped to manage the resident’s expectations. Given the time which had already passed, it was not appropriate to schedule the appointment for 2 months time.
23. The landlord’s records do not show why the appointment on 23 August 2023 did not result in the repairs being completed or whether it attended on that date, which is a failing. On 5 September 2023, it raised a repair for the damaged fence. The notes on the repair did not outline if any further action was carried out and the status was marked as “pract. complete.” In her second formal complaint dated 6 November 2023, the resident said there had been many visits by the landlord staff but still no repair.
24. It is evident throughout this case that the landlord has provided a lack of detailed repair records regarding the works required at the property. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If there is disputed evidence and 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 this case, although it appears the landlord and its contractors attended on numerous occasions, the repairs remained outstanding. In the absence of the records, we cannot conclude that is actions were appropriate at the time.
25. In its second stage 1 response dated 1 February 2024, the landlord apologised for the length of time it had taken to action the repairs and confirmed that they were outstanding. It outlined the reasons for the delays and what steps it was taking internally to improve its service for residents. It confirmed a repair was raised for 3 February 2024. It also offered compensation in recognition of its failings. While the landlord’s response went some way towards putting things right, it is a further failing that the repair did not go ahead. This caused the resident to escalate her complaint and to have to chase the landlord again.
26. The stage 2 response appropriately highlighted that the absence of updates and correspondence notes between the landlord and its contractors had contributed to the delays. The Ombudsman also identified this as a concern when investigating this complaint. We have seen very little evidence of ownership of the resident’s case and the landlord proactively communicating with its contractor/subcontractor to successfully progress the repairs. While the contractor may have been responsible for the damage caused, the landlord should have done more to ensure the repairs were completed in a timely manner.
27. In speaking to the Ombudsman, the resident felt the landlord did not fully respond to her account of having to clear the damage herself. The resident explained that she was 76 years old and as well as the costs incurred, she said it was difficult having to move the heavy debris and go back and forth to the tip. It is unclear whether the landlord was aware of the need to clear the damage prior to the resident doing it herself. The landlord did award compensation to reflect the inconvenience caused as a result of the incident. However, it would have been fair to acknowledge the resident’s experience and to have provided its position on whether it could have done more to put things right.
28. The landlord offered £260 in compensation at stage 2, this was in addition to the £230 it awarded in its first stage 1 response. It said since its merger it was reviewing its services and working on improving its service to residents. It said it had provided feedback regarding the service the resident had received and it would use her experience as a learning point.
29. The landlord’s redress may have been sufficient if the landlord had then completed the repairs by its estimated completion date of 17 April 2024. However, the landlord did not complete the repairs until December 2024 and did not confirm that it was fully satisfied with them until April 2025, over a year later. The additional time taken was not appropriate.
30. Overall, it took the landlord over 2 years to carry out the repairs to the garden and fence. In this time, it is evident that the resident had spent a significant amount of time, trouble, and inconvenience pursuing the issues. The landlord offered some compensation to reflect the delays and the likely impact caused. But it failed to put right the concerns regarding the staff member’s behaviour. And its delays following the stage 2 response were not appropriate. Its repeated failure to fulfil its commitments likely impacted the landlord/tenant relationship and this suggests the landlord did not fully learn from its outcomes.
31. To conclude, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the garden fence. The landlord must pay a total of £650 in compensation for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in this case. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures which had a significant impact on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

32. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a 2 stage complaints procedure. It states that it will aim to provide a full response at stage 1 within 20 working days. It states that if the resident wants to escalate their complaint to stage 2, they must do so within 20 working days of its formal response. It says it may consider requests after that time at the discretion of a manager. The landlord stated that it will provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the complaint.
33. The landlord provided its first stage 1 response within 10 working days which was reasonable. It provided its second stage 1 response within 60 working days which was not appropriate nor in line with its policy. The landlord acknowledged this and said it was due to delays in receiving internal responses. It awarded £70 compensation to recognise its failures which was reasonable.
34. Due to the time which had passed it was reasonable for the landlord to not treat the resident’s second formal complaint as a stage 2 escalation. The Ombudsman has considered the resident’s first formal complaint within this investigation as it occurred within the 12 months prior to her second formal complaint.
35. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation on 28 February 2024 and confirmed that it would provide a response within 20 days. The landlord then provided its response 21 days later. The landlord acknowledged the slight delays in its stage 2 response. The landlord offered a revised sum of compensation and offered £20 compensation which it said was for delays responding at stage 1 and 2. It was not appropriate that the landlord had previously awarded £70 for the delays at stage 1 and then seemingly changed it to £20 for delays at stage 1 and 2.
36. The stage 2 response provided an overview of the records it held in relation to the resident’s complaint. While this is a positive step to evidencing how it conducted its investigation and reached its conclusion, the information provided was unclear and confusing at times. An example of this is shown in the following excerpt:
    1. “Having reviewed system, I can see that the repairs contractor raises a new works order on the 06/02/24 against job reference for an inspection of the repairs required, notes show operative visit 29/01/24. Follow up works required emailed office for appointments and works to be arranged.”
37. Such statements would not have provided the resident with reassurance that the landlord had an overview of the repairs and its contractor’s actions. The landlord also provided incorrect dates at times and the order of events was not clear. The landlord’s complaints policy refers to providing clear details and reasons for its decisions. We have found that the landlord failed to do so on this occasion.
38. Overall, the landlord took some positive steps to put things right for the resident. However, it failed to follow its policies in determining the amounts offered in compensation and in providing a clear response to the resident. As such we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
39. The landlord must pay the resident £150 in compensation. This is broken down as:
    1. £100 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling delays and the change in its compensation offer.
    2. £50 in recognition of the lack of clarity in its stage 2 response, which likely led to a loss of confidence by the resident.

Special investigation

40. In May 2024, shortly after the stage 2 response was provided in this case, this Service issued a special investigation report about the landlord. It highlighted similar concerns about its repair timescales, not demonstrating ownership of cases, its handling of complaints, and its poor record keeping. It also referred to the merger which took place in December 2022 and raised concerns regarding the landlord’s handling of that and the impact on residents.
41. The report made recommendations with the intention to improve the landlord’s service to residents. This included:
    1. That it revise its repairs policy to include timescales for all types of repairs.
    2. That it work with its contractors to ensure that performance monitoring is in place, including how any arising issues or patterns of service failure will be identified.
    3. That it revise its record keeping practices to ensure that accurate and timely records of inspections and repairs are available to all relevant landlord staff. It said where knowledge and information is held by its contractors or third parties, it should include information sharing protocols in its contracts.
42. The landlord responded positively to the report and welcomed the learning from it. It outlined what changes it had made since the merger to improve its customer service. It said it would complete the integration of its systems by April 2025 to deliver services to a higher standard. The Ombudsman is committed to working with the landlord to ensure it complies with the recommendations and embeds the changes into its practice.
43. As such, we will not make any further orders or recommendations in relation to the failures in this report. If it has not already done so, it is recommended that the landlord reflect on the specific errors in this case and how its changes should assist with those issues going forward.

Determination

44. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of its repairs to the garden and fence.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

45. The landlord must apologise for the additional failures identified in this report. Specifically, its failure to put right the resident’s concerns about the staff member’s behaviour, the additional delays in carrying out the repairs, and the lack of clarity in its stage 2 response. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies (available on our website).
46. The landlord must pay the resident a total of £800 in compensation. This is broken down as:
    1. £650 in recognition of the landlord’s handling of the repairs and the impact caused to the resident. This is inclusive of the £490 it offered, if it has not already paid this to the resident.
    2. £150 in recognition of the likely impact caused to the resident by its handling of the complaint.
47. The landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of this determination.

Recommendation

48. It is recommended that the landlord reflect on the specific errors made in this case and how its changes in its service can assist with those issues going forward.