We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Southern Housing (202405356)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202405356

Southern Housing

1 May 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 repairs to a fence.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident’s back garden fence is located next to a public woodland area.
  2. In January 2024 the resident reported to the landlord damage to her back garden fence due to a storm. The landlord’s contractor arranged an appointment for 15 February 2024.
  3. On 20 February 2024 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. She said that she had wasted her time trying to sort an appointment for the fence repair as the contractor did not show up on 15 February 2024.
  4. On 4 March 2024 the resident contacted the landlord saying she wanted her fence fixed as soon as possible and she said the contractor had cancelled a second appointment scheduled for 8 March 2024.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and issued its stage 1 complaint response on 15 March 2024. The landlord apologised for the resident’s experience and said it had booked an appointment for 17 April 2024. It recognised there had been delays and service failures. It offered £40 for 2 missed appointments, £60 for failure to repair, £50 for distress and inconvenience, and £50 for failures in its complaint handling. It offered £200 in total for its failures identified. The resident then escalated her complaint on 24 April 2024, saying that the contractor did not attend again as promised. She wanted the next scheduled repair appointment bought forward, as 28 May 2024 was too far away. On the same day the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 23 May 2024. It said given the further delays following its stage 1 response and that its contractor had not given a reasonable explanation as to why the delays occurred, it was appropriate to offer the resident an additional £150 in discretionary compensation. The landlord acknowledged the impact to the resident, in that she had safety concerns for her vulnerable granddaughter and her dog was not able to roam in the garden. It also said an appointment had been agreed for the repair to take place on 4 June 2024.
  7. On 4 June 2024 the landlord’s operatives attended to quote the repair job, which they completed on 7 June 2024.
  8. When the resident approached us, she said the fence had been fixed but that this took her calling the repairs team every morning to get updates. She said she and her granddaughter had been unable to use the garden until the fence had been fixed. An outcome she wanted the landlord to be held accountable and for repairs to be completed in a reasonable timeframe.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s repair policy says that the landlord would be responsible for repairs needed to boundary walls and fences that are not shared with neighbours. As such, any repairs to these should be carried out within 20 working days in line with the landlord’s obligation for routine repairs.
  2. Once the landlord was aware of the damaged fence it acted promptly to assign a repair appointment. However, its contractors did not attend the first appointment, and it missed or rearranged 4 further repair appointments across February to May. The repair took place some 5 months later or 96 working days after it was raised. This is an unreasonable period of time for the resident to wait, and is well beyond the landlord’s 20 working day timeframe for a routine repair.
  3. The resident reported to the landlord in March 2024 that she feared losing her dog as without the fence it could escape into the public area without a lead on. She also explained in May 2024 that she had a vulnerable child in her full time care, who was not able to use the garden unattended, which meant she was unable to allow her into the garden to enjoy the space.
  4. In its stage 2 complaint response it explained it had booked another appointment by escalating it to its project team, and its contractors had attended on the date, as promised. It also offered further discretionary compensation for the delays and poor service the resident had received. The landlord recognised the inconvenience reported by the resident. Its complaint handler communicated to the project team that the resident felt unsafe and she was unable to use her garden. It also said she had a vulnerable child and her dog was unable to roam freely in the garden. This was a customer focused and empathetic approach.  
  5. The landlord, in its stage 1 response, did apologise and acknowledge missed appointments and its delay in attending. It offered £100 for the combination of these two failings. It also said the contractor who had been assigned the repair had been subject to an investigation and this would be published on the landlord’s website. These were reasonable actions to take and demonstrated the landlord took proactive actions to improve its service delivery.
  6. The landlord also offered compensation for the inconvenience to the resident of £50, and £50 for poor complaint handling experienced. This was a reasonable step to take given the complaint handling failure contributed to the overall delays. It was also appropriate to split the compensation according to the missed appointments, failure to repair, the inconvenience, time and trouble caused, and complaint handling.
  7. The landlord’s compensation policy allows it to consider discretionary payments where there’s a personal impact caused by its failure to repair and the length of time exceeds the maximum amount of £50, which applied in this case. The landlord appropriately applied its policy in offering a further £150 in addition to the £200 it offered at stage 1.
  8. The failings in this case amount to maladministration. However, the actions of the landlord sought to put things right and make improvements. It also acknowledged and recorded the impact on the resident and her household of not being able to use the garden fully for an extended period of time and appropriately considered further compensation.
  9. Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident where they have been distressed and/or inconvenienced by the landlord’s errors. The sum offered by the landlord was in line with our guidance and reflects that the landlord considered the impact on the resident. We have therefore determined that the landlord’s offer of £350 in compensation was proportionate to recognise the failings and the impact of these on the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, reasonably resolved its handling of the repairs to the resident’s fence.

 

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended, if it has not already done so, that the landlord pay the resident a total of £350 in compensation which it offered during its complaint process.
  2. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised elements of service failure by the landlord.